fixed in the subconscious memory of the person at the gene level as a result of human evolution. This implies that beautiful form, line, shape and color combination are practical solutions worked out by millions of years of natural selection.
Can something be beautiful to one person but not to another? David Hume said that: “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty. One person may even perceive deformity, where another is sensible of beauty; and every individual ought to acquiesce in his own sentiment, without pretending to regulate those of others”. (Hume. p.136) I consider that this thesis is the main concept of beauty. In my understanding of this question I relay on this thesis. So I can say “Yes”, one and the same thing can be beautiful to one person but not to another.
Does a work of art have to be beautiful to be considered good art? I consider that the art must be beautiful. Some pictures of modern artists can be called art but not all the people find them beautiful. Here be back to the main concept of beauty saying that one and the same thing can be interpreted in different ways by different people. The understanding of beautifulness of the art can vary depending on the persons’ perception. It also depends on a cultural belonging of a person that is what we call authentic art of different cultures. So, as an inference I can say that art is a very versatile concept which cannot be enclosed in one thing as a beauty-gauge.
Is beauty just a physical thing? Who or what decides what the standers of beauty are? Scientists have found that from the microcosm to the cosmos, everything exists in harmony due to the law called the "divine proportion". If there is a subjective idea of beauty, a masterpiece of music, painting or poetry, everything meets this criterion. It could be derived geometrically from a right triangle and his unit