I think it necessary to understand beauties biological dependence ,also the reality that all things are ordered, the object is seldom if ever considered to be beautiful if it is not orderly. This again would have subjective value, if the indivudual in question is incapable of orderly thinking, himself in a constitutional disaray, then it is unlikely he would find something of beauty beautiful. Part to part, part to the whole and the whole to each of its parts. Constructs in our outside world are in fact extensions of our own organization, own order, so order speaks to order you might say.To be creative I think, is to have the ability to create order, creativity then, is extension.
Completely. Even through, I'm sure, there are a great many things I consider beautiful that you may not, the focus of such a discussion should necessarily be what are those things which we as a species consider so, and why. And although the vast array of differences in personal preference adds variety and spice to the discussion, its acknowledged convergences are where the greatest insight is to be had, imho.
Symmetry, organization, constituent parts in harmony with the whole, grace in geometry or sound. These, all, I believe are precepts that can be applied to all. The problem is, I believe, many a well-intentioned philosopher becomes myred into a particular sub-sect of beauty.
I, myself, when posed this question instantly thought of a woman's face, the outline of her cheek, her clear eyes, cute nose and generous mouth. We're colored by our high-impact examples of beauty. But what of music? Harmony? Why is the sight and sound of a gentle river found "beautiful" by so many? It seems necesssary that we should all back off our initial emotional impressions (insomuch as a thing is possible!) to examine the larger patters, and only in doing so perhaps come to a concensus of "beauty" that can be applied to all.
This is not to say all things can be applied to all - only that common threads exist. As far as those things *not* shared by all, I hope I can contribute an example, I hope readers will forgive a possibly-disturbing visual.
At about the age of 7, it was my family's habit to go camping on the Apache Indian Reservation in southeastern Arizona (wonderful country). We'd roll along in a battered Starliner on unfinished dirt roads, scraping the car's undercarraige and complaining all the way. During one trip, my mother gasped in awe and shrieked, "Oh look kids! Isn't that beautiful?!". When we turned to see, we beheld a bull and cow doing what nature commands not 10 feet from the car. To this day, I recall in nauseating detail, specific aspects of that vision that I found patently sickening (some things one just doesn't REALLY want to see that close). But Mom was genuinely moved; with a tear in her eye she awe-struck in divine euphoria at this sight. I think on a purely naturalist level I can somewhat identify, but won't ever equate that with "beauty".
Such variances spark debate and disagreement. Personal inclinations towards the connotation of the word lead to mal-aligned debates. My sense is that only in its commonalities can a larger concensus be had and in so doing, lead to more successful communcation.