Measuring Beauty | Can Beauty be Quantified?

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Kant measured beauty something along these lines- from prettyness through to sublime, and the sublime is perceived by the emotions it arouses of inadequacy and morality, negative emotions that when we realize we are actually the same as ever, we feel relief and joy.
I think the german idealists were the last to take this sort of study of beauty seriously- rather than as a call to justice, I remain pretty inadequate and immoral despite having this feeling quite a lot, and their ideals of attaining a notion of universal beauty were replaced (Adorno) by admittion of individual suffering- I think.

Jaspers thought much like Kant, but beleived that it wasn't the subleme. but he did think the rest.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

That's interesting, Guille, I wasn't aware there was much existential dealing with beauty, may I have some more information to look it up? Is it to do with his transcendental cyphers?

 

[Huckleberry]

"You can monitor someone's reaction, when sitting in a monitored environment, and relate that to perceived beauty. Dilatation of the pupil, sweating, smiling, maybe certain brain patterns."

If you really want to gague reaction to beauty, at least in men, there's a pretty obvious thing you can monitor that you left out...

Actually they have a device to measure stimulation in women as well. It looks like a tube with a little light in it that measures the flow of blood... well, you can guess the rest. I saw it on a show a few weeks ago. I believe it was called "Anatomy of Sex".

There have been studies done on what people find beautiful. It seems that we are generally attracted to overall symmetry. Ofcourse, the statistics only work over a large population. Individuals still refuse to cooperate.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

That's interesting, Guille, I wasn't aware there was much existential dealing with beauty, may I have some more information to look it up? Is it to do with his transcendental cyphers?

Actually I don't have more info now. I will have it further in time, after reading more about Jaspers, its because I'm reading right now some of his lectures and, I mean, he didn't speak much about beauty, only a little, but didn't dedicate time to it. When he mentions beauty he doesn't speak about existence, well, now I just find something: "the nearest an object gets to the encompassing, the more it shows itself and how it is, and the reality of it's appearence creates increasingly more douptfullnes about it's beauty" and more things...I do know that Kant and Kierkegaard were the most inportant philosofers in Jaspers... haven't reach any place were he talks about "trascendental cyphers". When I get to know more, I will post it

 

[Huckleberry]

well again, i suppose i rather think of people as sort of exceptions, and i really don't mean human beauty. what makes certain flowers beautiful? or paths? or things like that. i don't have an opinion yet on forms, but if such things were true, then it'd seem that it'd make sense that beauty could be based on somethings resemblance of a form. Perhaps forms have more aspects than even just physical ones. I'm not even sure what the textbook definition of forms would be.

and as far as socrates being a saint... pfft...

I would say that beauty depends entirely on a persons aesthetic values. When a person looks at something and it pleases them then it is beautiful. One person could look at a flower and think it beautiful because it fits into some symbolic image they have of what the world should be. Another person might step carelessly all over your petunias without a second though because flowers have no significance in their personal ideology.

Ancient greeks had a thing similar to this concept. Hmm, what was it called? I think they called it archetypes. An archetype was a perfect example of whatever it represented. These things could not exist in reality because they were just so perfect. So somewhere there was a perfect chair that exemplified every idea of what a chair should be. Substitute chair with whatever you like and you got the idea.

The concept of beauty is connected to the concepts of good and evil.

What was the question again?
Huck

 

[Telos]

If my girlfriend thinks a flower is beautiful, and I don't, is it because she is equipped with special sensors to "see the beauty," and I am not? Or perhaps, I have not opened my beauty sensors sufficiently?

Lots of Buddhist and Hindu traditions stress that it is possible to "see the beauty" in rocks and in the face of your enemy, etc... in everything, because it's everywhere. I guess the Christians say the same, for the kingdom of heaven is everywhere, and all that.

So, it's up to you. You bend and twist your mind through meditation in order to think that everything is beautiful, putting on your "beauty glasses" as it were, or you can go the western route and either follow the social fashions or explore your own uncertain subconscious recreations.

Whatever you do, I guess one thing is for certain - it's not advisable to go through life thinking nothing is beautiful.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Thanks, Guille, I will keep a look out for your post. Its a nice thought that there is something more to beauty, that Plato, Kant, Jaspers may share. Would be nice to think there was something in it.

 

[lawtonfogle]

one word i know will answer the question--- postmoderism ---

it is when a society has no set absolute truth, one thing may appear to one person one way, and to another another way.

in my opion, everyone should see themselves as beutiful, and if they do not, it is due to believing someone telling them they are not. And if eveyone can see themselves as beutiful, then everyone is beutiful.

