**4. Beauty beyond artistic beauty**

be that the functioning of the mind is much more versatile, and the technological and cultural development might have influenced in it. In this area, the work of Frederick Turner occupies a prominent place. In spite of sustaining an evolutionary vision, he includes the influence of culture. He understands the evolution of our sense of beauty as a "nonlinear feedback between cultural and biological determinants" (103) [14]. That is, we have an aesthetic sense designed to perceive the beauty of objects that derives meaning from a flow of both biological patrons and

Nonetheless, several neuroscientists have criticized evolutionary adaptation. For example, Stephen Jay Gould criticizes adaptationism for being"panglossian"[15]. Other more recent stud‐ ies in neurology show the dysfunctionality of some of the starting points of Ramachandran's investigations, such as the theory"one area one skill"to analyze the brain. Against this, they explain that sight is not in one area and smell in another, but everything is interconnected. Everything influences everything and, therefore, it is not enough to analyze the visual part to

Secondly, Ramachandran's consideration of beauty can be called reductionist, which is illu‐ minating to understand the process of psychologization of beauty mentioned above. Theories like those of Ramachandran consider that the characterization of beauty depends on the inter‐ nal impact provoked in the subject. That is, beauty has been identified with the mere feeling of pleasure caused in the brain by some objects. In contrast with the approaches of the begin‐ ning of modernity, these theories speak no longer of the intellectual powers in general, but they have taken a step further: we now have greater scientific knowledge that allows us to determine the zones in the brain in which the feeling of aesthetic pleasure occurs. It is true that we can now determine which areas of the brain are activated when beauty is perceived and even the pleasure those areas can experience but that does not tell us what beauty is. It explains how our brain works in the face of specific stimuli, but does not even fully explain

The two previous premises result in a reductionist assimilation of art and beauty. Although Ramachandran understands"pretty"in a positive way, he generally does not take into account the important distinctions between beautiful, pretty or sublime. Nor does he note that"pretty," in the sense of pleasant, was a term that artists, like Picasso (who he mentions), wanted to get rid of. Precisely, they wanted to get rid of it to show that art is much more than a mere pretext for complacency, an attitude which they considered merely bourgeois. Due to this reduction, he is also unable to explain the beauty of what is ugly or how the existence of art that is not beautiful is possible or how we can like artworks such as Goya's black paintings. Moreover, since Ramachandran's analysis focuses on visual perception, his conclusions are only useful for visual arts. From this point of view, it is not possible to justify the fact that we can enjoy the representation of evil and consider good literary works such as *Les Fleurs du mal* by Baudelaire or *On Murder Considered as one of the Fine Arts* of Thomas de Quincey. In the same way, this

Finally, the enunciation of these eight laws assumes that all art is based on them, which would allow us to speak of conditions to determine what art is as well as objective parameters for artistic beauty, as Hume already tried. Although these objectives are not in the scope of the

reductionism can say very little of the pleasure found in sad music [18].

cultural systems that deal with forms of order such as poetic meter or visual patterns.

account for the whole [16, 17].

90 Perception of Beauty

why we find pleasure in them.

Beauty has always been an important issue for both artists and philosophers but not always in the same way. Beauty for philosophers is especially interesting since it is a particular case that combines the sensitive with the intellectual, and as such it has led to ask how knowledge works. It is not surprising, then, that in the modern age, when the philosophical questioning focuses on the conditions of the possibility of knowledge, aesthetic reflection becomes a fore‐ ground. The aesthetic reflection since Hegel's *Aesthetic Lessons* will begin to focus on art and will leave behind the beauty.

Also artists throughout the twentieth century tried to disassociate themselves from beauty as it was understood at that time and established academic laws. Already during impres‐ sionism, many artists were beginning to break with the mimetic representation form of the reality. It was especially Marcel Duchamp who represented a key point in this story as he tried to unlink aesthetics with art through the ready‐mades. The objects that make up the ready‐mades are simple, quotidian, industrial and without notable aesthetic characteristics. They were so far from what had been produced until then that they were considered, if not anti‐artistic, at least, anti‐aesthetic works. The ready‐mades are defunctionalized real objects that went so far as to raise the question of their status as works of art. In fact, the focalization on the object could have given rise to a revalorization of objective beauty. But instead, it gave way to a rejection of beauty because beauty was not anymore understood, like in the ancient times, as a property of the being but as a bourgeoisie and Renaissance imposition on art. In this line of anti‐aesthetic rupture, Andy Warhol took a step further the day he proposed his work *Brillo Box;* the boxes looked identical to boxes of Brillo detergent found in the supermar‐ ket. This work, as will be seen, is crucial to understanding Danto's philosophy of art.

