Dear Bryan,

Thank you for your post.


If none is forthcoming, then where to go but a big circle-jerk?

I really don't know how many more times I can say this, but I will try again.

1. I am perfectly prepared to accept in principle (but am not yet convinced in fact) that there might be universal categories of Beauty which, either in whole or in part, may be grounded upon neuro-biological processes and/or structures. One reason why I am broadly sympathetic to the topic of neuro-aesthetics is that it affords us the possibility of re-visiting--without necessarily resurrecting--some of the classical 18th century theories concerning sense and sensibility which I am personally very interested in.

2. While all of this might be true, it is of only of limited value at best in enabling us to understand Art: Art is not just Beauty but the repository of a wide variety of factors which cannot be reduced merely to the Beautiful--and, by implication, the neuro-biological (provided that what I have said in 1 is true). The cultural and historical specificity of Art necessarily means that Art cannot be reduced to biological explanation (any more than History in toto can be) and that, therefore, one can have a wholly meaningful discussion about Art (just as with History, Culture or Anthropology) while eschewing the necessity of Universalism. Something can be completely true (objectively verifiable and logically coherent) and, at the same time, be radically grounded upon the particular and the contingent.

Eric