This post is devoted to the subject of the aesthetics of the human face. Human beings are naturally engaged with human faces, deriving endless information from reading the thousands of expressions found in faces. Any serious study of aesthetic experience must begin with the face for it is the first thing we recognize and respond to as infants. After we learn to recognize our mother's face we quickly learn to respond to other significant faces as we mature.
As we mature, so does the content that we read into faces-- in fact a measure of our humanity can be determined by the degree to which we can respond to the signals broadcast by the face. For the lover, misreading the signals can be cause for concern. For the artist it can be the cause for elation at the successful portrayal of a significant other.
The film segments on this site are some of the most effective and enjoyable reflections on the mysterious and fascinating subject of the human face. Please enjoy learning more about something that we tend to take for granted-- which in the end is the most fascinating thing in all of human experience.
Bill Havlicek PhD
33 comments:
In the series, The Human Face symmetry and balance describe physical beauty. These words allude to aesthetic perfection. What makes the beautiful even more or less beautiful? The answer is what is underneath. In the arts, every artist knows it is impossible to achieve perfection. For example, when an artist has finished a painting the patron may perceive the painting as perfect, but the artist, in the back of his mind, ruminates in afterthought that the lower left hand corner of the composition might perhaps be painted just a little too dark in value or the clouds in the landscape a little too wispy. Perfection, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Both are also elusive and fleeting.
What about symmetry and balance? A man or woman with a beautiful symmetrical face can be perceived quite the opposite if he or she is not balanced in spirit and mind as well. In one segment of the program we see a handsome young father whose face eventually becomes disfigured by a cancerous tumor. Once we are provided his history, and his circumstances he becomes more than just a face to us. He becomes an inspiration because he has the confidence, knowledge and support to realize he is more than his physical appearance. His beauty resides within. To his wife and his children he is, in their eyes, beautiful.
We cannot look at beauty at just face value. It is a complex and multi-dimensional aesthetic in the arts and in life. It cannot be fully perceived without this knowledge. But just as importantly, we need to employ all of our senses before we can really define any one thing or person as beautiful.
I agree with what Kait said, about the balance between the physical beauty and the beauty within. Balance IS beauty... one can't be beautiful even with a pretty face if they are ugly on the inside.
After I first watched this I did what most people probably did. I took a photo of myself and tried to match it up with the mask. It confirmed what I already knew: My forehead is too big and my eyes are too close together.
Everyone has different tastes. Though nearly everyone can agree that those who fit the mask are indeed beautiful, we each have our own characteristics we are attracted to. Personally, I find overbites attractive. But society encourages dental surgery to fix overbites, so obviously it isn't seen as beautiful.
It's a bit of a crazy concept when you think about it- that symmetry is ultimately a measure of beauty and therefore at least a component of aesthetics. What it actually comes down to is how close one is able to achieve balance and symmetry, to achieve "perfection," in terms of the mathematically diagramed perfect proportioned face. The interesting point to that is that we're all sort of programed to know what is ideal. As was stated in one segment where they asked people of all ages and backgrounds to rank a set of faces in terms of most attractive, almost everyone ranked the faces in a similar fashion. Furthermore the point was brought up that asymmetry is seen as a warning sign- that when someone's face is off, there's something wrong or "unfit" about them, especially in terms of mating.
Now this is what I find interesting as a designer, especially when it comes to characters. Often times the silhouettes and designs that are most pleasing are not totally symmetrical, there's an interesting, pleasing quality about the image having asymmetry but still having balance. But then when it gets to the face, I suppose there is a symmetry that needs to be in place in order to for the viewer to relate- especially when proportions are pushed. Now this is a weird little spot here because I would say that the proportions of the human face are not quite a critical as the need for symmetry; but that clearly is not the case outside of the design realm. Why is it that this works in terms of designing fictional characters but odd facial proportions mixed with near perfect symmetry in actuality would be disturbing?
In movies like the "Incredibles" where faces and body types are proportioned funky and not ideally, there is an aesthetic quality that I would not assign to a real person given the same proportions and such. I suppose it makes it easier for the viewer to understand what a certain character is about- a sort of quick and easy indicator to their personality. In contrast, in the real world, we appreciate and experience a far more subtle exchange and approach, and something so caricatured would be a bit startling. But somethings still ring true in both the animated/ designed world and the real world- often it is the asymmetrical or unbalanced "characters" who are the ones to be wary of (not all the time, but often). It's just interesting that somethings can be beautiful in one world and then not in another.
