To what extent is beauty universal in your opinion? It seems obvious on the first sight that Mozart > Shakira. Yet, why? Can you justify it? Some say so only because of everybody else. In reality, if people weren't socially pressured, many would say that Shakira > Mozart. Would they necessarily be wrong?
Is it about the skill of the artist? Or the meaning hidden in the art? Or the reality that this art exemplifies? Or, rather, the person who is consuming the art is what matters in the judgement of its beauty? The person's culture, intelligence, values, views?
So, in your opinion, are we justified to claim that some art is superior? Or is it that different people are able to appreciate different things, and hence at the end of the day no universal judgement about beauty should nor can be made?
I don't think absolute attractiveness/beauty has been proven.
I generally reckon most people jump on the bandwagon, out of fear of being seen weird...
But then if some people are objectively more beautiful than others, we have no real way to prove it, yet.
Would many say Shakira > Mozart? I don't think it's social pressure that stops people saying that, I think its reality.
In answer to the titular question: No. Culture, era, individual - many things effect how beauty is measured.
Objectively you could come up with a list of parameters by which to measure 'beauty' (i.e skinny over fat surely? no muscle over muscle surely? long over short hair etc) otherwise it's all semantic white noise.
Let's begin at extremes:
Dog turds are ugly.
New born babies, according to their parents, are beautiful.
So, with these two examples we have objective proof that beauty exists. The question is, how do you replicate this beauty in art?
What makes a dog turd ugly and a new born baby beautiful? It's the human spirit which determines ugly from beauty.
Beauty is life and Harmony.
Ugly is death and chaos.