</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bruce (Camclicker) @ Jan 31 2003, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I found an essay that I find inspirational on this subject:

http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I checked that out... Quite some food for thought here.

A couple of points I&#39;d like to bring out ... I think it is an error to assume that when I say it is difficult to define an "Universal Beauty" that "Beauty" in itself does not exist.

Equally as misleading is the idea that, if each of us has their own concept of "what is beautiful" it necessarily follows that we are completely satified with our work as it stands, and there is no motivation to "improve". Nothing could be further from the truth.

I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve ever made a print I was satisfied with. There is always something ... a little less or more exposure; dodging or burning here or there .... contrast...

At some point I have to say, "This is the end." and stop.

We each have our own concepts ... call them visions... of "beauty". They can be, and usually are, harsh taskmasters.

Enough rambling.

We are defined by our likes and dislikes, our mindsets and conditioning .... and a lot of other attributes that I am not at all certain that I understand.

My vote for all-time, all-media most beautiful work of all time: Renoir&#39;s "Torse au Soliel" - see the attached file (I hope it works).