This particular section of "The Human Face" focuses on beauty. Admittedly the first time around watching this, I was really put off by it. Even if the evidence is compelling, the idea that there is a perfect ideal for the human face and that people who do not match the ideal are universally judged as unappealing -- even frightening -- is a hard pill to swallow. It's true that women and girls who really care about their beauty all seem to have a common image in mind when putting on make-up or choosing clothing. The result is that they do look "attractive", but I find when they're all lined up, it's like looking at the same person over and over again. Recently I was looking at a photo of my sister with her friends and really noticed this. I thought, what makes each one of these girls unique? How do other people -- especially boys -- make judgments about which girl they are more interested in or find more attractive when they all look alike? Surely there is something besides perfection that people value in the human face. Even if there is a universal standard, there are still individual subjective tastes that governs each person's interests.
It was interesting to me that the young woman chosen to be a model in this film talked about how she resented aspects of her face when she was younger. She said that children picked on her lips and her smile -- unique aspects of her face that are now considered to be attractive enough as an adult to make her a model. I thought this was a great example of how proportions that break from the norm create a different appeal.
It was downplayed, but I thought it was also interesting how recent technology has really affected how people perceive beauty. We see advertisements filled with attractive people almost everywhere -- on television, on bill boards, on buses, even on food. I think this saturation of idealized human faces warps and disturbs society's perception of reality. In truth, there are very few people who actually fit the ideals of beauty, especially the "ideal proportions". I think it's a definite danger that people are being bombarded with highly unrealistic expectations of human beauty. It sets an incredibly high standard of beauty for both men and women to achieve. Many people argue that the emphasis on beautiful, unhealthily skinny women has caused a lot of mental health problems with girls in America, and I think it might very well be true. Girls are trying to conform to ideals that are not only unrealistic, but extremely unhealthy. The think the extreme emphasis on beauty in American society is something of a plague that is breaking down relationships, self-esteem, and human dignity.
-- Krystina Haggerty
The dialog is valuable and I find it more than interesting that four of you have focused on the theme of beauty as portrayed in the film series on the human face.
Each of you has noticed some aspect of the discussion (even the more complicated aspects) such as what happens when someone has cancer and this disfigures a face. How the distortion can provoke compassion which transcends the natural repulsion that one feels at first in seeing a severe case of distortion in the face.
Other comments have to do with the commercial aspects of using beauty to sell products and how we begin to question this use of the human for commerce. This is a different kind of distortion not of a face but of the meaning of a person who is being unwittingly identified with a product and in a way, is losing identity.
These kinds of questions are intimately concerned with aesthetic ideas and ideals and they are important to reflect on because they help us to "see" rather than "look" a problems of perception.
Keep up the dialog it is rich (and it is not necessary to talk only about beauty there are other topics as well) but beauty is a good one and I am not going to shift the discussion away from it necessarily if many people in the class want to stay on this topic. I am pleased at the level of discussion.
Bill Havlicek
Hi all,
Great discussion so far! Regarding Bill's comment about "seeing" rather than "looking" at problems of perception, I'd like to diverge from discussion of the videos and share an experience of "hearing" rather than "listening" to aesthetic prompts.
Just as the human face--through visual communication--is an amazing tool of connectivity, so is our sense of hearing a window to powerful aesthetic experiences. In fact, as I spoke with Bill last week I learned that the human being's sense of hearing may be the sense most linked to memory.
I was able to visit "Sound Walk 2008" in Long Beach, which took place two weekends ago. This event was an amazing forum for experimental sound expression, and I was surprised by the emotional and intellectual experiences I had via my ability to listen.
Among the most moving works was an art installation designed to inspire reflection upon the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The artist had positioned speakers in an empty room that amplified field recordings of a 747 passenger flight and of "ground zero". Having few other sensory distractions available, I was able to allow these sounds to create a disorienting and emotionally charged space around me.
Other works included John Cage-esque performances using radio and voice recordings, an auido-translation of solar activity, an artificially intelligent conversation between two laptop computers, and a video game based on "tag" that used surround sound speakers rather than an on-screen game display.
