Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder?

I think there are some aspects to beauty that are objective. Symmetry is generally considered a quality of beauty as are certain proportions such as the Golden Mean. If there weren’t some basic standards of the beautiful we would not reach consensus in beauty contests and art appreciation. However, standards of beauty do vary over time and there is still a great deal of subjectivity to aesthetic judgment as well.

Not objective at all. Anything even closely agreed upon and someone will not like it, vice versa.

There are different kinds of beauty. Those as dictated to by media, the beauty decided upon by talent scouts (and this would change every year) and then there is consensus as to what is beautiful as suggested by the above.

Then there is that beauty that no one can explain nor understand. It is when you look into the face of a person you love and see each feature as exquisite. Simply because each feature makes them who they are. This is a beauty that no surgeons knife can capture but it might be a beauty an artist could.

It all depends. Someone you love is more beautiful than a beauty pageant winner.

I think Steve Buscemi is the hottest man on earth, so put me down for “eye of the beholder.”

It’s objective, and I know what it it. Those outliers who disagree with me are just the minimal number of exceptions that prove the rule.

Objective beauty is terrifyingly ugly. That’s why humans create subjective beauty.

Personally, my feelings are mixed. It is really hard to argue against beauty being subjective. We all see beauty differently. Some people may find a celebrity very beautiful, others may find her too artificial. It is related to one’s personal taste.

Yes, but so is ugliness.