And to end,
Huckleberry, you need to watch more family movies.
Just from the title i can tell it must be dirty,
and that is one reason why people think
'if I am not caught, then what i do is not illeagal'

 

[Huckleberry]

And to end,
Huckleberry, you need to watch more family movies.
Just from the title i can tell it must be dirty,
and that is one reason why people think
'if I am not caught, then what i do is not illeagal'

I'm not certain what you are trying to say. Do I really want to know?

 

[lawtonfogle]

ok, from the title, the movie sounds like something i would not watch at home, school, or church. It sounds like a NR-Mature rated, or at least a R rating.

At school, many people who break the law, form speeding to doing drugs, say they are not breaking the law because they have not been caught. In other words, what i do is fine and not wrong unless I am caught, is how they think. An R-rated movie is not something that will change this. It encourages this, some R-rated movies say sex out side of marriage is ok. Others say killing someone is ok. And even if the bad guy is punished in the end, there always seems to be someone who is killed or hurt. If you like watching this watch the news. (which i think should become R-rated because of the things they show.)

Anyways, i looked up a family friendly reveiw of the movie, and it is something that i think should be a crime to film. You can do something better with your time than this. Try watching the Sci channel.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I'm not certain what you are trying to say. Do I really want to know?

What i mean is not something nasty. I am a Christian and not one of those hipporcrits ones people seem to stereotype nowa days.

 

[Huckleberry]

I really have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't mention any movies. I mentioned a show, and it was a scientific show measuring sexual stimulation, which is related to physical beauty. I think we are talking about two entirely different things here.

 

[lawtonfogle]

well, i did not see the show, and what i heard about it said it was sexual show

i thought it meant a movie, like lord of the rings, sherk, ect.
which led me to think it was something like a waterdown playboy show

sorry, i just know it is something i do not need to watch.

anything on that subject ill learn when i get married, besides for what your parents tell you

 

[nmondal]

I believe there is already something about it.

It is about feeling, it is about golden ratio as somebody says...
I believe it is a Vector/Tensor of requirement...

Here is the link I wanted to share:--
http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/humanface/articles/mask.html
So, ask the comp guys write a program...that is it, and you are done...
Even if you want, build own mask based upon requirement...it is all in the face-space.

 

[Myriad209]

I don't think anybody mentioned anything about this, but... symmetries in nature are naturally beautiful.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

I don't think anybody mentioned anything about this, but... symmetries in nature are naturally beautiful.

good point, simetry is very important.

I my self, divide beauty in two parts: natural beauty and relative beauty.

What I call relative beauty may be what others call "artificial" beauty. But the problem is that I think that everything artificial is natural.

Well, natural beauty is normally agreeed between the "graders" of it. It is very dificult to etect, because nature does the most dificult work to hide it, so that only the wisests get to find it. This beauty is basically based on simetry.

Whiles there is the other beauty, relative beauty. This beauty is said to be artificial, but not always it is like that, and I'm not talking only about human, but everything. This beauty is compeltely relative, and is based on the actual appearance in reality of the object. It is what everything is "supposed" to be. You may see a bird that may look cute, but is in fact a hoorribly ugly one.

 

[Loren Booda]

Relative beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[d880640]

seeing beauty through the lens

http://www.seankernan.com/html/articles/thegood.html

 

[mrfeathers]

of course true beauty cannot be defined, it can however be defined by a society. In the middle ages, beauty was defined by weight, the richer you were, the fatter you were, the more beautiful you are. However in our current society, fat people are more or less looked down on when it comes to beauty. However it can be defined socially because in either society, if you had an arm growing out of your head, your not beautiful. beauty is purely judgemental

 

[NoGeniusJustSensible]

beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

everyone has their own definition of beauty causing them to react to different qualities as beauty... but then a again... a pretty face is called beautiful, even if the heart is ugly...

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Does anyone know when and why being thin became the trend for Western culture? I remember someone saying consumption (Pulmonary tuberculosis) or some sickness was romanticized and thus waifishness became the ideal of beauty. It seems like wanting to be thin would come from a number of sources

- Western thinkers' ideas about beauty, virtue, and grace and what kind of body possesses these (ties back to ideas of control and linearity)
- Christian ideas about gluttony
- Racism and the idea that "primitive" peoples are larger and ungainly (whether due to muscle or fat) and that more evolved peoples will look smaller, thinner, and hence more graceful (and I'm not agreeing with this).
- Western dualism and the division of the sexes (women idealized for looking as non-"male" as possible, influenced by what we perceive to be male)