The philosophy of art of Arthur C. Danto is relevant in this point since he begins confronting the theories that defended that art could be distinguished at the perceptive level. His approach was novel since he opposed the widespread beliefs of Neowittgensteinians such as Morris Weitz, Maurice Mandelbaum or Monroe Beardsley. These authors found in Wittgenstein's theory of"family resemblances"a sufficient method to account for art without having to estab‐ lish a closed definition of art [19]. Just as in families there are traits that allow us to identify a group of people as members of the same family, it is the same case with art. These authors, therefore, considered visual perception as the absolute criterion of discernment between art and that which is not art.

On the contrary, for Danto, this criterion was not valid enough since it was based on an induc‐ tive analysis that offered no more than a generalization about the kinds of works we can call"art" but without providing any comprehension [20]. One of the key reasons why Danto rejects the perceptualist conception is due to his philosophy of the mind. It is a philosophy that shares the principles of the modular theory of the mind. This theory conceives that the mind has several modules independent of each other, whose function is not susceptible of being affected by previous knowledge, beliefs, concepts or desires. From this perspective, it follows the search for a new concept that is not linked to the perceptive and that can dismantle the theory that relates art to "family resemblances." Danto's proposal was based, thus, on affirming that perception is not enough to distinguish between what art is and what it is not, rather it is necessary to take into account the "theory of art" in which a particular work has been done and in which it is interpreted.

From this theory, the American philosopher states that there is nothing at the level of percep‐ tion that allows us to distinguish between two seemingly equal objects as in the case of his paradigmatic example: the *Brillo Box* (1964). This work of Andy Warhol invalidates the theory of mere perception, as would be Ramachandran's, since these boxes are indiscernible from the daily objects that they imitate. Danto considers that Warhol's work manifests the essence of art by putting us in the position of having to distinguish it from reality. The difference between art and reality is considered by Danto as the essence of art.

The *Brillo Boxes* lead art toward self‐consciousness when posing, by purely artistic means, the question of the nature of art. The question raised by the *Brillo Box* is not why this is a work of art but why this is and the one in the supermarket is not. The very way of posing the question seems to suggest that the essence of art lies in being different from reality. In this way, it can be seen how the discovery of the essence causes a change in art. Art has changed and, along with it, our understanding of what art is must also change, accepting that works of art can have any sort of appearance now and yet maintain the same essence.

The definition of art he wants to establish, therefore, has to account for this distinction. This leads Danto to present a non‐perceptive criterion that allows explaining the ontological differ‐ ences between works of art and mere objects. In this line, Danto argues that"to see something as art requires something the eye cannot decry ‐an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld"(580) [21]. Later, in *The Transfiguration on the Commonplace*, he seeks to determine the essential criteria of art. This leads to a definition of art in terms of sufficient conditions. The two sufficient conditions that all work must fulfill to be considered art are being about something (aboutness) and embodying a meaning (embodiment) [20]. Such simple statements could be confused with some of the earlier laws; however, especially the second condition refers to the historical condition of each work, which must be taken into account when judging it. Now, what role does beauty play in the philosophy of art of this author?

Both in *Beyond the Brillo Box* and in *The Abuse of Beauty,* Danto develops an analysis on beauty in the artistic field. In this work, he examines his reflection on art and questions why he did not include beauty in his definition of art. The American philosopher replies that beauty was not part of its definition because it is not part of the essence of art. If it were, it could not be said of so many works that, despite not being beautiful, are, without a doubt, works of art. It must be said that Danto does not distance himself from beauty in itself, but he does disagree with a long‐held conception which ultimately leads to the understanding of art as a high and separate form of life. This conception implies that there can only be art when it is said to be beautiful. However, it is a mistake to believe that artistic value is the same as beauty and that the perception of artistic value is the aesthetic perception of beauty [22].

On the contrary, for Danto, this criterion was not valid enough since it was based on an induc‐ tive analysis that offered no more than a generalization about the kinds of works we can call"art" but without providing any comprehension [20]. One of the key reasons why Danto rejects the perceptualist conception is due to his philosophy of the mind. It is a philosophy that shares the principles of the modular theory of the mind. This theory conceives that the mind has several modules independent of each other, whose function is not susceptible of being affected by previous knowledge, beliefs, concepts or desires. From this perspective, it follows the search for a new concept that is not linked to the perceptive and that can dismantle the theory that relates art to "family resemblances." Danto's proposal was based, thus, on affirming that perception is not enough to distinguish between what art is and what it is not, rather it is necessary to take into account the "theory of art" in which a particular work has

From this theory, the American philosopher states that there is nothing at the level of percep‐ tion that allows us to distinguish between two seemingly equal objects as in the case of his paradigmatic example: the *Brillo Box* (1964). This work of Andy Warhol invalidates the theory of mere perception, as would be Ramachandran's, since these boxes are indiscernible from the daily objects that they imitate. Danto considers that Warhol's work manifests the essence of art by putting us in the position of having to distinguish it from reality. The difference

