Might I suggest that the phrase* ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ be contextually elaborated in brief, since here its being put in print for circulation, that to with so much belief having drawn much inspiration from it.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, from my understanding what you mean to convey is in order for something to be deemed beautiful, it has be observed to physically observed to begin with & appreciated by the admirer. If there is no beholder, then there is no beauty. (Personally I can appreciate this interpretation, but can’t fully agree with it. As beauty is not just something one experiences but more fundamentally that simply just is. Ability to appreciate is our bonus)
Now the chances anyone in a typical audience not understanding this are slim, and probability of anyone in India even questioning this “phrase” even remoter, as the chances of coming across an aesthetically informed, literarily probing & philosophically inclined entrepreneur aspirant seem minute.
However the issue is that when in 1878, the Irish writer Margaret Wolfe Hungerford in her book Molly Brown, first articulates these words, she meant / alluded to something quite different. Actually this idiom* as it is understood and used today, basically implies that beauty is very subjective and is defined by the likes/dislikes of the individual observer & that we all can’t possibly come to a singular consensus on what is beautiful / valuable.
Interestingly evolutionary psychology has disproved this stereotypical assumption as well, hence at this level as counter-intuitive as it might seem, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. The academic discussion of-course continues about how much importance the beholder should be given, extending to even his presence or absence to judge beauty.
* technically in English by definition all idioms can be phrases (group of words) but not the other way around. Of course there are 1 word idioms like “Moonlighting” 🙂
[Seemingly] empty canvas anyone ?