We don't see this ideal in all cultures, so where did it come from in ours?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Also, not sure if this http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/male_facial_beauty.htm" was mentioned, but there was a study on facial attractiveness in both sexes. Turns out people preferred feminine looking faces for both sexes. I'm not sure the study really got at sexual attraction, but it would make sense that feminized faces are more appealing since they would look less threatening.
Some interesting findings:
Interestingly, when people were rating the faces of their own ethnic group, they liked an even greater degree of feminization of both male and female faces than when they were ranking the faces of a different ethnic group...
The scientific study of beauty is rife with mysteries and contradictions. A number of reports have demonstrated that a composite face is usually deemed more attractive than anyone particular face -- that is, a consolidated image of 60 people is voted more attractive than is the image of most of the individual members. The classic evolutionary explanation for the triumph of the norm is that an average-looking person conveys a comforting familiarity, and is unlikely to harbor any unusual genetic mutations.
Yet the exaggerated pretty face has been shown to be favored over the average. If the faces of the 15 people rated as most attractive of the original pool of 60 are merged into a composite image, that averaged face outranks the first composite.
And if the features of the top-15 composite are then pushed to extremes, by raising and emphasizing the cheekbones, for example, the image is reckoned more beautiful still.

Also from this study, but written about http://html.channel3000.com/sh/health/conditionsaz/news-health-990623-181600.html" :
For Japanese and white faces, the women preferred faces that were on average about 20 percent and 15 percent feminized, respectively, when they were least likely to become pregnant.
When they were most likely to become pregnant, the women preferred faces that were only about 8 percent feminized for both groups of images.

In http://www.geocities.com/Omegaman_UK/beauty.html":
"We found that that there definitely was a type of adult female face that men found attractive and that it was different from the average face," says Johnston. "The two key measurements are the distance from the eyes to the chin, which is shorter - in fact it is the length normally found in a girl aged eleven and a half; and the size of the lips, which are fatter - the size normally found on a fourteen-year-old girl". The Kate Moss view seems to be confirmed, but where does that leave actress Sigourney Weaver as an example of an attractive mature face, for instance?
Johnstone came to these conclusions by running a computer program that tried to mimic the process of evolution. Faces randomly selected by the computer were rated according to attractiveness by volunteers, and the most attractive were combined to breed a second generation of faces, continuing the process on to third and fourth generation,and so on. Gradually a shorter,full - lipped face took over. But Johnstone doesn't believe that the reason for its success was that it triggered protective feelings. "Although the features are juvenile, the face wasn't seen as being babyish," he says. The ideal face turned out to be that of a woman of 24.8 years.
The proportions seem to point to fertility, specifically the effect of the hormone oestrogen on the female face. "Up until puberty the faces of boys and girls are similar," says Johnstone. "But then the rise in oestrogen in girls gives them fuller lips, while testosterone in boys gives them a fuller jaw . So what people are picking out as beauty is really a sign of fertility brought on by oestrogen. Interestingly, 24.8 years - the age when most women achieve ideal facial proportions, according to the study - is the time when oestrogen levels are highest and women are at their most fertile"...Cunningham also found that attractive women with mature features, such as small eyes and a large nose, received more respect ."It could be that societies where women have more power and autonomy idealise women with more mature features," he says, "while those which value submissive females may prefer baby faces".

 

[nameless]

Why do you want to 'measure' beauty? What perversity is that? Shall we take representative samples of various 'quanta' on the value scale of beauty, put it in bottles in chloroform for referrence? Please!

I have a different take on beauty. I haven't read the entire thread so excuse if I'm redundant, but I somehow doubt it...

I have found that our access to our own inner health, beauty, etc... is what the 'world' reflects back at us. The healthier, the more beauty we find within, the more beauty we see around us. It is all within anyway!

As I watch my wife heal and blossom and grow, she constantly comments on the 'ever increasing amount of beauty' surrounding her. She, like us all, open our eyes and look into the mirror. Wherever we look.

Please permit a short parable that perhaps someone hasn't heard yet;

A traveller arrived at the gate of a city and spying an old man asked him what sort of people lived in the city, that he was looking to relocate. The old fellow asked the traveller what the people were like in the city from whence he came? The traveller was sullen as he described a bunch of lazy, good for nothing, backstabbing, thieving horrible people there. The old fellow looked at him and said that he was sorry, but that was the kind of people that he would find here also. The traveller was sad as he bypassed the gate and traveled on down the road.
Soon another traveller stopped and asked the old man that same question. The old fellow asked the same question of this traveller also to which the traveller responded that they were lovely, caring, compassionate and generous people where he came from. The old man replied, "Welcome! That is exactly who you will find here also!" And smiling and thanking the old fellow for his time, the traveller entered the 'city'.

