Notes:
- Is coffee beautiful beacause 1. it is a concoction? 2. Its aroma? 3. Its possible varieties?
- Can beuaty exist without sensation? (e.g. are the deaf, mute, blind able to perceive beauty?)
- What are the features required for it to be beautiful
- Schwitter, Taylor Mali
-Preservation/permanence: Coffee-art, sand-art. Is it that something which not permanent evokes our appreciation?
- Is nature beautiful? Why?
- Must this beauty be interpreted or deciphered by man?
- Does beauty reside in Nature?
- Technology and Art are creations of man's abstract thinking (->our ability to comprehend the scale of our universe)
- Is the concept of abstract Nature's design?
- Hasn't nature been doing that al this while (solving design problems)?
- We are a product of Nature's evolutionary design (Nature's technology)
- Is there something more concrete to gain from this options other than marvelling?
- What we've learnt -- is it applicable to history, physics and other disciplines?
- Is sitting back and enjoying worthwhile or is it just a waste of time?

Conclusion?

Beauty resides in...both the mind and the object.

The object provides the "content", the mind then analyses, evaluates and finally appreciates it (beauty).

Without the mind, given a very "potentially beautiful" object, there is still no beauty in it, for there is no source of appreciation of its value. Conversely, if there is no object, then there is nothing to speak of in the first place.

Beauty is probably a kind of value accorded or attached to the object. This "value" has the qualities inherent in the object as a foundation for construction, and is shaped at the same time by the person, his experiences, knowledge, personal insights and realisation.

In this sense beauty is both objective (in the object's "potential") and subjective?

I personally think that it is impossible (or unwise) to construct a rule or standard set of criterion for beauty. Beauty is simply not just black-and-white, it contains many grey areas and ought not to be evaluated (maybe limited) by a rigid set of rules. And dichotomous keys and rules sometimes assume false dilemmas.

What exactly make up the inherent "beauty potential" in the object? There are 2 main levels: Physical and Abstract.

Physical is where we talk about the physical properties of the object and their impact on our sensory perceptions, particularly in the visual aspect. We then bring in the more technical concepts of colour, shape, form, symmetry and others (and the link to Mathematical concepts such as the Fibonnacci series and golden ratio).

Abstract is then the category of qualites of the object which we cannot directly perceive via sensations (sensory perceptions). These qualities are mainly related to the non-physical nature of the object, for instance, its creation (includes medium), function, level of permanence etc.

The mind comes in when we have to process these pieces of information. Through understanding, comprehending, recognising, tapping on our previously-gained knowledge, we can construct links, apply, evaluate and gain new ideas and insights. The ability to embrace the qualites of the object, process them and make them a part of our own (thinking), is the ability to appreciate its beauty.

Hence, the blind can appreciate sand-art and coffee-art: by understanding the nature of these forms of art, they can relate it to the concept of how something so emphemeral can form patterns and shapes. Along with the individual's experiences (e.g: a memory of something's short-lived nature accentuating its beauty), he can then determine whether it is beautiful, or not. For another individual, permanence might be the preferred option, and he might not see beauty in "coffee-art" or "sand-art" stemming from the medium.

---------------------------------------------------------------

This conclusion is probably flawed in many areas when we dissect it; it is also likely that there are some instances of "beauty" which do not fit into this "process". However, I think that this will do for now.

The definition of beauty (if there is one) and how we perceive beauty is subjected to more changes as we carry on in life and gain more exposure to different things.

Therefore, in a certain sense, this is not even a "conclusion". Perhaps, there might be none at all!

Controversies and areas of divergence make things interesting and exciting.

The fun lies in how mysterious and ambiguous the whole issue of beauty is and how we inquisitively and instinctively try to grapple with it.

And most importantly, the fun never ends :)