Is That What It Is?

One may find beauty in the smallest of the things. Or one may not find it in anything at all.
Does that make beauty really a subjective appreciation then?

And does beauty have to be appreciated
all the time?

What if one finds beauty and is incapable of appreciating it for a moment?

Obviously that can't be called appreciation, can that?

Or is the object presumed to be momentarily
devoid of any beauty? What if the object indeed carries immense beauty and the observer simply
does not find it appreciative?

Would that reflect on the observer's lack of beauty appreciation or
would that reflect on the nature of the object's radiation of the thing called beauty?

Could it be that the observer's senses have encountered a barrier which forbids him/her to appreciate beauty?

What could that barrier be?

Does everyone find the same amount of beauty in a given object?

And does that variable sense of appreciation reflect on the quality of the object?

To whom will it be relied on to 'qualify' the true quality of beauty?

The one accustomed to discerning it more often, hence 'experienced' in appreciating beauty?

Won't that disqualify the observer immediately on the grounds that his/her observation is based on a gradual 'understanding' of beauty and not 'appreciation'?

What if appreciation is a short lived qualifier for the observer?

What if 'understanding' is really the prime criterion to judge beauty?

What if understanding is combined with appreciation? Would that surely qualify the observer to truly enjoy beauty?

And what is the result of this beauty evaluation?

How long can one continue to appreciate that given beauty with the same vigor and vitality with which one began to appreciate it?

Isn't beauty, like every mortal quality, capable of fading over time, or exposure?

Won't 'understanding' of beauty then become the qualifier instead of 'appreciation'?

Understanding in the sense that one understands that: the object indeed has beauty as perceived and appreciated by one once, but, as in all mortal qualities, it has somehow faded from the perception of the observer only, and would not mean that it has faded from the object at all. Wouldn't 'understanding' then take over and provide a rationale for the observer to continue appreciating the object?

Isn't love for a woman a quality which can be beautiful to a man?

Doesn't love require not only appreciation, but understanding?

Doesn't appreciation fade, but understanding grow?

Isn't that how one keeps the quality called love alive in a relationship?

Isn't love one of the, if not the only, beautiful qualities everyone is capable of observing at any given point in time in one's life? How sad then that so many 'grow out of love' before giving 'understanding' a chance.