Photo: Lars Klove for The New York Times / Manipulation by Tommer Leyvand
Tommer Leyvand and colleagues have created a "beautification engine," a software program that uses a mathematical formula to alter a person's face into what theoretically is the more "beautiful" version, while retaining "unmistakable similarity" to the original:
Studies have shown that there is surprising agreement about what makes a face attractive. Symmetry is at the core, along with youthfulness; clarity or smoothness of skin; and vivid color, say, in the eyes and hair. There is little dissent among people of different cultures, ethnicities, races, ages and gender.
Yet, like the many other attempts to use objective principles or even mathematical formulas to define beauty, this software program raises what psychologists, philosophers and feminists say are complex, even disturbing, questions about the perception of beauty and a beauty ideal.
To what extent is beauty quantifiable? Does a supposedly scientific definition merely reflect the ideal of the moment, built from the images of pop culture and the news media?
Comments (29)
What's the new black this season? Do I look fat in this?
Then again, I thought the before picture posted here looked just as fake as the after picture, so what do I know?
The unaltered pictures all looked either better than or the same as the altered ones, IMO.
But if you can't see the improvement in this woman's picture here, you're in denial.
Actually, studies show that we find faces that are just slightly off of "perfect" symmetry to be the most beautiful. Completely "perfect" symmetry seems a little boring and forgettable to us... (probably something to do with wanting enough symmetry to indicate health, with a little variation to indicate genetic variation)
ah, yes, the three pilliars on which society relies. :P
I like the peculiarities that make faces much more than the blandly perfect.
Humans respond to symmettry not Barbie.
If there is symmetry it is attractive irrespective.
The media have decided that thin is most attractive when it is actually the ratio of hip to waist that is most attractive regardless of weight.
I find this homogenisation of people sort of loathesome
This symmetry thing is utter bunkum. There is no such thing as a symmetrical face. This is a latter day version of Phrenology.
What kind of washed up, second rate hack "scientist" spends his life investigating "beauty" in any event?
One would think that there were more urgent questions facing the species...
And it is in no way like phrenology, which said that you could ascertain the character of a person from the lumps on their head.
The idea that people are attracted to symmetrical faces says nothing about the character of that face or draws any other meaning aside from it's level of ...symmetrery.
How do people really benefit from this, when all is said in done? People get new ways to feel bad about themselves? Is this research for plastic surgeons? Another way to take your self-esteem and sell it back to you?
For instance, a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7 for women has been considered the ideal proportion for thousands of years. For whatever reason, it confers the most health and presumably fertility of the various proportions. There's gotta be some underlying reason why different cultures at different times in history find it most appealing.
What's the new black this season? Do I look fat in this?