Measuring Beauty | Can Beauty be Quantified?

[Gale]

Can beauty be measured? in any way shape or form? even if its subjective to one person's ideas... can it still be measured? Or is beauty an abstract sort of thing that one cannot put a value on?

 

[Sikz]

If we can DEFINE beauty, then we must have somehow measured it, or we could not differentiate between it and it's opposite... But whether or not we can measure different LEVELS of beauty, hmmm... I'll have to think on that a bit more.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Gale17
Can beauty be measured? in any way shape or form? even if its subjective to one person's ideas... can it still be measured? Or is beauty an abstract sort of thing that one cannot put a value on?

Which kind of beauty? Outward appearance? Personality? Artistic quality? Mysteriousness, inspiring further inspection? What exactly are you referring to?

 

[Adam]

I think there are probably some basic physical factors which evolution decided are beautiful. Clear, healthy skin; good teeth; the ability to reproduce; possibly material wealth, as it shows the ability to feed offspring.

However, a girl can be built like a supermodel and have a billion dollars, and if she is a complete moron, very rude, or a diseased hooker, I won't want anything to do with her.

In other words, looks can generate some physical chemistry, but it doesn't matter if their is no mental or emotional connection.

Physical attraction is not necessarily the first attraction. I know people who have been attracted to each other's personalities first, from chatting on the net. Two are now married.

Of course beauty doesn't have to be about attraction and pairing-off at all. People look at two-dimensional images of people, mere reflections of light off surfaces, and see beauty. This would also be based on those evolutionary things though.

Or we might consider a sunset beautiful, but this has nothing at all to do with sex, or personalities, or those other things. We just like certain mixtures of colour, brightness, tone, et cetera. Sounds and smells, too, we can consider beautiful. Tactile sensations. All our senses are capable of appreciating beauty, as is the mind.

As for how we measure it all... I think it is different for everyone, although we do have influences in our judgement from evolution.

 

[Monique]

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.

 

[Kal-Elvis]

Originally posted by Sikz
If we can DEFINE beauty, then we must have somehow measured it, or we could not differentiate between it and it's opposite...

I agree, but the difficulty here is that beauty is defined differently by different observers. It is entirely subjective.

However, to some extent you could catalog certain traits (whether in flowers, artwork, or people) that are held to be beautiful, but even then you don't have a universal definition. Everyone would have a different hierarchy in these common traits (person A likes shiny hair, small noses, then big eyes; person B likes big eyes, small noses, and shiny hair).

I think the best answer is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Njorl]

I remember seeing a presentation about pattern recognition. As an aside, the guy did some studies about beauty.

He just studied faces. The judgements were purely subjective. He had a random group of people rate faces for beauty on a 1-10 scale. He then chose a few quantitative characteristics, separation of eyes, width of mouth, height of cheekbones etc, and tried to correlate them to the beauty ratings. He then found averages for all these quantitative factors. What he found was that the better than average beauty scores tended to be close to the averages in these factors. The low beauty scores tended to be far from these averages. But, the most interesting fact, the very highest beauty marks also went to people who were far from the average quantative factors.

People who look "normal" tend to be attractive, but beautiful people look different.

 

[selfAdjoint]

A fact known to Shakespeare. "There is no Beauty but has some strangeness i' the proportion".

 

[wasteofo2]

"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...

 

[Jeebus]

Originally posted by Gale17
Can beauty be measured? in any way shape or form? even if its subjective to one person's ideas... can it still be measured? Or is beauty an abstract sort of thing that one cannot put a value on?

I think it can only be measured subjectively, no way else. Different people will have different opinions, as stated by Njorl. Everyone has their own little "kinkiness" to them when they find some beautifule. Its something that they can describe, and only them. The explain it to someone, but that someone won't understand fully because their beautiful interpretation would be different, even marginally.

