IS BEAUTY JUST IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER ALONE?

EJIMOFOR HANNAH CHIAMAKA

“Beauty, truly lies in the eyes of the beholder”
The people murmured amongst themselves as they watched the bride walk down the aisle, arm in arm with her father, face glued to the alter and her gown as blinding as the rays of the sun. If not that it was a wedding dress, one would have easily concluded that her husband-to-be was blinded by the brightness of the dress and not by her beauty or love.

Halfway down the aisle, she stopped and smiled, her dark gum made her big white teeth look whiter, one would think she works with one of the toothpaste companies; but I bet the companies were not blinded by her dress, either because she definitely didn’t wear it to the interview. The amazed audience were amused when the husband-to-be broke down in tears as he watched his bride smile. But the people never really understood because beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.

Growing up, we have always followed the saying, “Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder”. But is beauty truly in the eyes of the beholder alone or is beauty just beautiful that everyone can see it and when we can’t, it’s just not beauty but the beholder trying to justify his choice, just like the ‘monkey wey no fine but him mama like am’.

Firstly, who is a beholder. A beholder according to Google, is a person who sees or observes something or someone; while beauty is a combination of qualities, such as shape, colour, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight.
So if beauty lies in the eyes of ‘the beholder’ (take note of the beholder and not a beholder). “The” is a definite article, meaning it is just one person observing the beauty from his perspective and his own point of view. So one man’s definition of beauty might be totally and entirely different from the other persons’ .

But that brings us back to the word ‘beauty’. Note that beauty is physical. I will define beauty as ‘pleasing to the eyes’. If It doesn’t satisfy the eyes, then it’s not beautiful. So, if a man sees an object and calls it beautiful, when its obviously not beautiful, does it make it beautiful because he thinks it is. Or should we just mind our business and let beauty be beauty to whomever it wants to. Don’t you think beauty is just beauty and if it’s not appealing, it isn’t beautiful? Or do we categorize both the hidden attributes and the physical aethestics that qualify an entity to be called a beauty in one area.

For instance, let’s say, we see a very ugly dog that is efficient in its security duties. I mean, a very ugly dog that sticks it’s tongue out and pants like nothing else, but when it comes to security, policing and even drug detention, its efficiency is 99.98%; would you as the owner of the dog wanting to describe your dog, use the term ‘beautiful’? (wonders).

Or you have a friend, who is not too appealing to the eyes but has a good heart; do we call the friend beautiful, because of his or her good heart or should we be realistic and call a beauty, a beauty?

I don’t know, but think about it, dont you think we should be realistic, like if someone has a good heart and character just call them nice; but, if the person is beautiful, whether or not he or she has a clean heart, just call them beautiful.

Does beauty lie in the eyes of the beholder, or we are just being blinded by love. Wait! Is it love or fondness? We will talk about that next time.

But right now, what’s your take on the saying ‘Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder’? Because some beauty are way out of the beholder’s eyes, that the whole universe can attest to it, while some beauty are just in the beholder’s eyes, we no dey see am.