No matter where you go, there you are!
Beauty too.
*__-

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Why do you want to 'measure' beauty? What perversity is that? Shall we take representative samples of various 'quanta' on the value scale of beauty, put it in bottles in chloroform for referrence? Please!

Concerning the studies I posted, I don't think they're actually talking about beauty. I think they're talking about physical attractiveness as it matters for survival. EG the peahen chooses the peacock with the biggest tail because it displays his ability to survive even with that ridiculously costly and dangerous accessory. I agree with you actually, I don't think beauty (as you are thinking of) can be quantified or pinned down. Just like art, certain sights connect with and speak to us, it's not a sexual thing like physical attractiveness. I think beauty has a lot to do with our thoughts and usu within a context. However, certain things like music do seem quantifiable, at least for certain characteristics. Usu pieces that resolve tension in a piece are the most pleasing.

 

[nameless]

Music is so very personally 'meaningful'. Some pile of testosterone or estrogen driving by with his/her 'beautiful meaningful music' blaring and polluting the soundscape is nothing but painful noise to me.

 

[Human Being]

My Take

It's interesting that so many people "believe" or at least "espouse" the adage, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". For what follows that statement, is the assumption that everyone *understands* what beauty is, such that they are not "wrong" if they perceive something to be beautiful. If one were to think a mangled deer at the side of a freeway was "beautiful", should that assessment be considered accurate? Clearly, beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder...

What surprises me about this thread isn't the "incompleteness" of so many posts, but that not a single person has introduced the concept of "rating" human visual beauty from 0-10. Since this thread is quite generally about *measuring* beauty, even if one is of the belief that such an endeavor is for naught, the most common definition of beauty is human visual beauty. And the most commong measure of that specific beauty IS a point scale. :-) Some prefer a minimum value of 1, which is fine. I myself prefer the 0-10 scale as it provides an integer value for the "middle" beauty value of "average" - neither beautiful nor "ugly". Which leads me to another aspect of the measuring of beauty. Many people will quickly give the value of 10 to someone they find quite beautiful, and 0 (or 1) to a person if they are "mostly" ugly. It seems that people often err towards an extreme, when making "objective" evaluations of beauty. They don't put forth enough effort to be accurate, even more so when evaluation is "difficult" because the object being evaluated is nearer the middle of the continuum. That said...

Another mistake that people often make is to anthropocentrize universals, like beauty. Many people think of beauty *primarily* as human visual beauty. That shows how many people really don't understand what beauty is at all. In the "set" of all that is beautiful, the visual beauty of the human being is but a single member. Beauty is far more than a visual influence. As I like to do, when I want to understand something better, I include in my research the dictionary definition when applicable. Here's what I get from Dictionary.com:

"1. The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality."

There are five senses with which people can evaluate beauty, yet as I said before, most people only "understand" the visual sense of the concept. And then there's the mind itself, which can evaluate "hidden" aspects of beauty. (like Euler's identity) But I'd like to focus on visual beauty for a moment. As others in this thread have said, SYMMETRY is a major factor. A few here have mentioned PHI, or the golden ratio, as another factor. What should be noted is that symmetry is a form of self-similarity and the golden ratio does influence self-similarity.

I'd like to get back to the "scale" that people often use to measure human visual beauty. Almost exclusively, people implement a linear scale for evaluation, where 10 is the "maximum" amount of beauty possible. Sure, some like to use "11" in "special" cases, but let's ignore that anomaly. Theoretically, the "maximum" measurement of beauty should be very rare, if not "unattainable". However, there's a different scale which I find can be more "useful" - the exponential scale. Whereas "average" beauty is but the "mid-point" between the two extremes of "maximum beauty" and "maximum ugliness", and hence would be a "5" on the 0-10 scale, on the exponential scale, "average" beauty is more akin to "beauty to the zeroth power". Something which is "ugly" can then be described as "beauty to the negative first power", and something "beautiful" would be "beauty to the first power". As ugliness increases, so does the negative exponent - likewise, as beauty increases, so does the positive exponent. If, in one's evaluation, they determine the beauty of a thing to be an "order of magnitude" greater than merely "beautiful", they could describe that thing as "beautiful squared" - etc. (yes, I really like math) Of course, any rating system is only good if a "rater" is trying to be consistently accurate.