I am very excited about all of the diverse art events going on around us, and I am finding that seemingly disparate events are linked to our study of aesthetics! Soundwalk.org features info about the event I attended, which is an annual happening.
Upon watching the last clip, my attention was immediately drawn to something that Joan Rivers said. She spoke about how men do not need to be attractive and how they do not need looks, but simply 'personality' and a 'big wallet.' But, what about women? Is beauty the only thing that attracts a man towards a lady? While we know this is not necessarily true,it seems as though this is what this clip leads us to believe. Throughout the clip, this fact is reiterated by showing how there are many beautiful people that occupy the majority of advertisements, but all of the images shown were of females. The effect of this was talked about in the clip, and as there continues to be more beautiful women in advertising, males continue to look for that type of physical standard in their mate, albeit unrealistic.
As a person, I can't help but to feel a twinge of disgust to see that the only people that are advertised are those that are considered 'ideal' and beautiful, with almost cookie-cutter faces and figures. Rarely do you see some sort of actual character on a person's face.
As a designer, I have to turn my head to these personal feelings in a way, as I realize that this is the norm in advertising, and that this is truly what sells. Although the girls used in advertising set an unrealistic standard, women look at these as something they want to achieve and be more like. To many people, including myself, I feel as though there should be a wider range of women and men in advertising. As a designer, I must learn to accept that changing this fact would be very difficult to do, and that beauty truly does sell.
When I saw the segment on the human face, I was somewhat relieved to learn about our genetic imprinting in regards to the appeal of a symmetrical face, that the attraction is far from a conscious choice. I have always tried to look to the essential in a person to take their true likeness, but I must admit that I have felt a bias toward “beautiful” things, which has often made me feel a little shallow. I have also felt ashamed of the urge to recoil from something malformed. I’ve felt like a contributor to the prejudice and preferential treatment enjoyed by the beautiful over the no so beautiful in our world. In defense of myself, I attributed my routine acknowledgment and reverence of beauty to my artistic nature – that I have an innate sense of, and attraction to, balance and beauty. Since viewing the segment, particularly the part about the Marquardt research, I understand that the human tendency toward symmetry and beauty is an animal instinct, instilled to ensure our survival as a species, just as a tendency to be disturbed by the asymmetrical is partially imprinted on our DNA, The more symmetrical, the more likely to survive, simply based on health and balance.
This makes me wonder if we will ever evolve out of his notion, now that we live in a (relatively) safer world with a larger gene pool, better medical knowledge, and more access to various methods of self-improvement. Maybe we can start looking below the surface sooner, recognizing that our impulse to judge a book by it’s cover is no longer a necessity for a healthy world.
I just wanted to add a quick comment on the aesthetics of sound pertaining to the Human Face series. Sound perception, as James pointed out, can be powerful. How many have of us have listened to music which has moved us to another level of consciousness, as well as inspired the inner world of our imaginations? I found the clipping of the Kennedy /Nixon debate rather intriguing in the fact that the radio listeners felt that Nixon had won the debate and the television viewers felt Kennedy had won. I remember reading about the 1938 radio show, "War of the Worlds," in which Orson Welles, the announcer and author of the story terrified many of his listeners. The story was about Martians invading New York. With the use of dramatic sound effects and no commercial interruptions, followed by "live" news bulletins included as part of the show, people panicked and fled into the streets believing they could smell the 'poison gas' the Martians were releasing in the air. Almost two million people believed that the story was true and over one million people were actually frightened. Sound is, indeed, a powerful tool. Our perceptions depend on how we listen to and hear the world around us. It's not just in the seeing that there is a propensity for believing.
I'm gonna be honest, after seeing the film "The Human Face" in digital photography last fall and again reviewing the clips now, I gained nothing from the film. If anything it just further showed how in today's society all the emphasis is on physical beauty and vanity and that we have our priorities all mixed up. Other than that watching the clips took away from time that I could have been working on designs.
