You most certainly did. Do you recognize:
“It’s pretty easy to see how that would have happened. The guy who figured out the points, I assume back in the 50s, put together a bunch of Caucasian models, averaged their faces together and then found a way to draw lines such that the golden ratio would appear.”
All of the children of George V seem to have been good-looking people, with Prince George, Duke of Kent in particular bearing a resemblance to William and Harry. (“George” VI, actually Albert, was the father of Elizabeth II, and both her and her now-deceased sister Margaret were pretty pretty. Of the successive generation, young Princess Anne looked cute af, and princes Andrew and Edward look like basically decent looking hearty and hale fellows. Which leaves us with Charles. Basically, the only one who looked notably weird was/is Charles. I don’t think even he would deny this fact.
Neither of his sons looked very much like him; this led to some speculation that another guy was their real father, but that seems doubtful.
If I say that Clever Hans found the answers to math problems through reading body language, not by doing math, would you say that I am claiming that Clever Hans invented mathematics? If so, then I can only say that you are not good at correctly parsing my statements.
To reiterate what you have quoted, the guy made a design based on the Golden Ratio. He did not pick a square grid or something scientific like that and allow the chips to fall where that would. Intentionally or not, he cheated the system to produce not discover the Golden Ratio in people’s figure, just as I might use cherry picking to produce a result in history that simply ain’t so.
You couldn’t have spent 2 minutes on google? Here: Beauty in the Human Face and the Golden Ratio
Besides, the majority of “beautiful” people won’t fit. It’s a theoretical concept, not a definition of beauty.
Check out Ms. Most Perfect Face in that link. Very pretty? Undoubtedly. As beautiful as “my contenders” for "most beautiful on earth? Not hardly.
Btw, those contenders* would include Lupita N’yongo, Charlize Theron, Fan Bingbing, and the above-mentioned Ms. Turlington. FWIW, my 16-year-old son’s top picks for “famous women he’d want to date” are Taraji P. Henson and Michelle Obama. (Beauty played into those choices.). Do any of those people fit? Some, I assume. All? I doubt it.
- I started coming up with my contenders after seeing Gwyneth Paltrow on a magazine cover proclaiming her “the most beautiful woman in the world.” I thought to myself, “what’s she got on Lupita?” Obvious answer, “publicists willing to pay to get her on the cover of a magazine saying she’s the most beautiful woman in the world.”
Is there anywhere on the web where we can see pictures of more symmetrical faces compared to less symmetrical faces? And not those sites where they take a photo of a person and make it so both sides look like their left side, or both sides look like their right side. I’m not great at detecting when a face is symmetrical, and without clear examples of symmetrical faces as compared to less symmetrical but still normal-looking faces (since creating a mirror image of one side of a photograph often creates cross eyes or an odd facial expression), it’s hard for me to tell how much validity to give this idea.
-
How many families have any Hollywood-beautiful members at all?
-
What Amelia Windsor are you guys looking at? Are you THAT easily fooled by makeup? She’s an ordinary looking woman; if you walked through a university campus you’d see a thousand young women that good looking or more.
-
I don’t get the notion the Royal Family is bad looking. Have a look at the Queen’s wedding photos; she was a perfectly attractive young woman, not a raving beauty but just as pretty as Lady Amelia Windsor, and Prince Philip was a very handsome man. Prince Harry is very handsome - he’s a much more handsome man than he was a boy. Prince Charles is goofy looking but there’s some of those in every family.
Obviously Meghan Markle really raises the average, but being beautiful is one of the reasons we’ve heard of her. That ain’t a fair comparison.
Symmetry is pretty established as important in attracting a mate in many animal species. It’s the Golden Ratio of facial proportions that has people trying to “debunk” it.
Pretty much all of them, I think. Making it in Hollywood is about more than looks.
You’re right, Steve Buscemi is not a good looking man, but surely to Christ you knew I didn’t mean Steve Buscemi.
At least for females this simply isn’t true. Yes you might get the occasional Rebel Wilson but she will always be the butt of the joke for her appearance. Never will you see her in a serious roll.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Eh, only if you’re on the CW. Other actors are maybe in the top 10 percentile and actually have to know how to act.
I’m not trying to debunk anything so much as see clear examples of more and less symmetrical faces, that are pictures of actual phases and not doctored images. I feel like facial symmetry is a particularly hard physical feature for me to detect in comparison to other traits that are considered attractive, such as how much body fat you have or how thick your hair is or how clear your skin is.
But my main point is that mere symmetry isn’t the point under discussion. I know this isn’t what you asked for but it is more to the point:
Face altered to conform with golden ratio/“beauty mask”
Her face is pretty symmetrical to start with.
Haha, Buscemi is the man, even if he’s not a handsome one. Though he looks cute in his portrait from the FDNY back in the day.
What I mean, though, is that you can walk around in any major city in America and see men and women who are attractive enough that they could be movie stars, IF they had the acting ability, the luck, and desire. I disagree with the idea that there’s such a thing as “Hollywood beautiful.” Look at big name actors, both male and female, out of makeup and costume and grooming, and they look basically like normal people. Good looking, but normal.
Let me explain how that works. Mathematically that is.
Assume we could rate the females from 1- the worst, to 10 - absolute best.
Here’s the formula.
R+W= RC (corrected)
Take rating, 3 perhaps, add wealth, >7 million perhaps. 3+7=10. Therefore, all royals are solid 10s.
There is no doubt she’s the best looking female british royal, in, like, forever.
Kate’s more my type though.
Haha I read that article and thought to myself “If I can’t even figure out who has a symmetrical face, there’s no way I’m going to be able to figure out whose faces best conform to the golden ratio!” But I see your point; the article linked to in the OP talks about how Markle’s face aligns with the golden ratio.
This Steve Buscemi?
Not true. When I was at college, I worked in a book I store in Santa Barbara. One day, girl walked in. Dude, she glowed from within. She wasn’t just beautiful, she might as well have been a different species.
Turns out it was Kathy Ireland, a couple of years before she started appearing in the SI Swimsuit edition. To be clear, she’s not really my type, it’s just that her sheer presence was a phenomenon - everyone stopped in the store, male and female, to look at her. I can’t think of another time that happened this way.
And yes, when she spoke to ask for help to find a book, her voice was so squeaky helium high I nearly giggled. This became a thing for her; IIRC she had extensive vocal coaching so she could come across more credibly. And of course now she’s a bazillionaire with her furniture business, etc.
But, yeah, I’ve seen “Star Beauty” in real life.
Have to admit she looks pretty good in the second picture
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk