Do you agree with the Archetype Theory and the idea that the attractiveness of someone’s face can be mathematically solved (and that there is a perfect face)?
This site talks about those things. Marquardt Beauty Analysis
I would like to see people’s opinions about this.
Can’t say i agree with this theory at all. Part of a person’s attractiveness comes from its personality. Personality often shows through the face. I personally find most “beautifull” women unlovable because their face shows clearly a “i have a big idea of my beauty” and “You are out of my league” kind of character. As for analogies, many actor’s faces seem beautifull and attractive, because they don’t have the normal analogies.
I wonder if there is a theory about the beauty of difference and abnormality. 
there’s lots that could be said, but I’ll keep it simple:
I’ll never trust anything coming off such website, especially when it tryies to tell me about beauty and structure starting from a basis of uglyness and lack of structure 
pretty simple wasn’t it ?
P.S.
somebody mail the guy and tell him to fire the webdesigner, even if he did it for free.
The archetype theories as described by Carl Jung are kind of fascinating. Though not at all mathematical in their nature, they go about it in a more philosophical way in describing the idea that all human beings share a pool of inherited “memories” stored in the primitive parts of our brains. This would be certain imagery, sounds etcetera, basically sensory data, that we are not necessarily consciously aware of, but rather things that trigger our imagination when exposed to things that suddenly bring these stored impressions briefly to life. In short this means that we have some hardwired memories that originate from the prehistory of mankind rather than our own personal experience.
Jung claims, if I remember correctly, that these stored memories, or simply archetypes are a driving force behind most forms of artistic expression, mainly in visual arts, but also frequently in things like music and literature. The bottom line would be that the closer you manage to represent a somewhat impressionistic interpretation of some archetype, deliberately or by accident, the more interesting the particular work of art will appear to its audience (and the creator obviously).
I believe there is a lot of truth in this. It can’t be a coincidence that certain themes in art appears in so many different cultures from way back in time before there was any major interaction between various parts of the world. If one would compare the arts and religious beliefs of the ancient native americans to that of the australian aborigines, for instance, one should find similarities that can’t possibly come from any representatives of these cultures actually having met eachother and exchanged ideas - but must come from something else.
The thing I like most about the theory, is that it can constitute a very elegant starting point for explaining various religous mysteries and “supernatural phenomenon” in a more down-to-earth manner than usual.
perfect face may be there
but it’s still those of us who s eek differences in the face, it’so random - if it were all an equation it would be no fun. :\
The theory pertains to PHYSICAL beauty. Personality, etc. doesn’t factor into the equation.
I agree with the theory. I’ve studied art aesthetics from pre-historic (Eqyptian) times to Golden Age Greek times to the present, and from culture to culture, there have been consistent standards of beauty. Of course, there are deviations based on racial features, such as nose length and width. But, what is considered beautiful from culture to culture has been pretty close.
Although, a big contradiction to this seems to be in some African tribes, where giraffe-necked women with plates in their lips and banana-breasts are considered the epitome of beauty.
Originally posted by Dennik
Can’t say i agree with this theory at all. Part of a person’s attractiveness comes from its personality.
We’re not talking about attractiveness here. Just beauty. And yea I do partially agree with this theory. Or let’s say I agree in general. Look at the girls in the miss world election. For me all these girls are pretty and the largest part of the world agrees with me. But they are different in the details of their faces that’s why they are not the same but the general proportions do match the mathematical theorem.
I’ve used the golden ratio mask a few times
[edit]
@annuostivix: the difference between attractiveness and pure beauty also arguments against the theory of annuostivix. People who are less beauty don’t dissapear, they can be very attractive while not being “beauty” in the common sense.
@JamesMX: the golden ratio is based on the number 1 2/3 or 1.666… that seems to return everywhere in nature and especially in the human body. I don’t know HOW much of what we appreciate is based upon this number but I can imagine it is a lot. This could explain the similarities you are talking about if it also affects our brain.
The whole personality thing isn’t the same as the original impression of how attractive that person is. So it can matter a lot but the original impression is what matters in this case.
Consistency is an important aspect of the occurance of Phi in our lives and nature, it’s kind of evidence that it is significant in the sense of visual appeal. Assuming it’s occuring commonly, it could potentially be because it’s plain old good. We might appreciate Phi subconsciously because it’s a solid part of us and the world around us.
It could be without our knowing a sort of sign of solidity and structure. Wouldn’t you find that attractive in things?
The Golden Rule isn’t a recent addition, it’s been around for a pretty long time. Same thing with Phi.
