"Do you think this is beautiful?"
Haru showed a painting. After school in the art room.
Noa thought. "...Honestly, I do not know."
"Me neither," Haru laughed. "But apparently a famous painter."
Simon peered in. "Abstract painting. Interesting."
"Interesting? Not beautiful?"
"Depends on the definition of beauty."
Haru was interested. "Can beauty be defined?"
"That is the fundamental problem of aesthetics," Noa answered.
"Plato thought beauty is objective," Simon explained.
"Objective?"
"Beauty as Idea. Absolute, eternal, perfect beauty exists."
Haru was surprised. "Then everyone should feel the same thing is beautiful?"
"Theoretically. But reality differs."
Noa supplemented. "Kant said beauty is between subjective and objective."
"Between?"
"'Subjective universality.' When I feel something is beautiful, I think others should feel the same."
"But actually?"
"Often different," Simon laughed.
"So what determines beauty?" Haru was confused.
"There are several theories," Noa organized. "Formalism, expressionism, contextualism."
"Formalism?"
"Beauty is in form. Symmetry, proportion, harmony. Mathematical beauty."
Simon gave an example. "Golden ratio. The ratio 1:1.618 is considered beautiful."
"But," Haru objected, "asymmetrical things can be beautiful too?"
"Yes. So formalism alone cannot explain."
Noa continued. "Expressionism considers beauty as expression of emotion."
"Emotion?"
"The artist's inner self appears in the work. That creates beauty."
"But," Simon pointed out, "the viewer's emotion also matters."
"Yes. So reception aesthetics was born."
Haru asked. "Reception?"
"The work is completed by the viewer. Interpretation creates beauty."
"So beauty depends on the viewer?"
"To some extent," Noa acknowledged.
Simon offered another perspective. "Cultural differences in beauty too."
"Culture?"
"Japanese 'wabi-sabi.' Finding beauty in imperfection."
"In the West?"
"Often beauty in perfection, grandeur."
Haru began to understand. "Standards of beauty differ by culture."
"And change by era too," Noa added.
"Standards of beauty in the past and now differ?"
"Yes. Look at Renoir's paintings to understand beauty ideals of the time."
Simon posed a philosophical question. "So does beauty have essence?"
"I think not," Noa answered. "Beauty is relational."
"Relational?"
"Relationship between viewer and viewed. Relationship with context. Relationship with history."
Haru thought. "So anything can become beautiful?"
"Depending on perspective," Simon nodded.
"Know Duchamp's 'Fountain'?" Noa asked.
"What is that?"
"Exhibited a urinal in a museum."
"A urinal as art?"
"If context changes, meaning changes. That is contemporary art's claim."
Haru was confused. "So standards of beauty are vague?"
"Vague, thus rich," Noa smiled.
"But," Haru objected, "there are things everyone finds beautiful, right?"
"Like?"
"Sunset, starry sky, flowers."
Simon thought. "True. Universal beauty may exist."
"Why?"
"Evolutionary psychology says we feel things advantageous for survival as beautiful."
"Survival?"
"Flowers signal food. Water is source of life. Wide landscape confirms safety."
Noa supplemented. "But there is beauty that cannot be explained by that alone."
"Like?"
"Beauty of tragedy. Expression of suffering can be beautiful."
"Catharsis?"
"Yes. Experience of purification. That is also a kind of beauty."
Haru took a deep breath. "Beauty is complex."
"That is why it is interesting," Simon said.
"Because there is no single answer, dialogue is born," Noa added.
Haru looked at the painting again. "This may be beautiful."
"Why?"
"I do not know. But I feel something."
"That is enough," Noa smiled. "Beauty may be what cannot be explained."
"Beyond language?"
"Yes. Kant also said, 'Beauty is pleasure without concept.'"
"Without concept?"
"Cannot explain the reason. But feel it."
Simon nodded. "That is the mystery of beauty."
The three gazed at the painting.
Standards of beauty are not fixed.
But therefore, beauty is infinite.
Each person finds their own beauty.
That may be the joy of living.