We have been asked to explain Kant’s account of beauty, so here goes.
Kant starts off from the idea that the sensation of beauty is both subjective and universal. It is subjective because it belongs to the subject (perceiver) rather than the object. In particular, there are no rules that will make the object beautiful to us if we do not perceive it to be so. It is universal because the statement ‘X is beautiful’ carries the implication ‘I like X and you ought to like X’. This is different from the normal situation of liking ice-cream for instance where there is no insistence that anyone else should like it.
So how can something–a kind of pleasure–be both subjective and universal. In Kant’s thought, pleasure is seen as springing from meeting some need (like hunger for instance). So what need are we talking about here? Kant suggests that it is the need for understanding. But beauty is not about understanding as such–Kant gives the example of an innkeeper’s son in a bush imitating a nightingale, which song ceases to be beautiful once he is found out. Instead it is the promise of understanding that beauty provides.
So that explains how the sensation of beauty can be both subjective and universal. By analogy with hunger, there is no particular difficulty with saying that the catalogue of things that are beautiful will be different in different times and places, since what will satisfy your hunger (which is surely something real) will depend on what you are used to and what you’ve eaten recently.
Ingenious, or what?