And Annuostivix, please read through your posts before hitting reply, you’re a bit hard to follow here and there. Can’t make out if you’re for, against or somewhere inbetween regarding the theory of the golden rule
Phi… is the golden ratio… well, the number as it parallels one is, or so i’m lead to believe by the math genious i call teacher… hehe. ah well, but yes, i don’t think really think that annuostivix was right in beleiving that ugly people would breed out of a culture simply because the pretty people would stay on top. ugly people need loving too… hehe… and pretty people carry a lot of ugly genes. but yes, the ratio of phi exists within ancient buildings considered to this day to be beautiful (greek buildings and temples for example) and even our body stands testament to phi, but i’m assuming all of you know that if you are here on this sight posting stuff about it. another thing is that phi itself is based on the fibonacci sequence (1,1,2,3,5,8,13…). that is if you take a number starting somewhere around eight, and divide it by the previous number in teh sequence, you get a number that’s disgustingly close to phi, and the goldren ration i’m lead to believe is actually 1.618…, not 1.666… buutt, as you follow the fibonacci sequence down the line, and divide one number by its previous number, you eventually do get 1.618. heh… and, if you look in nature, animals breed based upon this sequence in terms of how many there are the next generation around (we’re talking estimates here… but pretty damn close… and the sequence can start with any two numbers and continue on down the line to eventually equal phi) so it seems pretty hard not to beleive that humans would find beauty in such a wonderful number. heh. i’m a nerd.
oh yeah… and it was really interesting to see how carl jung’s collective unconcious theory worked in with phi and beauty. i do believe that the standard of beauty is within everyone’s memory. even babies recognize and appreciate beautiful faces over less than beautiful faces, and they’ve not yet been conditioned by society to love those faces yet.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=Phi%2BGolden+Ratio&btnG=Google+Search
Lots of information
I like how Math can be so directly associated with our bodies. It’s kind of interesting, and so is this little bit, I thought.
and, if you look in nature, animals breed based upon this sequence in terms of how many there are the next generation around (we’re talking estimates here… but pretty damn close… and the sequence can start with any two numbers and continue on down the line to eventually equal phi)
That was originally posted by Eval. Also the thing about babies appreciating more ‘beautiful’ faces over the less… That’s also a sort of primary evidence, maybe secondary since we can’t be absolutely sure why the preference is there, and what the preference is based on.
I went and looked at the site…the funny thing is, I didn’t find the women with supposedly perfect/near perfect faces to be all that attractive…
I guess that just goes to show you that personal preference plays a factor in choosing the ‘perfect face’.
Math just never turned my crank…
-Kol
Originally posted by Annuostivix
Oh and what I meant by not agreeing with any theory is basically that… I won’t devote belief to a theory becauseeee a theory is exactly that… a theory. But I can place some confidence in the idea… just not absolute belief in it. So I can partially agree. But I like to keep an eye out for other ideas as well, because it seems in some cases that thinking about more than one concept in one subject is better than focusing on only one.blahhh. A lot of people feel that way. It’s similar to how nobody should believe that the Big Bang alone started it all. It just isn’t enough information to satisfy the big picture, I guess.
No one is asking you to believe with blind faith in a theory. Jesus… All that’s been said is that there’s a pattern to beautiful faces that coincides with the golden ratio. And the golden ratio is prevalent in many other areas, nature, architecture etc etc. You seem to say “I agree. But only if I can switch to another theory later. Otherwise I disagree.” Keeping an open mind is something everyone should do, you don’t need to guard yourself like that
What poeple seem to forget is that we’re just talking about physical beauty, what makes you look twice at someone. Or just notice a face in a crowd (and makes you go “mmmm nice”). I know that there are ceratin types of faces I see first, then I see the rest.
Seems like the golden mean has been around for quite long if you believe this site: http://www.goldennumber.net/history.htm
Beauty always has been and always will be subjective, in many respects. There are so many variables that determine what is beautiful based upon any individual’s past experiences. Their culture, their location, ethnicity, etc.
Beauty is shaped through a vast multitude of subtle variables beyond cosmetic control.
HOWEVER
I am not saying that the usefulness of this science is null. Through statistics and various other measurement techniques that they have employed, I am sure that they can reach some kind of “average”, which may be viewed by a higher percentage of the population as being ideal.
Sorry for sounding a bit absolutist, just my thoughts.
urgaffel - Okees, I’m not guarding, I’m just explaining myself. And don’t go saying I’m acting like I’ll only believe it if I can switch to another… What I’m doing is taking what I agree with from this and applying my own ideas as well. I know no one’s asking me to believe with blind faith, but you might notice that the world of theory is built of a LOT of fanatics, hehe. If you look at what I am saying though… I’m not planning to jump from theory to theory at all… I am actually thinking of my own idea aside from what I have been told and have read… I intend to stick to my idea until someone can inform me that I’m entirely wrong :shrug: But all the while, I do take into mind what other people think and completely or sometimes partially agree at times. I’m just going to delete my posts if you think I am coming across as muffled and innacurate, though. It’s not really a place for my to express my opninons about such a thing anyhoo 
Originally posted by Dennik
I wonder if there is a theory about the beauty of difference and abnormality.
There is a theory for just about every guy and his dog 
Please express your opinions, it’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just that I have a hard time following your arguments now and then. No need to delete, maybe edit though… 