BEAUTY: who, what, when, where, why and how?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04 April 2005   #46
Originally Posted by Enayla: I'm not so sure that character and beauty are two entirely separate concepts. To me they're not, anyway. One can obviously have character without beauty, but I'm not sure if I've ever met anyone I'd consider beautiful who did not also have character.

vacant stare...the deer in headlights... People that smile always seem a hundred times more attractive than those who don't.

What I find compelling is pulling off "character/demeanor" in artwork to get that personality accross. In reality when you get to know someone your perception of their beauty evolves (better or worse). Someone looking at a painting is likely a stranger to your perception and that's the big challenge to me.

Old 04 April 2005   #47
Yes indeed, it's not just number crunching. But look at the reoccurances, they even think the universe has the shape of a dodecahedron of phi! In physics they want to measure time in factoring phi. Maybe I'm just missing something. As far just growing that way, you call it a natural way to grow but why then? Do you call it natural because you are used to it or is there a logical reason to say growing any other way is not preferrable.

Are you telling me that there's just that type of person that you like? With those certain ways? I find that a tad bit narrowing the choices to be honest. What if you take the time to look at others who are not that way. I find that if I just take the time I find a lot more in people! But who knows. Could be just me being ignorant.
modelling practice #1
Old 04 April 2005   #48
Jan-Mark -- wellll... yes and no, depending on how you see it. I love hanging out with people of all kinds. I find all manners of people attractive and I'm fascinated by many different kinds of beauty. But the ones that bowl me over, that wow me, that make me go bug-eyed for one reason or other - those are the ones with class and poise and a gleam in their eye. I think that's a lot less narrowing it down than myriads of people saying, for instance, that they only like blondes or maybe only girls with big jugs, or perhaps slim, fat, or small-nosed people. So I find graceful people beautiful, I can't help it, I find it fascinating with people who take care of themselves.
I can resist everything but temptation.


Painting eyes
Painting hair
Old 04 April 2005   #49
There is a very OLD thread about this.
What are the proportions of beauty?
And one of the ideas that was brought up, was the concept of the proportions
of beauty and the golden mean.

The idea is that beauty is based on propotions and can be calculated.

:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

Last edited by RobertoOrtiz : 04 April 2005 at 05:52 PM.
Old 04 April 2005   #50
When you put it that way, I agree. Allthough I don't necessarily have a standard for it. I find some people covered with piercing but nice ones, quite attractive. Good tattoos for instance also the same thing. But that's not taking care of rouself imo. And don't take it too personal!
But I can't stand narrow-mindedness. Anti-reasonables I'd call them.

Forgot to say that I think they are two separate things for sure! But one doesn't outweigh the other, I find statues with extremely beautiful features, just extremely beautiful! Basically if they were real people I'd want them to have beautiful personalities too. I guess in art we try to convey emotion so in art they should always be considered alongside eachother.

edit: or don't take it personal at all, just saying!
And Ia agree with Mr. Ortiz. I see the proof here at .
modelling practice #1
Old 04 April 2005   #51
Originally Posted by Stahlberg: ...I just wanted to reiterate - imo there's nothing mysterious and miraculous about the Golden Mean and the Fibonacci series and all that....
Actually, you can tie this in with your evolutionary/survival theory of beauty.

These ratios occur frequently in nature. Animals which evolved to not desire plants and animals which followed these sequences missed out on the majority of things in our world which can be used/consumed.

The pressures of natural selection lead to favoring those who desired items following these ratios.

If the natural growth of plants and animals followed and entire different ratio or iterative sequence, then I expect that we would fiind that beautiful instead.
Stan Slaughter
We have enough youth, how about a Fountain of Smart?

Old 04 April 2005   #52
Were it not for the fact that it's an issue of physics.

I think the basic physics in our bodies predetermines a lot of things. Among others a set path for things to follow. SOme of it is just basic naural selection yes. But I don't think we ever had the choice to like anything else. We might have chosen to breed with ugly creatures but we'd simply not "get off" on it. Just my opinion though.
modelling practice #1
Old 04 April 2005   #53
What, you people want a recipy? You believe that this is making cakes?

Look back in your life and your way of seeing things. What I consider beautifull changes everyday and it expands.

Picasso told that "art spins allways around sex, misticism and death". Maybe this is too linear. But I believe that making art is also about searching, or discovering beauty. Or grace, as Jeff Buckley told.

Realize that your need to have a single answer to achieve beauty comes by a need of ego's confort. And not meaning to offend, it's stupid to think that way. There is no universal truth, and you know that.

Open up your minds and never stop learning.

luv [*]
Art serves conciousness.

Old 04 April 2005   #54
Im not an artist nor someone who would admit he judged people by their looks, however I would like to care my opinion and thoughts about beauty, afterwards Ill comment some of the mentioned points and ideas.

My first thought is that there is no rules, nothing attractive by force other then a healthy figure, as in, not to fat, not to skinny. I guess this is mainly for the pity I find in these people. It might be explained by Stahlberg theory.

I admire the look of Johnny Depp, as well as hes great acting talent relevant to this topic, he got close to no muscle, yet he is constantly admired for his great look, what proves the masculine Ideal to be far of ideal, in practice.