I thought it was interesting that in the last part it was brought to viewer’s attention that today we are surrounded by beauty. Everywhere we look we see beautiful people – magazines, billboards, commercials, movies, sports, news, TV shows, fashion Ads. The question is, how does it affect us, how does it make us feel? Lets say 50 years ago you could consider yourself pretty or good looking, but today you have hundreds and hundreds of images to compare yourself to. The standard of beauty went so high up that an average human being cannot reach it. Therefore most people must really think they are not as pretty just by comparing themselves to Photoshop cleaned up images of some beauties. I think that that really does damage the self-esteem of a regular person. You are growing up fed up on that imagery, believing that you are not as attractive as everyone else. You never get to built a relationship with anyone cause you assume you are not good enough or pretty enough for anyone. And on the other hand, somebody else will also never date anyone because no one ever will fit the stereotype of an ideal beautiful man or woman.
So every girl tries so hard to look like some model, or actress, following the ideal woman’s look. And I think, that it seems that the ideal beauty will look like one person, with the same face and beauty features. It is like a small evolution, making all females have the same face. So many people tried to look like a stereotype of beauty, that today fashion agents are looking for somebody with unique interesting features. From the first part, we can see that the girl that was chosen had a unique face; she didn’t really fit the grid of a beauty, even though that they said she did. Everyone that fits that grid is no longer popular. Nowadays, we want to see somebody with an off the wall, off balanced face structure – big lips, wide eyes, little nose, and big forehead. I think that it is interesting that the definition of beauty changes from time to time.
I like this series cause it really makes your brain think about something else for once.
This has been an interesting conversation so far with very interesting subject matter. The part of The Human Face that I found interesting was the concept of Hollywood and their views on the beauty side of things. Perhaps the most interesting comment to me , which appears very obvious until one actually observes it, is the idea that in film, that the hero is almost every time the man with the symmetric face and the character with the asymmetric face is the villain. As a personal opinion, this is an interesting concept. Because yes you want your Hero to quickly be recognized as "the good guy" but at the same time it can be negative because it forces one to think that the not so good looking people are always the evil ones. Which is true in some films, But in the Movie Shrek for example, the roles are switched. The one with the "nice face" is the Villain, and the "ugly ogre" is the Hero.
Also, things such as skin and disfigurements become a thing that describes health and morality. For example, the evil witch in Snow White had a very disfigured face that was not pleasing at all. This automatically sets her up as the evil villain.
I believe jessica touched on a very interesting topic where she talked about this concept in design. Its funny how, symmetric faces are more "pleasing", though in design, more symmetric concepts are not really as successful or pleasing. So as designers, we push proportions playing with the character's identity and delivering that through his/her design. Though just as in cinema, the design of the character can aid him as a good or bad character.
Another interesting concept was the idea of cosmetic surgery and the strive for perfection. Its interesting that people strive for that ideal "Perfect face" though as they get older it requires more surgery for that perfect face. This lead me to one of the most interesting ideas of the film which was, that the diversity in our faces as we get older shows our achievements through life. Our faces show signs of hard work and achieved lives. So we begin to search less for " the perfect face" and begin to take more value in the imperfections that describe who we are.
“The Human Face” as a whole offers some interesting information on humans and our faces but overall there seems to be a focus on what a face should look like and to what proportions. I was actually quite shocked that someone could make a universal mask to fit what he defines as a “beautiful face” which would leave other individuals that don’t fall into the category to be grotesque. I find this simply absurd because everyone finds beauty in different things. One person may find someone extremely attractive while another may be highly indifferent to his or her appearance. There can not be a universal qualification for beauty. Obviously there are instances where a disfigurement or something has taken place and ruined a face but as is all aesthetics, beauty found in a human face or a flower or a painting is all based on personal preference which draws on many things in that have affect a person in their life. I’ve seen this video numerous times to date and each time I see it I react differently as I progress through life. At this point I am viewing it somewhat negatively.
“The Human Face” as a whole offers some interesting information on humans and our faces but overall there seems to be a focus on what a face should look like and to what proportions. I was actually quite shocked that someone could make a universal mask to fit what he defines as a “beautiful face” which would leave other individuals that don’t fall into the category to be grotesque. I find this simply absurd because everyone finds beauty in different things. One person may find someone extremely attractive while another may be highly indifferent to his or her appearance. There can not be a universal qualification for beauty. Obviously there are instances where a disfigurement or something has taken place and ruined a face but as is all aesthetics, beauty found in a human face or a flower or a painting is all based on personal preference which draws on many things in that have affect a person in their life. I’ve seen this video numerous times to date and each time I see it I react differently as I progress through life. At this point I am viewing it somewhat negatively.
