This question is central to the branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.

Is beauty something that can be universally recognized, or is it completely dependent on cultural, historical, and individual tastes? Can we assign artistic value to things?

It seems that we are inclined to go with the latter. Big hair was popular in the 80s, but no longer. The erhu is musically a beautiful instrument in China--not so in the U.S.

Yet on the other hand, our culture gives out awards for "best motion picture," "best actor," "50 most beautiful people." And though we might not agree on many (or perhaps most) of the selections, we can at least agree on a few. This can happen across time and across cultures as well. The pyramids still evoke a sense of wonder in this feat of architecture (a structural beauty, perhaps). Hearing Mozart can still bring people to feelings of transcendence, no matter where they are, and even after hundreds of years. And are we really to say that the music of Brittany Spears has no more artistic value than the music of Beethoven? That Marilyn Monroe will someday be seen as ugly? That "Dude Where's my Car?" is as cinematically masterful as Hitchcock?

Is there some vague sense of universal beauty/aesthetic value, or is it all in the eye of the beholder?

A fascinating question. While I would have probably said automatically that yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after simply reading the topic title, you make some good points in your post. Although I think that Marilyn Monroe being beautiful or ugly is quite subjective, the idea that Beethoven's music could be compared with Brittney Spear's (because it's all subjective) does not appeal to me. I suppose that there are some basic ideas upon which we build our standards of what is quality and what is not in these various fields -- in music, harmonies and complexity are generally seen as very important, for instance. In movies, symbolism and subtlety are important. But I believe there may be something more elusive than these that dictates beauty. Something that transcends our understanding -- God, most likely. However, as to how exactly that all works I haven't the faintest idea. But one might say that God has created beauty in such a way that there are some things which are simply beautiful. I would certainly say that God himself is wholly beautiful. And if God has also created standards of morality and of purpose, than why not standards of beauty as well (even if they are even more elusive than the first two, which are hard enough to define as it is)?

For me, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but how it is influenced, which i believe it can be, is chosen. Media, etc, seems to influence what is chosen as beautiful or 'good' but if people sense these things (feel, sight, taste, hear, smell) then it is really our own mind that is made up but, our outward opinion may not reflect this. It is personal taste. I think Marylin monroe was beautiful, she appeals to me. I think brittney spears' music should be banned while we should have bach, beethoven, and other such composers played throughout classes, radio, etc. This is just my opinion and someone else may have a different view. That is life, that is personal opinion. It is subjective to each person that comes in contact with it. Beauty is a fickle thing. There is no deffinable beautiful thing because everyone has a different opinion but in large groups, it seems to be there can be a deffinition, or a similarity in beauty, such as thinner women are more beautiful then overweight women, that is an american 'society' view but there are people that differ. Outliers if you will, that do not see it as such, thus beauty is truely in the eye of the beholder. Unless you are not willing to have an opinion.

Just my thoughts..Hopefully they are comprehensible.

Indeed, our image of beauty is affected by the culture and soceity of the times, so to a limited extent there is an overall feeling of how beauty is percived and the like, but within the cultural bounds, its hard to say. I'd say that you [single person] is the highest judge of beauty. That it is within your "eye" sort to speak. With the long lists of the best and the like, I belive the only reason we can concide that a few are supposed to be there is that most are there through a majority vote, so yea, it would make sense that quite a few people agree with the "top lists".

All interesting points, and I'm not sure we're gonna settle this discussion (or any philosophical discussion) anytime soon.

But here are a few more things to challenge the notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder:

1. Psychologists and evolutionary biologists have come up with a few characteristics that make people attractive. One is structure of the body. Typically, a mesomorphic (that's medium, muscular build), is preferred over the ectomorphs or the endomorphs (that's thin and thick, respectively) for men. For women, the lack of breasts is generally unattractive, and broad hips are generally attractive. Biologists believe that this is some evolutionary mechanism built into people so that women likely to be able to bear and raise children (hence the wide "child-birthing" hips and the ample breats) are more attractive. Oddly enough, facial symmetry has also seen to be a common characteristic of people found to be attractive. Finally, smiling is universally attractive.

2. In art and literature, there seems to be the common denominator that a "beautiful" work of art allows the audience to identify with some characteristic of the art, a character within the art, or the artist. To the extent that this happens follows the popularity of the work. Shakespeare lasts because his characters are still recognizeable today, in a way in which Bill and Ted (from Bill and Ted's excellent adventure) are not.

3. Nature. Does anyone not find a sunrise or sunset beautiful?

Alrighty.

I could quote from Pirisig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle and his musings on "informed quality and beauty." Essentially the idea that some 12 year old who has limited experience would more likely rate Britney Spears as the greatest musician ever, while someone with more experience would say that Beethoven is far superior to her. However, he disagreed with that and so do I.

