That they're universally appreciated suggests that they are appreciated below the intellectual level, most intellectual art is appreciated only by some.
So when you see a beautiful painitng/person you go "Hmm, is that person good looking or ugly, well, let's see, that nose seems attractive, but maybe the skin tone is a shade too light to go witrh the shape of that ear" before deciding?
Even though you don't consciously know why something possesses beauty, that does not imply that intelligence is not required to process the information necessary to make a judgement. I think everyone agrees that reef fish are not highly intelligent. What about elaborately decorated mulloscs or nudibranchs? Are you suggesting that these organisms also have art appreciation? For beauty to evolve, they would need to have sufficient intelligence to make subtle distinctions between color and pattern.
If you suppose that lower forms of life are somehow programmed genetically to appreciate asthetics, where did that "program" come from? It's easy to say that a genetic "program" may exist, but how can you account for its evolution through natural selection?