beauty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

Okay if we're going to talk about physical beauty, scientifically symmetry = beauty.

Good bone structure, a symmetrical face = beautiful.

But that is beauty in it's rawest form. You may have no warm feelings to that person who possesses that beauty but they're still beautiful.

And then there's the people you fall in love with ( i dont just mean in the romantic way ) they suddenly become the most beautiful creatures in the world, aided by your feelings towards them.

Beauty like i said, can be found and appreciated and acknowledged without thought or feeling.
Other forms of beauty can develop only because your feelings towards whatever it may be, develop.

It's like those couples you see together and one of them is extremely beautiful, the other quite unattractive, and you always wonder why - but you know. Because that other person, the one who seems beautiful to you - see's the world in the other, see's everything beautiful, right, true, good and pure within them - and appreciates every line, mark, scar, spot, everything.

Love in my opinion, brings attention to beauty. Or perhaps it creates it, i'm not really sure. It doesn't matter.

The second beauty i described, the beauty which you see because that person is so beautiful on the inside and for whatever reason it is, you love them, out runs the first by miles.

How that person makes you feel makes them beautiful.

---

Yes I agree, physical beauty = symmetry, but also proportion, and being closest to the golden ratio. A celebrity considered most beautiful in my country has very accurate facial ratio to the golden ratio. Let us not forget that different time era and culture brings in the different idea of beauty, little by little. The Renaissance believed, pink and white fleshy, pudgyness as beautiful as it is depicted in paintings of its era. The time of Cleopatria, they thought beauty was depicted by strong eyes, therefore they emphasised the eye by dark coal. Today,in the western world, large, puffy lips are depicted as sexiness and beauty, where as in the asian world, esp in Japan, small, tiny lips are favoured.

Beauty has nothing to do with symmetry. It has to do with attitude. If you look at artwork spanning thousands of years, the identifying features of beauty are all different, yet somehow the paintings themselves are beautiful. It is the way they are presented, not what is presented, that makes something beautiful. Symmetry has really very little to do with it, I would think light is more central.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Beauty has nothing to do with symmetry. It has to do with attitude. If you look at artwork spanning thousands of years, the identifying features of beauty are all different, yet somehow the paintings themselves are beautiful. It is the way they are presented, not what is presented, that makes something beautiful. Symmetry has really very little to do with it, I would think light is more central.

---

Let us compare the faces of Audrey Hepburn and Courtney Love. Instantly you will get a simple message to the brain that will inform you who best represents beauty. Poor Courtney lacks symmetry, as Audrey has symmetry that is close to perfect. Proportion close to the golden ratio links to perfect symmetry that induce the head turning affect. Looking only at the face alone, and judging beauty, it depends mostly on symmetry and proportion.

Attitude is a completely different story that can link with karisma, charm and grace that emphasises the beauty of the physical form. Attitude I have to say belongs to characteristic and behavioural aspects whereas symmetry is all physical. For example, body builders aim not on size and toning, but more into symmetry.

Painting of people or anything in general? The reason why paintings look so appealing and some so harmonious is because of the composition, compositions that are followed by lines and angles of symmetry. Take the example, lets say da Vinci's The Last Supper. The masterpiece overall can be considered as beautiful, relaxing and complete. Composition is the main reason for this effect where there are perfect lines of symmetry and perfect geometric shapes. Most ingenious painters have manipulated symmetry to create flat works on canvas that hinders the human heart and inevitably link with our own definition of beauty.

Light is not important, all it does is emphasise the beauty that holds symmetry. It is true that without light we wouldnt tell Audrey and Courtney apart however, more light doesnt help Courtney becoming anything close to Grace Kelly or Natalie Portman.

Nah, I think symmetry is useful, but not essential. Keep in mind, people used to add birthmarks to their faces to add to beauty, but in theory, that would break symmetry, rendering such an obsession invalid.

Symmetry has little to do with physical beauty as far as I'm concerned. It neglects both personal and cultural aspects of beauty eg the idea of a beauty spot in times past.

Beauty? Acck! It certainly is difficult to define... even as an artist. I would like to think that there is some objective means of defining it or recognizing it... but I suspect this is not so. If anything... it is largely established culturally.

Let us take something like sexual attractiveness. One would somewhat assume that there is something of a universal agreement as to what amounts to a beautiful human body or face. Perhaps such exists within the culture of the moment... largely as the result of certain faces and body-types being put forward as the ideal. But if we look across history...

