Circular, rough, and red
What do we really communicate when we say something is of beauty? Is it merely to describe? But describe what? Shape, texture, color? How are circular, rough, and red beautiful?
When someone compliments you for having beauty, should the response end in gratitude that acknowledges the compliment, or with a skeptical “How come?” The person who compliments would most likely fall back into a descriptive defense, pettily listing all his observations. Don't be flattered. They must insult you. For if beauty is merely an observation turned to admiration, attraction, and deception, then it only suggests that your "beauty" is subservient to particular criteria of any beholder who notices you in passing or within a particular occasion or instance of high libido or dopamine.
What is beauty? Is it only really in the eye of the beholder or can it be objective? Is it the absence of ugliness? This produces a circular argument: what is ugliness?
We take beauty for granted but the reality is it's mystifying. Maybe it's not really that complicated.
I argue that beauty is easy simple and omnipresent. It's in everything “beautiful” and “ugly”. It does not need a reason or any justification whatsoever. One has beauty simply because it exists, it occupies time and space, and it serves its function. Please don't take this as some sort of feel-good uplifting claim because now I don't mean beauty in the denotative meaning of the word nor do I propose a figurative definition.
Beauty is neither good nor bad, but also both. It's not a counterpart. Beauty is neutral. It is not a judgment or scale of aesthetics. It's empty. It's nothing. It's invisible in the sense that it shouldn’t be noticeable because once it’s been acknowledged, it’s defeated, dissolved, and annihilated. One thing is simple about beauty: it is there, justly and as is.