The point of my post is twofold. Firstly, to highlight the adequacy and/or inadequacy of "rating scales" as they pertain to beauty. Secondly, to say that beauty IS something which CAN be measured - and not everyone is "qualified" to measure it accurately. Just as it is true that not everyone knows how to calculate a derivative or integral, or knows how to prepare Peking duck, there certainly are people who don't know how to measure beauty. What they state is then mere opinion and CAN be "incorrect"...

I look forward to your feedback and the ensuing discourse. (and forgive the edits, I didn't like what I said in a couple places)

 

[nameless]

If one were to think a mangled deer at the side of a freeway was "beautiful", should that assessment be considered accurate? Clearly, beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder...

What abysimal nonsense!
If I think that a 'road pizza' is beautiful, who are you to tell me that my perceptions and tastes are 'wrong' because they do not allign with yours. Each individual is not qualified to determine their 'tastes' for themselves? Are you some kind of fascist? Maybe you want to legislate what is beautiful? "Sorry, this sunrise doesn't qualify as beautiful on my one-size-fits-all arbitrary scale and if you disagree, you will need to go to re-education camp? 'Beauty therapy'? Like Hollywood? You are either joking, or..? Can you be that clueless?

 

[Human Being]

Humbug

What abysimal nonsense!
If I think that a 'road pizza' is beautiful, who are you to tell me that my perceptions and tastes are 'wrong' because they do not allign with yours. Each individual is not qualified to determine their 'tastes' for themselves? Are you some kind of fascist? Maybe you want to legislate what is beautiful? "Sorry, this sunrise doesn't qualify as beautiful on my one-size-fits-all arbitrary scale and if you disagree, you will need to go to re-education camp? 'Beauty therapy'? Like Hollywood? You are either joking, or..? Can you be that clueless?

Beauty, in the general sense of the word, has no regard for your personal tastes. If you choose to *think* that a "road pizza" is beautiful, I'm not going to *stop* you from thinking that. However, it's my opinion that you would be *wrong*. Don't like my opinion? Darn. Although you grossly mischaracterize my platform, I will assure you anyway that I'm no fascist. Perhaps you'd like to drop the chest-beating style of your posts? If not, that's okay. I don't have to like your style. If you wish to debate the merits of my diatribe, then be a little more exacting. Anyone can respond as you have.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Another mistake that people often make is to anthropocentrize universals, like beauty. Many people think of beauty *primarily* as human visual beauty. That shows how many people really don't understand what beauty is at all. In the "set" of all that is beautiful, the visual beauty of the human being is but a single member. Beauty is far more than a visual influence. As I like to do, when I want to understand something better, I include in my research the dictionary definition when applicable. Here's what I get from Dictionary.com:

"1. The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality."

There are five senses with which people can evaluate beauty, yet as I said before, most people only "understand" the visual sense of the concept. And then there's the mind itself, which can evaluate "hidden" aspects of beauty. (like Euler's identity) But I'd like to focus on visual beauty for a moment. As others in this thread have said, SYMMETRY is a major factor. A few here have mentioned PHI, or the golden ratio, as another factor. What should be noted is that symmetry is a form of self-similarity and the golden ratio does influence self-similarity.

Isn't that what I was saying? That beauty is tied to thought and some unconscious grasp of order (eg in music)?

 

[Human Being]

Development of the "measuring beauty" culture

Isn't that what I was saying? That beauty is tied to thought and some unconscious grasp of order (eg in music)?

Certainly. I appreciated your posts, please don't think otherwise. The redundancy in my own post wasn't intended to slight those whom have said similar things.

Does anyone know when and why being thin became the trend for Western culture?

Great question. I think the "Thin Movement" began only after distribution methods of art and entertainment became pervasive thoughout the world's "alpha" cities. With focus being on visual human beauty, the trend also had to begin after televisions became commodities. It seems like a somewhat "modern" development of U.S. social norms. My guesstimate is that other countries which also have "elevated" physical appearance trends are being influenced by the U.S. For example, on NPR the other day they did a story about the increasing amount of purely cosmetic plastic surgeries in the Middle East. As for "when", after World War II would have been a great time to "elevate" particular trends such that they become a future "norm". And what better vehicle than the "sex symbol"? Which female celebrities were the first to be "underweight" for their height/build? How did they get "discovered"? More questions, the answers to which could help explain the "why" part of the *original* question. Me, I'm a "moderate" cynic, and I think the "Thin Movement" was started as a supremely effective way to polarize societies and genders against one another. Keep some people's attention on human visual beauty, and a great many are kept. Base pleasures fulfilled, many people could care less about what's going on in the world until it affects them directly. The grand chess match can go on as planned. Okay, perhaps I'm not moderate.