In the Renaissance there was something of a admiration of women with full a full, moon-like face with high-domed foreheads... to the point that the hair was often plucked back. Pale, pale skin was also the ideal, as well as full lips worthy of Angelina Jolie:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3473/...5ffd09e0_o.jpg

This ideal can be seen in endless idealized portraits of the period... including Leonardo's Mona Lisa.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3532/...936aedba_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3358/...684c233f_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3478/...b471e537_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3342/...9b5760df_o.jpg

The ideal female body was composed of small, high breasts, a full stomach (suggestive of health/wealth... ie, well-fed... and fertility) pale skin, and light (blonde) hair.

The ideal male was seen as rather androgynous... even feminine in features:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3385/...827d4f39_o.jpg

Anything too masculine or muscular was seen as lacking grace... sophistication... civilized airs... too bestial. The ideal male physique was similarly androgynous. The bodies were lithe and lean and sinuous... in a word: feminine. There was little or no body hair, and if the penis was displayed it tended toward the small in scale... again avoiding suggestions of the bestial nature:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3529/...72b69468_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3260/...a353a23a_o.jpg

With the first serious studies in anatomy and physiology my Michelangelo and Leonardo, there was a shift toward a more muscular figure... but excepting Michelangelo... the ideal still remained rather lithe... hairless... and umm...err... small in girth:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3430/...7f0c691c_o.jpg

One might contrast the Renaissance ideals with that of the 18th century. In the era of the Rococo, the ideal woman has become far more full figured... round and soft and slightly pudgy all over:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3086/...204f4a2c_o.jpg

Large doe-like eyes and a casual sense of nonchalance... the hair falling freely... hat cocked to one side... rather than the rigid formalism preferred during the Renaissance... were the ideal in women:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3268/...d5fcb82c_o.jpg

As in our own time... there was an obsession with youth. Images of couples gathered together often suggested children or even dolls at play. Women strove to appear "girlish"... and many young girls whom we might find far-too-young (although considering Britney Spears or Miley Cyrus... perhaps not) became the erotic ideal... even the mistresses of older men (such as Louis XV's 14-year old mistress seen here):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3519/...5605903b_o.jpg

The ideal man... on the other hand... was similarly "boyish" in nature... whether young...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3478/...fbabaa80_o.jpg

or older...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3119/...7580bbd4_o.jpg

Certainly these ideals of beauty share some elements with our own... and differ greatly in other instances. These ideals differ even further when one looks to cultures outside of just those of Western Europe and North America. China, Japan, India, the Middle-East, Africa all present unique standards and ideals of beauty. It is always intriguing to contrast the voluptuous, full-figured ideals of India:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3481/...41e60ede_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3310/...3a35ffa1_o.jpg

With the ideal of refined elegance found in the japanese notions of erotic beauty:

http://http://farm4.static.flickr.co...fbb242f3_o.gif

http://http://farm4.static.flickr.co...96083f59_o.jpg

One of the most intriguing aspects of the Japanese notion of beauty (or the 18th and 19th centuries) is the lack of nudes. The nude itself was seldom seen as erotic. Most blatant erotic images, such as the famous "Shunga" prints, focus upon display of sexual organs... telling details such as curling toes and disheveled hair... and swirls of elegant satin and silk robes:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3476/...e9024674_o.jpg

It would seem that if the most inherent aspects of our ideals of beauty... those related to sexual desire... are relevant and impacted greatly by culture... the ideals of beauty in art are no less universal.

When it comes to beauty, yes every culture and era and whatever it may be had different opinions of beauty,

high foreheads, full lips

black hair, pale skin

tan skin, blond hair

etc etc

but that simply doesn't make you beautiful. SYMMETRY does.
Proportion, bone structure, a well structured face.

First you must have the face, the BONE STRUCTURE. Because having full lips or.. red hair, doesn't automatically make you beautiful.

You could take a very unattractive person and dye their hair, give them contacts, pump collagen into their lips - to whatever culture you see fit, and it does not make them beautiful.

Why?
because like i said, it's dependant on the structure of the face. The balance of the face.
The positioning of the nose to the eyes, the distance between features, the type of cheek bones - the jaw line etc.


saying simply
that one culture finds a woman beautiful because she has
black hair, pale skin and a long neck means nothing, because if her face isn't structured well, she simply isn't beautiful.

It's like people who say their type is tanned and blonde.
I know a whole lot of unattractive people who are tanned and blonde. It doesn't make you beautiful. Bone structure does.

