“Response-Dependence About Esthetic Value”, Michael Watkins, James Shelley2012-07-09 (culture, mind)⁠:

The dominant view about the nature of esthetic value holds it to be response-dependent. We believe that the dominance of this view owes largely to some combination of the following prevalent beliefs:

1. The belief that challenges brought against response-dependent accounts in other areas of philosophy are less challenging when applied to response-dependent accounts of esthetic value.

2. The belief that esthetic value is instrumental and that response-dependence about esthetic value alone accommodates this purported fact.

3. The belief that response-dependence about esthetic value alone accommodates the widely acknowledged anthropocentrism of esthetic value.

4. The belief that response-dependence about esthetic value alone accommodates esthetic normativity.

We argue that each of these beliefs is false, and that the dominance of response-dependent accounts of esthetic value is therefore largely without foundation.

…We can equally well imagine a world in which ‘water’ picks out something other than H 2 O. But in that world ‘water’ does not pick out water. On this issue, though, let’s simply agree to disagree. Let us remember, however, that we have options that parallel the options for the color theorist. We can agree, for instance, that some feature might play a role for some other creature similar to that played by esthetic value for us, that this creature tracks that feature as we track esthetic value, that their perceptions and beliefs are generally veridical with respect to that feature, that they value things having that feature much as we value things having esthetic value, without conceding that that feature is esthetic value.

Whether we treat ‘appropriate’ rigidly or flaccidly, (1) above, and so response-dependent accounts of color generally, face apparent counter-examples. 9 We can imagine a shy chameleon, a chameleon that is green in the dark, but which immediately turns white whenever light sufficient for its being seen strikes its skin. It never looks green, and never would look green under daylight conditions to observers like us. Or consider Justin Broakes1997’s case of killer-yellow: an object is painted with a paint that reflects light in the yellow range, but which emits a particle that immediately kills any human observer who looks upon it prior to its causing a yellow experience. Intuitively, the chameleon is green in the dark although it wouldn’t look green to normal observers under normal conditions; the object is yellow although it wouldn’t look yellow to normal observers under normal conditions.

Take response-dependent theorists about esthetic value to be committed to:

2. x has esthetic value if and only if x would bring about the appropriate response for appropriate observers under appropriate conditions.

Apparent counterexamples to (2) can be constructed by modifying the cases of the shy chameleon and killer-yellow. An impish angel, imagine, once played a trick on Picasso. As Picasso stepped away from some particular painting, the angel slightly and temporarily altered the painting’s colors, but in a way that substantially affected the work’s esthetic value. Picasso gave up on the work. The angel has not. Whenever anyone looks at the painting, the angel temporarily alters the painting’s colors. Picasso’s work remains with us to this day for its historical interests, although it is considered a minor work. In fact, as long as no one is looking at it, it is his greatest work, although it never appears such to appropriate observers under appropriate conditions.

Leonardo was in his prime, imagine, when he painted his last and greatest painting. The final touch, a thin blue brush stroke unifying the work’s major elements, was painted with paint never before or since used. As the paint interacted with the canvas it emitted a ray of light immediately killing Leonardo who never saw the finished work. Fortunately, the work has been lost. It sits deep within a catacomb. Its deadly properties, along with its esthetic value, remain intact. It is false that it would bring about whatever response works of esthetic value are thought to bring about for appropriate observers under appropriate conditions, however. For an appropriate observer under appropriate conditions, the painting brings about immediate death.