a child's playdough sculpture of a turd is not more beautiful than Michelangelo's Pieta, nor is a tone deaf girl singing Jay-Z's Big Pimpin' more beautiful than something by Bach, both in their capacity to express the experience of the beautiful and the amount of genius it requires to produce them.
You have to establish why these things:
1.the capacity to express the experience
are prerequisites to beauty.
Is a snowflake, or the Grand Canyon objectively beautiful?
Neither express an experience or reflect genius.
What they do
is to stimulate the human imagination, intrigue us, hold our attention,
even create withing us a sense of awe.
That will vary from person to person,
you say there are people capable of apprehending beauty more so than others
To be more accurate,
some people are more intrigued than others, their imaginations more stimulated, they are in awe, and they appreciate that experience more than others.
But this is all happening in the mind,
rather than being an objective quality in the thing itself.
I have a stronger preference for Michelangelo and Bach too,
but I admit that these preferences are purely subjective.
there is no component to anything which contains "beautiness"
so, beauty must be something imputed.