Blog #14

Armstrong in his article states, “To regard beauty as a luxury adornment or a social signifier was to miss the true potential of the experience.” (Armstrong 5). Essentially, Armstrong is asserting that the object of beauty knows no social status or no social class. He is also stating that beauty cannot relegated to people of certain classes or social statuses. Beauty has the ability to reach people of all backgrounds. My personal interpretation of the object of beauty is anything that elicits a particularly strong emotion but is also balanced by nature. I do believe that beauty is open to interpretation, but not as open was mainstream American society believes it to be. American mainstream society has a superficial interpretation of the object of beauty. The common belief is that beauty can be defined in a subjective nature by the onlooker. “The only popular thought about beauty today, the one that has the widest currency in the world, is the idea that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.” (Armstrong 1). As previously stated, this notion regarding the object of beauty is extremely subjective and widely open to various interpretations. In other words, beauty is thought to be open to a wide array of interpretations.