Claim. Beauty does not exist objectively in things; rather, beauty is determined when a subject (with a desire to seek value) engages in give-and-take with an object (whose physical elements are harmonized centering on purpose) and judges the resulting emotional stimulation as beautiful.
Elaboration. Lee quotes Divine Principle: ‘The value of an entity intended at its creation is not fixed as an inherent attribute. Rather, it is established through the mutual relationship between the purpose of the entity according to God’s ideal of creation, and people’s original desire to treasure it and bring out its true worth’ (DP, 36–37, cited at Determination of Beauty). The rose example: original beauty is determined when God’s creative purpose for the flower and the divinely-given human desire to appreciate it are fulfilled together.
This is a relational ontology of beauty — beauty is not ‘in’ the object as a property like mass or color, nor is it merely ‘in’ the subject as a Kantian projection, but is constituted in the give-and-take event between them. Lee restates: ‘Beauty is determined when the subject, engaging in give and receive action, emotionally and subjectively judges the emotional stimulation coming from the object as beauty.’
The object side still contributes real ‘elements of beauty’ (Elements of Beauty): physical elements (lines, shapes, colors, spatial patterns in painting; high/low and long/short sounds in music) harmonized centering on the purpose-of-creation. Harmony comes in two modes — spatial harmony (painting, architecture, sculpture, handicrafts) and temporal harmony (literature, music), with comprehensive art (drama, dance) manifesting both. Lee cites Aristotle (‘the chief forms of beauty are order and symmetry and definiteness’) and Herbert Read (the work of art has an imaginary center of gravity around which lines, surfaces and masses rest in ‘perfect equilibrium,’ with harmony being ‘the satisfaction of our sense of beauty’) as converging witnesses.
The relational view does important work: it explains why the same painting moves one viewer and bores another (different subjects bring different prototypes and desires to the encounter); it preserves objectivity (the harmonized elements really are in the object) without lapsing into Platonism; and it grounds Lee’s later argument that the appreciator’s preparation (purity of mind, education, healthy senses) is itself a condition of beauty’s actualization. Worth a thread: how this relational account handles cases where most appreciators converge on judging a work beautiful — Lee would say the convergence reflects shared underlying prototypes and shared purpose, not a freestanding objective beauty.
See also. beauty-as-emotional-stimulation-returned-from-object, value-defined-by-subject-desire-satisfaction, actual-value-requires-subject-and-object-requisites