From an evolutionary perspective, good looks are considered those features that tell others that you are healthy and have good genes and that your off spring will have a higher chance of reproducing himself since he will inherit half of those genes. As such, even features, prominent gender specific physical characteristics that give away proper hormone levels, etc are objectively preferable (because the genes are objectively better) to uneven features, lack of symmetry and so forth.
According to this logic we can objectively say that James Dean, for example, is objectively better looking than the Elephant man.
However, for people who are normal looking and do not have any genetic defects or uneven features the debate over if that person is good looking or not seems endless. For example, a lot of people find Emma Watson very good looking, while a lot do not find her good looking. We could basically take every celebrity and for each and every one of them there will be people in both camps (good-looking/not good looking).
Even if we were to compare someone who from an evolutionary perspective has superior physical characteristics to someone who has worse features there will still be people who will find the one with worse features better looking than the other one, but if looks are objective...how is this possible?
If you take Brad Pitt and Jared Leto, for example, is there any way in which you could objectively say that one is better looking than the other? And if not, does not this mean that looks are subjective since there is no objective standard for measuring beauty?
So...are looks objective or subjective? Or are they both?! But how could something be both subjective and objective?! Would not this be logically impossible?
What do you think?