I agree that it is very interesting that women are more subject to discretion based on physical appearance. Though it is not surprising considering that women have been (throughout most of western Europe, anyhow) a symbol of that which is natural beauty, and are also composed of mainly softer more organic shapes and forms. What I find most interesting here though are the default proportions that define beauty. The fact that even babies are attracted to smooth skin, full lips, and asymmetrically balanced proportion I feel is very important to the concept of what may be considered aesthetically pleasing art.
In this I say that the Greek cannons of art and beauty apply very much to the quality of art produced. I must admit that content is important, in the same way that an individuals personality can effect the way that we look at or see them, a work of arts concept content history or subject matter can effect the way we see it.
However the fact remains that, though beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, the human race has a very similar “eye”. And in considering that we may come to assume that just as an “unattractive” person may have less opportunity to present their contribution in the workplace, an “unattractive” painting may not get the chance to present it’s content to its viewers.
I really liked the segment on growing old gracefully, and how rather than turning to plastic surgery to make ourselves look younger, we show our true selves to the world. While youthful beauty is the luck of the genetic draw, we shape and train the muscles of the face throughout the years of our lives, and so our older faces reflect more of our personality. That explains why couples who have been together for decades tend to look more and more alike as the years pass- they are living the same experiences and most likely those experiences are effecting them in the same way.
However, there are exceptions to this, people with especially difficult lives might inadvertently be labeled as grumpy when in fact they have had much reason to frown or cry.
By this weekend I hope each person in the class has published a comment. When all of the comments are in by this Sunday evening, I will reflect on the combined comments.
One thing that recurred in many of the comments is the concern over the face mask as outlandish and excessively materialistic.
It is important to realize that this mask/tool was made to assist a plastic surgeon perform operations on severely injured or deformed faces not to insist on a Hollywood/measurable beauty standard of some sort.
The other thing to keep in mind is that 97% of people from cultures around the world who viewed faces close to the proportions on the mask, agreed with that such faces were most pleasing aesthetically/proportionately.
This means that there are universal predispositions toward balance and facial harmony-- this is not something to get upset about, we all know that there are inner qualities of compassion, care, wisdom, etc. that cannot be measured by a mask. The inner qualities are the important ones and are reflected on a face and read through the eyes and attitudes set into the face at as the years progress.
As someone said- a fashion model may be pretty but Mother Teresa is beautiful in ways "pretty" cannot touch.
Bill Havlicek
I thought that the segment on the mathematical proportions of the human face are a little misleading. The ratio of 1:1.618 being so beautiful I think has more to do with that just being the average of humanity more than it being something that is intrinsically beautiful. For example, if I got my hands on an isolated group of people who all were disfigured in the same way, no teeth for example, maybe they would find us all to be very ugly when they finally got to see us. However, the ratio of 1:1.618 is such a universal thing not just in ourselves but even in the animal kingdom it must stem from something even more basic such as the way genetic coding works.
You might not have to go quite that deep though to find the answer. I haven't done the research, but I would not be surprised to here that the same ratio also makes sense in engineering. If this was the case than perhaps are femurs 1.618 times the length of the tibia because that is what allows us to run the fastest. In retrospect though I think that might not be the case, again because of the universal nature of the ratio.
The videos went over allot about how we are evolving slowy towards a symetrical face. I am wondering where that is taking us and how far it will lead us away from indivual chareteristics. In one part Mr. Fini talks about how men are having trouble staying commited to one women because there is such an over population of attractive spouses. In the media we market this beauty in commercials which adds to the problem of non commitment. People cant look at one face on the cover of Maxim for to long because it come boring. We are training ourselves to point out isolated flaws in our physical appearances. Just like when he was saying that beauty is causing depression, because of our tendency to constantly compare ourselves to other perfections. In the video they are constantly talking about ratio, or basically shape relation ship, but how come they never talk about color relationship? Is it possible that skin color is becoming unified too? I researched a little about blind people and how they dream and apparently if someone is born blind it is extremely uncommon for results to show the ability to see form in a dream. Since they do not know how to construct an environment, they are not able to comprehend three dimensional structure. They do however see color, but it is said that since the blind mainly see with touch, it is common for them to have dreams where they are just interacting with the sensation of touch. In one experiment it is said that a blind person could figure out the surface of silver just by touching it. So if we respond to color that much, how much is color influencing our attraction to a human face?
