"if beauty was so subjective to be in the eye of each beholder then there would be no good designers and photographers, no beauty content, no celebrity models, no actors that make us drool".

Political correctness makes a lot of statements to make the average joe feel like they have some share in power. But Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Absolutely not. The first thing that is wrong is the question. Because there is a subjective aspect to beauty. But the majority of what qualifies as beauty is pretty universal, it is innate almost at a genetic level. (study research on cuteness Konrad Lorenz (1949)) Yes, they use the word subjective because from an empirical science perspective it is not hard science. 

Cute or ugly

What part of the world or what time period could you go to and find people confused about if this cat is cute or ugly? So then how can beauty be subjective? Now show someone a close-up of a baby moth, who thinks it is cute? exactly.

THE NUMBERS

There is not much disagreement about great works of art. And that seems to suggest that it is not as subjective as people say it is. Two totally different professional photographers go and take photos. If there was such a diversity of subjective appreciation then the chances of them mutually finding each other's work beautiful would be a random number. It never is. And the fact that it is never a random number proves that subjectivity is an illusion. There is more evidence of patterns of agreement in taste, beauty, what is good music, what is good art, etc. 
 
 
On the subjective appreciation of Beethoven's "Pathetique," 2nd movement how many pianists would not agree? How many Jazz musicians would not agree? So from Lionel Richie to Herbie Hancock, I would be shocked if any of them disliked it or did not find great genius in the composition.
So what is the real issue then? The real issue is who are you asking? The random bloke on the street that knows nothing about anything or a person who is trained? But when we ask the question "is beauty subjective?" the problem is in the question because it forces a binary answer to something that cannot be discussed in binary terms.
 
So looking at it statically I am not sure what the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" actually is saying. And we adopt a lot of these modern beatitudes without question. They hold no value in and of themselves.
Lastly, if beauty is so subjective how many people on this planet would find this photo of Barbados ugly?
 

Beauty is surprisingly objective.

This isn’t some hypothetical claim but one that can be put to the test by a simple thought experiment which goes as follows -

Step 1 - Take a random pick of five men from among the general population and have them stand in a line as the police do during an ID procedure.

Like say these fellows…

Step 2 - Add this fellow at No. 6 in that lineup (I don’t know who he is, a random attractive person I picked from Google Images)

Step 3 - Now then ask a hundred men or women “Who do you think is the most good-looking among the six?”

You could of course do the same with a lineup of women. In fact if anything, it will apply twice as much in the case of an attractive woman standing alongside plain-looking members of her gender.

Now the proof of any significant level of subjectivity would be some significant level of distribution among the choices. There will not be a perfectly equal distribution for sure, but in the case of any material level of truly subjective tastes - ‘it’s difficult to predict what people might like’ - there will be an unmistakable variety in picks such as you might find among elects of favorite colors or cuisines.

 Had beauty been so subjective I think Ducati and the modeling agency would be both out of business along with the photographer. Because give the camera to an ungifted photographer and let their weak judgment take this same photo and then tell me about beauty is subjective. A good photographer understands how to take a picture that will get the highest approval amongst the greatest demographic. So if you walk into a perfume shop and have to pick from 20 fragrances your choice might vary from someone else's choice, but that variation is within a tiny margin because none of those fragrance smell like dog piss. 

THE STANDARD OF BEAUTY

Because beauty standards are set by a few and broadcast to the many. Most of us all agree Beyonce is beautiful and this is not subjective because she uses this beauty to sell products to the world, had it not worked she probably would not be able to successfully put her face on so many products. When you go to the cinema and see Denzel Washington we all know he is handsome, if beauty was so subjective then casting him, Beyonce, Will Smith, and Zoe Kravitz would not work. Because a sizable percentage of the population might exercise their subjective definition and have mixed opinions.

 
The conclusion is it is all about exposure. How can I test this thing the other way around? Well, it would be hard because my exposure to music is so great and global that any music that they played from their culture would probably be appreciated since it is not 100% foreign. And all of this explains why what a photographer, designer, graphic artist, or filmmaker sees is based upon exposure to a specific application of their eyes, ears, etc.
 
You have to be trained to appreciate certain complexities in music to add value to it. But some people naturally love music and would probably say "Wow, that is beautiful". Which brings me to is scary music universally scary? I would think so, but I might be wrong. Is good art is good art wherever you go to those that know? I think so. It is an appreciation of skills and expression. I do not have to be Japanese or speak Japanese, or have ever been to Japan to know this is beautiful:
Beauty is beauty
 

MORE EXAMPLES

Which shoe photographer is confused about "beauty in the eye of the beholder"?
 
or
So we are clearly having the wrong conversation. And I can go on and on and on with examples to show this idea of subjective beauty 80% of the time is a joke. As stated before for 80% of things, beauty is pretty objective, everyone agrees, what is left, is that tiny 20% is what might be subjective. Porche or Ferrari. A small tasteless percentage of the population will probably find exceptions. 
 
 

DESIGNED THAT WAY

 
Other factors have to be considered also like the fact that if a radio station keeps playing a silly song by Alica Keys it seduces more people. And being a communal species we kind of all like to like the same thing which further proves it is not subjective. And it is very ancient also b/c 40,000 years ago there is clear archeological evidence of burials where certain flowers were selected, there was nothing random about the selection which means a communal understanding of what was a beautiful flower.