Tensions in naturalistic, evolutionary explanations of aesthetic reception and production Aaron Kozbelt * Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, United States article info Article history: Received 1 June 2016 Received in revised form 23 February 2017 Accepted 17 March 2017 Available online xxx Keywords: Aesthetics Creativity Evolution Universals Psychobiology abstract Aesthetic universals may plausibly reflect biases in aesthetic reception that arose through evolutionary pressure. However, the role universals play in high-level aesthetic creativity is not well understood. After reviewing evolutionary aspects of aesthetics, some specific proposed aesthetic universals, and the nature of creativity in aesthetic domains, I examine a creative dynamic in which long-term pressure for novelty leads to inexorable tensions with canalized aesthetic biases. Examining the role of aesthetic universals in individuals’ creative processes, as well as more thorough trans-historical assessments of the develop- ment of universals, are proposed as methodological strategies for gaining traction on this issue. Such investigations have the potential to inform the role of the audience in shaping the evolution of artist styles, how universals play out in high versus low art, the possibility of identifying new aesthetic uni- versals (perhaps particularly with conceptual art), and the relative value of novelty versus adaptive value in aesthetic creativity. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Aesthetic perception and aesthetic universals The nature of aesthetic perception and cognition has long con- cerned philosophers and empirical researchers across domains (Levinson, 2003; Shimamura & Palmer, 2012; Smith & Tinio, 2014). Many themes have arisen in this line of discourse, including the categorical status of art versus non-art objects, objective versus subjective aesthetic dimensions, and internalist versus externalist explanations of aesthetic phenomena. Another prominent issue is the notion of aesthetic universals, including their origin, nature, explanatory power, and implications. Universals may be defined by appearing in some form in every known culture (Brown, 1991), by posited incorporation into some basic domain of mind (Feist, 2004; Gardner, 1983; Karmiloff-Smith, 1992), as representing a biological ‘instinct’ (Dutton, 2009), or in terms of statistical regularities or constraints evident in aesthetic artifacts (e.g., Trehub, 2000). Aesthetic universals can be construed in several distinct ways. One involves identifying objectively measurable characteristics of artworks themselves, which have aesthetic potency and might then serve as a quantitative basis for operationalizing aesthetic constructs (e.g., Berlyne, 1971; Birkhoff, 1933). Another involves more experiential aspects of aesthetics (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi & Robinson, 1990; Dewey, 1934), including emotional responses that arise in potential interactions with stimuli e not limited to artworks qua artworks (Xenakis & Arnellos, 2014). These two ap- proaches may be further distinguished or elaborated by consider- ation of the evolutionary versus cultural factors impacting them, the malleability or scope for change of potential universals, issues of embodiment, and so on. At the outset, I wish to clarify my position on several relevant issues and lay out what aspects of the themes I will (and will not) emphasize in this paper. I will not exclusively advocate for an art- centered or interactionist account, as this distinction lies some- what outside the purview of my main argument. Instead, I shall explore how aesthetic perception in the form of aesthetic univer- sals plays out in the realm of high-level or “big-C” creativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009), in which persons with tremendous expertise in a domain generate productions that are not merely personally novel, but novel for the world, and which fundamentally change the way a domain operates (see also Sternberg, 1999). 1 * Department of Psychology, Brooklyn College, 2900 Bedford Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889, United States. E-mail address: AaronK@brooklyn.cuny.edu. 1 Judgments of high versus low levels of creativity are typically made via consensus judgments by other experts and gatekeepers within the relevant domain, since no objective criteria exist by which to distinguish levels of creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect New Ideas in Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/newideapsych http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2017.03.006 0732-118X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. New Ideas in Psychology xxx (2017) 1e8 Please cite this article in press as: Kozbelt, A., Tensions in naturalistic, evolutionary explanations of aesthetic reception and production, New Ideas in Psychology (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2017.03.006