I tend to find curves attractive in pictures as it tends to make a better composition, but with this I am not stating that I prefer females in art. Mainstream and average women carry a curved figure. I love curves, this might explain the fact that muscles were made sexy in the first place, they break up the stiff body a medium sized man would carry, in theory. However huge muscles are not really beautiful, they are rather nasty and ugly, big bold folding out of the skin in a revolting manner, unnecessarily taking place and increasing the muscled mans weight. For the men, I prefer a female body structure, this might explain the popularity homosexuals got with Norwegian women. Personally I got a very feminine body form, and for some reason this seem to bother the men more than it bothers the women. Thus, the male muscle hype is just a male thing, made by men, for men.

I also find Asia Argento highly attractive, she carry a very natural face, so I would conclude that being natural is being beautiful. But what is a natural face?
I would guess it to be just a face, without strange veins or similar coming out from place to place. Scars can be attractive, tattoos, piercings and such can all be attractive just if they are not overdone.

I think that I can honestly say that it is easier to say what is ugly. Oily hair, small dune-beards, yellow teeth and worse, fat people because you pity them, skinny people because you pity them, weird long faces until youre used to it, and no expressions ever... and that would be it.

As for the rest of the body, I got little to say about that. Bout the eyes and the hair is located on the head, and those are my favourite things. Hair because its entire personal, and its reflecting you completely until youre a hairless middle-aged or older man. Eyes reflect peoples emotions.

Originally Posted by Lunatique: Im not a fan of exposing flesh and calling it sexy either.
Flesh is different to beauty. Flesh and nudity is a cheep way to call for the hormones to work, and they work because they have to. Its a natural law that the male hormone have to react to flesh, otherwise humanity would never have understood that we had to reproduce, and humanity would never understand how. However beauty is different. Beauty is more then desire, its deep and intense. Flesh is just random, really random.

Originally Posted by jmBoekestein: The point here is beauty. And you latter posters seem to go for character. Im really curious, and just curious and not critisiZing, whether youd find a person attractive if he was deformed and ugly but a nice person?

Yes. The worst kind of person is the ego, the Nazi, the discriminative and the abusive. Someone with horrible defamations would be anything but that. If you refer to someone whos just as bad looking as the elephant man or Edward Scissorhands, this is. I could not find the same for a dune-bearded woman

On the judge of personality, I admire people with poor self confidence when they dare to walk out in the middle of the abusive average as they see it. They express great courage, these people have probably experienced stuff I have experienced, what is sexual abuse, racist violence, and insults coming from everyone trout all their childhood. These things will seriously deform one persons personality when they are among people, but they will change like a switch once you get more contact with them, what is rather mysterious.
Old 04 April 2005   #55
nice to know what you were thinking honestly.

I was wondering though, whether you had checked out THIS link. And compared your acquierd taste to theirs. Because this is starting to look like an -I'll wing it- thread.
modelling practice #1
Old 04 April 2005   #56
And I would suggest this site too:

:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

Old 04 April 2005   #57
Well... I don't know about that site...the facial snobs test says I need professional help......That can't be right...I'm really an okay guy...sorta...
modelling practice #1
Old 04 April 2005   #58
jmBoekestein - That link made no sence, beauty isn't sience.

RobertoOrtiz's link made more sence to me, it had a nice test that told me that I got no facial issues.

Oh and one who use sarcastic smileys to tell tell other that it isn't nice to know what they think, spreed hes own toughts all the time.
Old 04 April 2005   #59
2 words



do you need hafl a page to explain that:
-not all humans are attracted to stereotypes
-you can't really define what beauty is and it's easier to denote that somethings ugly(in your eyes that is).

Personal preference set aside, it still boils down to the fact that the names you mentioned fit a certain pattern( I stress certain), which is/was being discussed here. Hence the link back on topic...
and again...(btw, they're the same theory in practice, one's just for a more general audience)

The fact that it's not science is because it's quite free to interpretation, but only within context. Here's a question for you:

If you see a nature documentary, and the narrator tells the audience that a certain animal will fancy a certain other animal because it has a big shiny red ass. Will you not call that science because it's uncertain or because you can't verify it? Or do you simply shrug and say that it's ugly and they're all wrong.

My 2 cents.
modelling practice #1
Old 04 April 2005   #60
No facial issues here

I have to say that shiny objects and white teeth do attract my attention, but honestly. Mr. Cleese's theeth are way too white.
For me beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I, for example, like red-harided men speaking of externally, while most of the ladies I've been in contact to, found it very ugly. Maby because the red's Ive seen were shining whit emotion, and not as the slightly dead puppet many people seem to be.
Many people find Ben Affleck utterly sexy, while I assosiate him as a polygonal square whit hair attatched to the top. He got little to no emotin in his face.

So, personally, I'd say the beautifull is shiny, but not too shiny, and humans shining whit personality and emotion.

Originally Posted by jmBoekestein: (...) Here's a question for you:

If you see a nature documentary, and the narrator tells the audience that a certain animal will fancy a certain other animal because it has a big shiny red ass. Will you not call that science because it's uncertain or because you can't verify it? Or do you simply shrug and say that it's ugly and they're all wrong.

My 2 cents.

Animals are still strongly affected by instinct. Humans have evolved into having less instinct, but we still have them.

Last edited by LadyMedusa : 04 April 2005 at 10:50 PM.
Thread Closed share thread

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Society of Digital Artists

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.