To a great extent, Kant more than Tolstoy influenced twentieth-century aesthetics in Eurocentric cultures. Formalist theorists insisted that disinterested apprehension of directly perceivable properties (color, rhythm, meter, balance, proportion, etc.) distinguished aesthetic experiences from all others. Kant never won the day in many non-Eurocentric cultures, however. Native Americans, for example, continued to connect aesthetic activity directly to "interested" and functional objects and events. Decriptions of objects or events as "beautiful" in most African cultures never required distinguishing "What is it for?" (...) from "How does it look?" Even in Eurocentric cultures, outside the rather narrow "mainstream" art world (professional artists, critics, curators, etc.) formalism was never wholly accepted or practiced. Attributions of beauty made by ordinary persons-on-the-street have been unabashedly affected by moral values and factual beliefs. Recognition of this has resulted in what I have elsewhere described as a "contextual turn" in aesthetics. Feminists and ethicists have contributed greatly to this turn. As the title of this symposium suggests, beauty matters (verb) and beauty matters (noun) have really never stopped being centrally important for a whole lot of reasons beyond the pleasure taken in morally and factually disinterested apprehension of form. Tolstoy thought if Kant were correct, beauty could not matter--or at least could not matter enough. His tack was to look elsewhere to explain the importance of art. but suppose we go another way and say, _but beauty does matter_. then Kant must not be correct. But just where did he go astray? (shrink)