Aesthetic experience is not like other things. From Kant to Schopenhauer philosophers have long since recognised that art, beauty and the sublime does not aid, in any obvious way, the evolutionary will to life. Aesthetic experience instead, is a happy-accident, which piggybacks on four other key survival-focused evolutionary events, writes William Hirstein.

Nature entices us to engage in activities that further our survival and genetic proliferation by making these activities rewarding. Reward is the way that evolution gets us to do what it ”wants.” Why do we like sex? We must reproduce. Why do we like to eat? We must nourish ourselves. Why do we like art? [Crickets chirping]. The fact that there is no obvious and sufficient answer to this question, and indeed, no suitable answer has been found since Darwin laid out the theory of evolution, indicates, I would argue, that our love for art is not a direct result of any particular need or function. Rather, it must be a byproduct of something else—some other trait that is actively selected for. Evolution can produce such byproducts when genes code for multiple traits, one of which is selected for, and the others go along for a free ride. They appear as an accidental consequence of the evolutionary processes behind the brain’s “design.” This is referred to as a byproduct, or “spandrel” view of art. According to these views, our love for art is somewhat accidental.