http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-saturday-essay-our-modern-age-requires-a-new-definition-of-beauty-1073410.html]] Beauty can be defined as anything with...
A standard in art (as in everything else) is required and it exists
[[http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-saturday-essay-our-modern-age-requires-a-new-definition-of-beauty-1073410.html]] Beauty can be defined as anything with symmetry/order that appeases the mind. Therefore, according to that definition/standard: beauty can be in ordinary things. However,the monetary value of that 'pulchritude' really measures 'how' beautiful and rare/unique/original it is. Art is therefore, standardized with 'price tags' : a masterpiece: a carefully crafted delight to the senses; can hold up a trillion dollar bid , where as a common rose bouquet can not. >>>>> So you agree that Art needs beauty but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is a yes side argument :P