I think there are some traits that make things more "beautiful" or "attractive" to us.

Firstly, universality. Why are myths and shakespeare so powerful? Because they're relevant and relatable even when read centuries later. Compare the myths of different cultures (though maybe this discussion belongs as it's own one...) and you find striking similarities among different heroes and gods and even mythic cycles in other cultures. If something stirs deep within us and that same thing is stirred in a pheasant woman in India by the same piece of music or myth, it's beautiful.

Think of the Shawshank redemption (i'm taking for granted that you've seen it) as a case in point. There's a scene where Andy Dufraine (the main character) gets hold of an opera album and puts it on the prison broadcasting system and locks himself in there so they have to break open the door to turn it off. The whole prison stops and listens to it, and the narrator, Morgan Freeman, said of it (a quick an dirty paraphrasing anyway) "I don't know what that woman was sing about, but it was so beautiful it made me cry." He didn't understand them (because they were singing in Italian) but it stirred that deep something in him.

Secondly, I would allege it jars you or draws you out of yourself. It needs to snap you out of your normal routine, if even for the briefest of instances, and draw your focus to it.

I'll need to muse some more on this but this is what I've though of for now.

Reponse to psycholopher:

1: Healthy bodies is often what is needed, it goes back from our caveman days when we needed to be strong and fit to survive. I don't think it is so much seen as beatuy as it is a natural desire not for physical apperance, but for the "hunter" and the like.

2: Popular and universal, or predetermined are not the same. As I said, top 10 charts and the like, they go by popular vote, but do I turn on MTV and like more than one (at most) of the songs on that list? Probably not. Is there popular aspects that we can classify as beatuy, sure, but I'm not sure this is what you are trying to prove.

Are these completely separable? Might it be possible that what we view as our sense of beauty might really be somehow connected to biological/evolutionary mechanisms?

You know, as I was posting that reponse I was thinking just that, I'm not entirely sure that they are separable. I mean, some things that we find attractive might not have to do with the evolutionary survival idea, but enough are that I have really been thinking that over, not entirely sure as of now.

Beauty is definetly in the eye of the beholder because as teh old cliche goes "beauty is greatther then skin deep.".

Well then Bigfoot, how do you explain the other side offered?

Numerous psychologist have done studies about biological impulses and characteristics of what we deem beautiful or attractive.

For example (and I do warn you these are going to be gross generalizations based of a few studies I had to read in college psych courses) men are usually attracted to younger women with broader hips and larger breasts, argueably because of biological impulses. If a women is younger she has more child bearing years, and broad hips and larger breasts suggest fertility.

Women are usually attracted to men who are older than they are. Biologically this makes sense too, if a man is older, he's a surviver, he has over come the various challenges and stresses his enviornment places on him. It signals the fact he will be a good provider, who will take care not only of her but also her children.

So, is beauty biological and are we slaves to our biological impulses when it comes to beauty? Or is there some more subjective personal base?

I think it's a little bit of both.

Part biological and part social.

I feel that the basics (at the very least) of what one is sexually attracted to is coded in our genes.


The biological part would be the sexual features one needs to have to some degree (penis, vagina, maybe breasts or hips). Everything else from age to personality -- which does heavily impact ones attractiveness -- would be social.

Example: when I first started working at the gas station I spent a year and a half at I saw a girl come by once in a while to the back office. Our schedules didn't exactly match so I rarely saw her enter. Since I never worked back there I didn't have a reason to see her when she and I were there. However after time passed someone got fired, another quit followed by another getting fired schedules got changed quite a bit to the point where I was there enough that I could see her usually a few times a day. The first dozen or so times I saw her I found her to be pretty ugly but as I saw her more and spoke to her the more attractive she became.

Now, she doesn't exactly fit what society finds as most attractive. As I became familiar with her appearance and got to know her the mixture of familiarity and liking her personality got me to find what I previously thought to be unattractive as attractive. The social part comes into play where I originally was repelled by her appearance and after I became familiar with her personality (in part socially constructed if I'm not mistaken). After a while yes, I would sometimes get a hard on thinking about her or certain features she had.


In the end physical appearance is only one aspect of what defines beauty. How many people in any nation finds it to be attractive for someone to sleep around even if they wouldn't when in a relationship? Relatively speaking, not many yet we can think about why it may be found unattractive and change our views of it after heavy thought.

Hope I clearly stated my views.

Okay so maybe when it comes to finding people beautiful, we are motivated by biological impulses, cultural forces, and personal subjectivity.

What about beauty in art and nature?

Beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder. People usually choose to be with people who are similar to them in terms of height, race, physical appearance etc, but also personality. The idea that opposites attract has no statistical basis.

I hope I'm dead before those days come.

Beauty obviously depends on the individual.....

Tastes vary so much in every aspect of society in the entire world......

Sure, some beauty is universal, like nature, but most is not.