One’s concept of beauty cannot be considered to be biologically integrated because preconceived notions, values, ideas and emotions shaped it. If, as suggested, everyone liked the same things, fashion trends in society would not exist nor would popular varieties in forms of art such as painting and music. Referring to our taste in beauty as a biological reaction is crude and belittles individuality. There is a distinction however, between beauty and aesthetics. Aesthetics simply mean what is pleasing to the eye. Flowers, for instance, are widely viewed as nice to look at, or architecture that follows the golden ratio. Maybe there are some things our brains will automatically prefer over others? But to say that aesthetic appeal is biologically imprinted is also a stretch. Aesthetics are too intertwined with our sense of beauty. There cannot be a point of demarcation because the reaction to aesthetics will invariably be followed by the interpretation and representation of beauty. Some connections in the brain are too deep to separate and it is more sensible to acknowledge that we cannot know how we will react to something because we are all different.
Beauty is necessary in art in the sense that in order to fully appreciate a piece of artwork, we must feel a connection to what he are judging. If we see a painting that is aesthetically appealing but do not know who made it, how they made it, or for what purpose, our understanding of the artwork is limited and we cannot see the vision of the artist. Beauty in artwork often times does not lie in the physical artwork but sometimes in what it means or what idea it tries to convey.