To answer Joey's question:
So if we respond to color that much, how much is color influencing our attraction to a human face?
It doesn't, people come in different colors.
Greetings LCAD students of aesthetics and practitioners of the visual arts! I am a psychologist and a friend of Bill's, not an artist. I have taken great pleasure in reading your comments on the aesthetics of the human face!
Since your comments have focused so closely on human facial beauty I would like to offer a general explanation for why symmetry, skin clarity and specific proportions are all so universally appealing across ahuman cultures, as they most certainly are. It is because they indicate good physical health and genetic integrity or, more precisely, their absence indicates bad health; which highlights the probability of an unreliable mate.
Our aesthetic preferences in these regards are indeed hard-wired, and for very good evolutionary reasons. It is not accidental that the two sides of the body (as well as most of its individual parts) are what evolutionary biologists call “bi-laterally symmetrical”. As I presume everyone recognizes, evolution proceeds over vast periods of time by mutation and selection. Most mutations are undesirable simply because they are random, and those mutants die, but one of the most statistically likely classes of mutation is to simply grow whatever has been working well in the other direction (on the other side of the body). This is why symmetry is so pervasive in biology and why when it is violated it usually means (in the evolutionary sense) that there is something wrong. Beauty is the subjective experience that serves this rule (and others).
If this violates your sensibilities, consider the subjective experience of being cold. There is no mystery about the physical problem with excessive cold for warm blooded mammals. If we get too cold we die. The subjective experience of “being cold” has evolved in order to be unpleasant so that we will take whatever steps we need to take to make the feeling go away. Think about what you do when you feel cold (e.g. put on a sweater, build a fire). Even more dramatic is the subjective feeling of suffocation. Think about someone holding your head under water for 90 seconds and you will realize that you would do literally anything to get a breath. Victor Hugo rightly said that no man is more than 9 meals away from murder. Sorry, but its useful to know this when food is scarce.
Similarly for skin clarity. It is not that it is “inherently” beautiful to have clear skin, it is just that boils and rashes and pus indicate a problem that is sufficiently general to have warranted the evolution of a subjective experience to flag it. Ditto for all the standard proportions of the human face. It is not that the classical ratios are inherently beautiful, it is just that human evolution happened to turn out that way and deviations are generally a sign of some developmental problem. It is entirely accidental that we have 5 fingers on each hand and 5 toes on each foot, but since it turned out that way any more or less indicates a problem. This is true across cultures.
Now, before I make my case for why this apparently cold, reductive understanding of human facial beauty might be of any value to a group of talented young artists such as yourselves, I would like to point out that there are also a great many aspects of physical human beauty that are NOT determined by such universal considerations as symmetry, skin clarity, and proportionality. Take fatness, for example. Actually, in many cultures fat is regarded as beautiful, which makes perfect evolutionary sense since it indicates a good access to food. In fact, the relatively recent preference for thinness is probably a mere cultural expression of wealth, since thin people clearly have a reliable food supply. Hair color, height, nose length and innumerable other physical features are almost totally arbitrary and have therefore not had the benefit (or curse) of driving the evolution of universal subjective (aesthetic) judgments that discriminate for or against them. Neither is there any reason to suppose that symmetry, clarity or proportion have the same universal relationship to beauty in the representation of non-biological objects like abstract painting.
Now, I am not primarily concerned here with making an academic argument about the evolutionary biology of subjective aesthetics, but rather with offering something that might be of practical value to you as developing artists. I think you would probably be wise to recognize that there are, in fact, universal features of human facial beauty so that you can embody or violate them purposely. I think you would be wise to give some consideration to what features, exactly, fall into this category. Once you have formed an opinion about this you will, by extension, automatically have an opinion about which features are NOT in this category. You can then intentionally choose where to embody or violate the universal features and where to manipulate the arbitrary ones, or to push them to boundaries of your own device.
The reaction that you elicit from your audience will ALWAYS be a subjective human reaction which has universal aesthetic principles at its core and arbitrary cultural features encrusted on it. It is your unique privilege to explore this vast territory in a way that is accessible to the rest of us. Reductive insight like the suggestive sketch that I have drawn in my own medium (words) can only extend and enhance your artistic freedom. Please don't be afraid of reductive analysis from fear that it will subtract something from aesthetics; it will not!
