Reflection 2 - short

I believe that beauty is both a real property of objects and can also be subjective to the viewer or thus only beautiful “in the eye of the beholder.” The distinction occurs in the type of object that is being questioned. The main reason I feel this way is because of the natural world and objects that exist naturally that are not a product of human kind. While I cannot prove this, I feel that there are objective standards for beauty. If you see a sunset in nature, it is widely accepted that it is beautiful. Regardless of whether you get a certain feeling from experiencing the sunset or whether you are experiencing the sunset in a certain state or whether you hate the colors in the sunset, it is still considered a beautiful thing that can be recognized as such. 

To better clarify what I am trying to say, take something horrifyingly beautiful in nature for instance like the mirror spider. I absolutely detest spiders. I think they are disgusting, gross and they terrify me; however, I can appreciate to a degree their natural beauty. The mirror spider is beautiful, and I think that could be an objective standard of “beauty.” However, even now as i’m writing this, I see the the flaws in my statement. Two people could come to the same open field and one person could be overcome by beauty and the other could not be affected nor think the scene beautiful at all.  I understand why the phrase beauty is in the eye of the beholder exists. Take people for instance, finding certain people beautiful and others not is an extremely subjective matter; however, can’t a women or a man be by nature beautiful regardless of their personality or character that makes other people see them differently? 

This is a question that really makes me think because unfortunately, I see and understand the argument that beauty is a real characteristic of objects of art or certain things that can be measured and seen and felt across the board, and I also understand that my perception of beauty and others is a subjective matter and is subject to change. I think I would still argue that in a natural instance, a standard of beauty exists. Natural occurrences, mountains, people can be beautiful by nature, but I would also argue that anything man-made is up for interpretation and thus cannot be argued to be without a doubt beautiful. For example, I would argue to my death that Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” is a true example of beauty, yet I know many people who disagree profusely. I feel like something about the fact that humans can think and interpret objects, and that we create art, makes it objective from its’ creation. I could be wrong, but I think that nothing by the hand of humans can be considered an objective truth or objectively beautiful; thus we can’t say anything man-made is beautiful in property while the fact that something exists in nature by some natural, wonderful, mystical Science or magic allows for there to be a small possibility of pure, objective beauty.