Angelina Jolie was mentioned before - she simply isnt beautiful because of her lips. Notice her cheekbones, the shape of her eyes, the distance between her nose and eyes, all of it, its about structure.

The idea of symmetry as a universal standard of beauty may be as much to be desired as a universal standard of beauty when speaking of sexual attractiveness... but I think ultimately it is equally fleeting. As a visual artist I am greatly intrigued and seduced by visual beauty... especially at a time in which art often seems openly hostile to any notion of "beauty" while the larger culture seems obsessed with it when we look to fashion, and film, and music. Performers of the most marginal talents are raised to the realm of stardom based far more often upon appearances than content and ability. But lets return to beauty and symmetry in art.

Certainly there are any number of cultures who presented symmetry as an ideal... this is especially common in cultures that put great value upon formality... continuity... the sense of the eternal:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3514/...c8134f84_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3124/...08587822_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3102/...e060d992_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3265/...1ba58b52_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/...fd20226e_o.jpg

However... there are other cultures that have placed far more value upon the sense of dynamism... drama... movement... vitality. In these the ideals of beauty are often far more asymmetrical:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3113/...6b0ddd23_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3394/...c20d618c_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3316/...30e19473_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3268/...b0785984_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3523/...fbb242f3_o.gif

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3378/...e5552b2e_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3112/...19da5ba9_o.jpg

Beyond the issues of symmetry... what is considered to be "beautiful" or elegant in terms of color, line, space, value, light, etc... varies greatly throughout the whole of art history. Elements that are key to one artist's work of unquestionable beauty may be found in other works of absolute mediocrity... while elements that appear ghastly... garish... or crude in one instance may lend the greatest strength to another artist's work. I'm tempted to say that it is all in the eye of the beholder... but then, as the elitist I am I will admit that certain eyes behold better than others.:D

You're talking about beauty in art, i'm talking about beauty in a face.

I think many people can find the answer to what beauty is in themselves.

If i presented you with two pictures, one of a woman with brilliant bone structure
and a woman with no prominant cheek bones and a poor jaw line - you would, i'm sure, choose the first.

When it comes to beauty, yes every culture and era and whatever it may be had different opinions of beauty,

high foreheads, full lips

black hair, pale skin

tan skin, blond hair

etc etc

but that simply doesn't make you beautiful. SYMMETRY does.
Proportion, bone structure, a well structured face.

First you must have the face, the BONE STRUCTURE.

saying simply
that one culture finds a woman beautiful because she has
black hair, pale skin and a long neck means nothing, because if her face isn't structured well, she simply isn't beautiful.

It's like people who say their type is tanned and blonde.
I know a whole lot of unattractive people who are tanned and blonde. It doesn't make you beautiful. Bone structure does.

Angelina Jolie was mentioned before - she simply isnt beautiful because of her lips. Notice her cheekbones, the shape of her eyes, the distance between her nose and eyes, all of it, its about structure.

And what, exactly, is the formula for this structural ideal? The Renaissance ideal in women preferred a high forehead... far greater ratio of forehead to face. The classic Hollywood male lead was commonly quite rugged in structure... with strong jawlines and harder angular forms... quite removed from the delicate, androgynous features preferred by the Renaissance.

Of course... unless the person has a deformity... the human face is largely symmetrical. There are some slight "imperfections"... but these can be just as much a point of attraction (as in Elvis' or Cindi Crawford's lips that curl... even smirk... to one side) as not. It would be next to impossible to reduce the magnetism or attraction of Marlon Brando or Marylin Monroe's face to any formula let alone mere symmetry.

Who do you find beautiful?

If i presented you with two pictures, one of a woman with brilliant bone structure
and a woman with no prominant cheek bones and a poor jaw line - you would, i'm sure, choose the first.

Again... you have not defined "brilliant bone structure" or "poor jaw line". Perhaps I might agree with your selections of an example of each... but there is also the equal likelihood that I would find any number of women with similar "brilliant bone structures" less than gorgeous due to other elements that attract or repel me. There is also issue that what we define as a "brilliant bone structure" here and now is greatly influenced by our culture... by the images that have bombarded us for years... and that this ideal is in no way a universal or eternal ideal.

I really dont believe that its simply the "images" we're bombarded with through the media
I think humanity has had an understanding of beauty for a very long time. And i stand by symmetry = beauty.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k1...dycrawford.jpg