Interesting that faces I most remember are too far from being ideal; too big nose, too high forehead and so on. The process of visualization in my imagination starts exactly from non perfect parts of their faces. For example, my friend with too long neck; during phone conversation with her the neck appears first in my imagination, then her face. … But neck, her neck first with very good crispy edges, than fuzzy head.
I have my own understanding about beauty.
I consider non perfect faces as a custom work of nature, one of a kind. I am, actually, planning to paint them.
Rare anti-beauty is the same inspirational and powerful as a regular beauty!
I deeply respect people who accept their natural condition; moreover, unattractive outlook can be converted in to privilege.
Beauty is a temporary condition.
I am curious, did you ever met truly handsome man or naturally beautiful woman being at the same time really deep minded, having high achievements in education and carrier (super models, movie stars are not included; they are inhabited in different dimension)?
I found this series to be very interesting and came away knowing a bit more about the golden ratio and the connection and explanation it holds to our perceptions of beauty. From what I've learned of the ratio it accounts for all natural forms and generally matches the composition of artwork that we find visually pleasing. Knowing that our bodies as a human form also match this measurement alludes to the reason to our attractiveness towards things fitting the golden mean's mathematical ratio. On a subconscious level we are naturally drawn to perfect proportions. Its why we like the looks of some paintings, or artworks more than others. Just like an attractive face it subconsciously connects with our mathematical makeup.
It was interesting to see the relation of the athletes proportional perfection and their performance ability. I came away with the impression that from finding the golden mean's likeness to an athletes face it will also relay their physical strength.
I think in terms of beauty our human instincts and subconscious make us look for these qualities in others as well as in ourselves. Just as in the runner with more perfect proportions performing better, we find these qualities attractive for that very reason. When we look at the beauty in others, especially in mates, we are looking for the best performance possible in the string of things seen as desirable in the other person.
Of course in my opinion I still only see beauty as skin deep, but I couldn't deny preferring the features of a perfectly proportioned face according to the golden ratio. The measurements of a person's face will still never account for the measurement of a person's personality. We are becoming so surrounded by perfect proportions that, for me, I'm feeling perfection overload a bit. Before the beautiful were rarities, but these days its everywhere. From good genes, to plastic surgery to perfect proportions being blown up on billboards. Its everyday we see a pretty face. How many beautiful proportions are we going to have to see until it is no longer considered beautiful? Will it ever not be considered beautiful considering this ratio is found in every natural thing?
The scientific development of the ratio 1:1.618 is most disenchanting. What a wonderfully humanistic concept: beauty is proportion and symmetry. Do not get me wrong, I am not attempting sarcasm at this point, but when one finds out how off their proportions are to the golden ratio, then what? Oh well, guess I'll wear more red lipstick to let potential mates know that I'm in the mood. That'll distract them from my lazy eye, right? The fact that one ear is smaller than the other?
Even by a millimeter, those imperfections can cause chaos, especially if a person decides to compare their face to others who are "gifted" with perfect proportions. When we rely on science, sometimes it comes down to two answers; either it is, or it isn't.
Maybe this is when the "eye of the beholder" grey area happens.
I was offended when Pierce Brosnan asked himself if maybe he was too attractive. I understood what he meant, longing to be an accomplished actor and focus on his trade. However, looking in the mirror, I have never known the satisfaction of having to ask that question nor do I personally know anyone else to do the same.
I have seen parts of this film in the past, but now seeing the film with a fresh eye I was surprised how universal the “ideal” of beauty exists. I had no idea that children would naturally gravitate toward a more “pleasing” face. The question that comes to mind is: are we then naturally prejudiced toward attractive people and/or is beauty part of survival of the fittest?
The common denominator in the film is that, whether we like it or not beauty is a big business. Beauty sells and is a global industry that is continually growing. And in today’s age of information this industry of beauty caters to the young impressionable individual. The worlds population is becoming a mass of Plastic People” that have fat sucked out of one part of the body then injected elsewhere, there are nose jobs and breast augmentations, face lifts and Botox. But in the end everyone is still the same person underneath. All this plastic surgery that emphasizes beauty is a poor message to send to our young. I’m not a prude, I too like to look at a pretty face but in the end I need more than that. Looks fade but a mind is there forever…or until we go senile with old age!
