A few days ago when I was trying to search reference on beauty philosophy for my Fantasy & Science Fiction class, I stumble upon this article HERE. The article explains very clearly on how to define beauty and how it stands in the world of subjectivity and objectivity (in Descartes terms). It also slightly points out, why people nowadays who had physical beauty as their first priority is in some sense, cracked head. As it is said in the article, that beauty is most likely “a secondary quality, mind-independent, but intersubjective.”
There are also some questions of beauty regarding preferences and taste in this article, for instance why someone likes red while another person likes green. I know someone who’s father likes biking and the son has the same hobby, though he probably didn’t know that, since his father passed away when he was very young, and at that time his father already quit his hobby. My sisters and I like the same color. Thus I could infer that this case most likely resonates with the possibility that our senses are very related with genetic factor, childhood and the surroundings (objects, people, etc). Though the main topic is beauty in the sense of the original, the beauty itself, but to answer the question why beauty is also about taste and preference, then in some sense the context of beauty has shift a little bit, especially because the perception of beauty in this matter is also influenced by the factor of cultural and clinical mold.
Nevertheless, if it’s in sense of art, the word beauty somehow should be redefined, since I personally think art has a different context of beauty, especially for the sole reason that this beauty is man-made. Moreover, if you refer to the article, art objects are existence with objective reality, but doesn’t possess formal (subjective) reality. Overall, by scrutinizing this article and the comments you may also notice that in terms of debating some ideas, double-checking the context of the arguments is essential if you don’t want it to be out of place.