The *Brillo Boxes* lead art toward self‐consciousness when posing, by purely artistic means, the question of the nature of art. The question raised by the *Brillo Box* is not why this is a work of art but why this is and the one in the supermarket is not. The very way of posing the question seems to suggest that the essence of art lies in being different from reality. In this way, it can be seen how the discovery of the essence causes a change in art. Art has changed and, along with it, our understanding of what art is must also change, accepting that works of art can

The definition of art he wants to establish, therefore, has to account for this distinction. This leads Danto to present a non‐perceptive criterion that allows explaining the ontological differ‐ ences between works of art and mere objects. In this line, Danto argues that"to see something as art requires something the eye cannot decry ‐an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld"(580) [21]. Later, in *The Transfiguration on the Commonplace*, he seeks to determine the essential criteria of art. This leads to a definition of art in terms of sufficient conditions. The two sufficient conditions that all work must fulfill to be considered art are being about something (aboutness) and embodying a meaning (embodiment) [20]. Such simple statements could be confused with some of the earlier laws; however, especially the second condition refers to the historical condition of each work, which must be taken into account when judging it. Now, what role does beauty play in the philosophy of art of this

Both in *Beyond the Brillo Box* and in *The Abuse of Beauty,* Danto develops an analysis on beauty in the artistic field. In this work, he examines his reflection on art and questions why he did not include beauty in his definition of art. The American philosopher replies that beauty was not part of its definition because it is not part of the essence of art. If it were, it could not be

between art and reality is considered by Danto as the essence of art.

have any sort of appearance now and yet maintain the same essence.

been done and in which it is interpreted.

92 Perception of Beauty

author?

However, the separation between art and beauty is not something that Danto proposes but something already done by the artists themselves, such as not only Duchamp, of course, but also all those he calls"intractable avant‐garde," who showed that beauty was not consubstan‐ tial to the concept of art. These artists wanted to make clear that something can be good art without being beautiful. This clarification could not have been revealed before Romanticism but rather in our day. This clarification allowed to banish aesthetics from the definition of art, although it took time to be accepted in many areas, including art.

The consideration that beauty is not an essential part of the definition of art does not mean that beauty can no longer be part of art anymore. What we are considering here is that beauty cannot be identified as the essential property of art. In no way art excludes beauty, just as it cannot set aside philosophical reflection. Danto himself affirms that"even if beauty proved far less central to the visual arts than had been taken for granted in the philosophical tradition, that did not entail that it was not central to human life. (…) [The beauty is] one of the values that defines what a fully human life means"(14–15) [23].

However, although Danto could not consider beauty as a necessary condition, he does say that it can become relevant when interpreting some works. Hence, he establishes a distinction between external and internal beauty. Danto says that the former refers to the external appearance of the work, which is commonly required to judge the work as"beautiful"or"pretty." Evidently Danto could not accept this consideration of beauty—a perceptual quality—as a necessary and sufficient condition of art. That is why he turns to internal beauty which, on the other hand, is about that type of beauty which is linked to the content of the work, forming a constituent part of its meaning. Danto also calls this second type"artistic beauty," since he considers that this type of beauty is found exclusively in art. By artistic beauty, he means the coherence between the idea and its sensible expression in the artwork. In his own words:

*"What it leads to is an understanding of how aesthetics beauty plays a role in the meaning of the work to which it belongs. One can stay that in such a case, the beauty is born of the spirit because the meaning of the work is internally related to its aesthetic qualities. The beauty is part of the experience of the art. But the experience is richer by far than the 'retinal shudder' Duchamp impugned"(97)* [23]*.*

In the last book he published, *What is art*, Danto continues to defend the importance of the internal beauty of art, that is, the content that resides in it. Hence, it may say that"much of contemporary art is hardly aesthetic at all, but it has in its stead the power of meaning and the possibility of truth, and depends upon the interpretation that brings these into play"[24]. After these words, we can see a way of conceiving the type of art that demands that the viewer strives to unravel the content and not just to look at it. This is what allows you to understand the work.

Danto's emphasis on this last point made some authors think that it was precisely the aes‐ thetic qualities that could serve to complete his definition of art. He had argued that there were two necessary conditions that every work must fulfill, but he had failed to establish suf‐ ficient conditions. Could aesthetic qualities be the answer? I personally consider that if Danto did not explain them, it was because he felt that those conditions were, to a certain extent, included in the necessary conditions. That is, the aesthetic qualities would be framed within the second condition of possibility: the embodiment. This point is important because it leads us out from the subjective aesthetic perception and forces us to take into account the concrete work, in its fullness and united to its historicity. All these do not give us a scientific and purely objective vision of what art or beauty is, but it puts the necessary counterpoint to consider that in order to reach a unified view of reality we must go beyond subjective perception.

Danto's theory of how we perceive art and distinguish it from ordinary objects, as well as his refusal to identify art and beauty, seems to me a perfect counterpoint to maintaining a dialogue with current neuroaesthetic theories. This dialogue can, in turn, illuminate the prob‐ lematic result of the perception of beauty in the artistic field.