The subject of beauty is held too high as a commodity in our society! We all need to step back and rethink our values. For the people that have been tragically mutilated, plastic surgery is a fantastic option. But for the common person….Maybe the best form of self-improvement is to look in the mirror and find “your” own inner beauty and let that out for the world to see!
Hannah, Alex and Efrain
Thanks for posting your comments each one of you offered a very thoughtful response to the film and your views are well-taken and well expressed.
I hope all in the Aesthetics class take the time to read them- especially the shy non-writing students who in fact have much insight to offer us all. Soon we will have their thoughts to ponder too!
Bill
Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder? According to this video, there is a certain level of agreement about what kinds of faces people perceive as more beautiful than others. One segment showed a study where 97% ranked a layout of faces in the same order of most beautiful to least. This showed that people seem to see beauty in terms of how symmetrical one’s face is. The faces that were least attractive had different severities of facial disfigurement, which were more asymmetrical. I have heard this theory about beauty before, where celebrities are generally perceived as beautiful people because of how symmetrical there faces are. When it comes to portraits in art, I would not agree with this standard to determine aesthetic value. While symmetrical beauty is a way to go for advertising, it is not something that I would look for in my portrait paintings. The character of a face is much more interesting to me than the perfection of eyes, nose, mouth placement.
In the video, the man with the condition that caused his left eye to gradually drop lower than his right eye, albeit a misfortunate occurrence, made me think of how interesting his face would be in a painting. But, I think that also had to do with the fact that he was someone that was well loved and happy no matter his appearance. He did not let that disfigurement take away his appreciation for living, which is something that we can all admire.
Beautiful people in art are always well represented with regards to their social perspective of beauty throughout history. Western ideology of beauty is very much instilled into my perceptions of beauty, but I don’t feel it is the ultimate indicator of what makes someone truly “beautiful” through and through.
I'd like to ad to something Kait wrote in 2008, "The answer is what is underneath" and " beauty is a complex and multi-dimensional aesthetic in the arts and in life." I could not agree more.
Of course everyone can agree that certain features and a balanced arrangement of these features on a human face can satisfy a general perception of beauty.
But I think anyone with any depth of soul can say they've seen or met someone with a "perfect face" by general standards that they found to be quite ugly.
That is because to be a beautiful face and a beautiful person are quite different. What exists in a person beyond an exterior defines a deeper sense of beauty. Visuals with out meaning seem to loose power and influence. Artists know this because if you paint something "beautiful" and someone asks you "why did you paint this? what is the story?" and you simply say "because I felt like it" the beauty of your piece will have significantly less impact on people. In contrast, if the outward beauty of a work of art is supported by a story, a life experience, a passion, a social commentary, or tragedy, then the impact of beauty and the connection viewers feel to it will be significantly stronger and more lasting. The same is true of people. Because what is lasting is connection and people want to feel it, as well as see it.
Camilla said...
I'd like to ad to something Kait wrote in 2008, "The answer is what is underneath" and " beauty is a complex and multi-dimensional aesthetic in the arts and in life." I could not agree more.
Of course everyone can agree that certain features and a balanced arrangement of these features on a human face can satisfy a general perception of beauty.
But I think anyone with any depth of soul can say they've seen or met someone with a "perfect face" by general standards that they found to be quite ugly.
That is because to be a beautiful face and a beautiful person are quite different. What exists in a person beyond an exterior defines a deeper sense of beauty. Visuals with out meaning seem to loose power and influence. Artists know this because if you paint something "beautiful" and someone asks you "why did you paint this? what is the story?" and you simply say "because I felt like it" the beauty of your piece will have significantly less impact on people. In contrast, if the outward beauty of a work of art is supported by a story, a life experience, a passion, a social commentary, or tragedy, then the impact of beauty and the connection viewers feel to it will be significantly stronger and more lasting. The same is true of people. Because what is lasting is connection; we're drawn to it. For most it's not enough to just visually experiene beauty, we need to feel connected to it and moved by it.
it is interesting that we find this appealing in the most random things when in actuality these things are not random at all i find it fascinating that almost everything that seems natural can be broken down into formulas like pythagoras finding the ratio of appealing sounds and chord structures as well as providing us with the ratio that us as artists can use to make almost any images visually compelling, also that we can actually use this formulas to make the unnatural look natural
Post a Comment