I feel like Armstrong’s statement is essentially calling out all those who don’t see beauty for what it truly is. One thing he says is an incorrect interpretation of beauty is luxury adornment, which means that something isn’t beautiful just because it is expensive or fancy. Armstrong strays from saying that material objects themselves are something of beauty unless of course he’s talking about a piece of art but there is a strong difference between an impressive painting and a fancy gold bracelet. Putting monetary worth to beauty defeats the whole purpose of why something can be beautiful. Just because something costed you a lot doesn’t immediately mean it is special. Armstrong had said this when talking about beauty, “When we find something beautiful, we are called towards a vision of harmonious perfection. This is not a quality in the object, but a longing in ourselves” Beauty is a personal experience that is felt in your soul somewhere money strictly cannot access. Another incorrect interpretation of beauty was a social signifier and I believe Armstrong is calling out people who claim something is beautiful just because other people think it is. This sort of status quo defeats the whole personal attachment something that is beautiful will have to the individual.  Sure, a very impressive and well done painting may connect with many people because of the raw talent that was put into it, but that does not mean it has to be beautiful for everyone. My personal view on beauty are a little less strict than Armstrong’s version that speaks to the different drives; I think for something to be classified as beauty you just need to decide that. Anything can be beautiful to any person and it’s entirely subjective in my mind. Honestly I feel as though a reason is entirely unnecessary and anything can be beautiful.