 

[Gale]

well... i actually hadn't meant beauty in people, but more like... a flower... or a rainbow... or say, given two paths to follow, and you were told to chose only by one's beauty and looks...

as a kid, and now i see in a few books I've read... well, white light... Auras too... they seem to be sort of metaphysical ways of determining beauty... to an extent. I don't mean to ask if these things hold any value or meaning in that context, but just... because of them, i wonderede whether beauty could be quantified...

 

[Njorl]

I think, if I tried to pick one of the things that I find consistant to beauty, it would be ... hm... hard to express ... that something be the epitome of it's kind. It is hard though, to epitomize something without going to far ... to a charicature. The water in a quarry near where I live is so clear that it suprises me everytime I see it. It is the epitome of water.

Simplicity too is beautiful. When form and function go hand-in-hand with a minimal effort, in a natural way ... without being cut-down and forced into simplicity. My swivel handled socket wrench is beautiful.

Njorl

 

[Twinbee]

A way of measuring beauty? I think an answer to that might be more profound than how the universe started :) It's probably best to try explaining an area of aesthetics such as music. And then split this up further to explain one aspect of music; what makes a good chord?

Question: Why is the chord C#, F#, B, Eb, F#, Bb, much, much better than C#, F#, C, Eb, G, Bb ?

Here are some more bad chords: C#, F, C, Eb, F#, Bb, ...or this one... D, F#, B, Eb, F, C
Here are some more good chords: C (in the bass followed by) Bb C D F G and A ... or: C Bb C# E G and A

All you have to do is work out exactly why the good chords are better. Once you've done that, try the countless two chord combinations, and then the multitudes of three chord combinations etc. etc. Find a logical pattern to distinguish them scientifically, work out a multi-dimensional rating system, and you're half way there! Presumably, there would be chords and chord sequences which are excellent (even perfect), very poor/boring, and everything in between.

Yes, an element of subjectivity would come into it, but as long as practically everyone agrees on whether a chord is good/bad (and in the examples I gave above, I believe they would), then we can try to find out the pattern behind it. That's a start.

The same principle could be applied to pictures too. Imagine a long one-dimensional 100-pixel black and white 'picture'. Hundreds of people could rate thousands of these randomly generated 'pictures'. Because each picture is relatively abstract, there would be little room for cultural bias. On the average, I believe we could establish a general consensus on the 'scores' for such pictures.

 

[jimmy p]

The problem is that everyone has different views on beauty. One mans object of desire could be another's roadkill. Beauty can really only be measured in a persons mind, on what THEY judge as beautiful.

 

[Gale]

Well, you know forms? wouldn't it seem that things closest to their true forms would appear more beautiful to us?

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is what Plato taught. For me there is a problem about the form of a person. Is it the case that each of us, say John Doe, has a form, and the closer to the form we are, the more beautiful we are? But some people are "prettyness challenged" from birth - are they far from their own form, or not?

For example, Socrates, Plato's teacher, was not a handsome man, but Plato believed him to be very close to his ideal form, and later generations have agreed, he was as close as ancient Greek culture came to a saint. So evidently the beauty that comes from matching your form is not PURELY physical beauty. It is like beauty of total personhood, inhabiting your own body in a beautiful way.

 

[jimmy p]

the band Marillion think Autumn is beautiful...or maybe i should read between the lines...

MARILLION - BEAUTIFUL

Everybody knows we live in a world
Where they give bad names to beautiful things
Everybody knows we live in a world
Where we don't give beautiful things a second glance
Heaven only knows we live in a world
Where what we call beautiful is just something on sale
People laughing behind their hands
As the fragile and the sensitive are given no chance

And the leaves turn from red to brown
To be trodden down
To be trodden down
And the leaves turn from red to brown
Fall to the ground
Fall to the ground

We don't have to live in a world
Where we give bad names to beautiful things
We should live in a beautiful world
We should give beautiful a second chance

And the leaves fall from red to brown
To be trodden down
Trodden down
And the leaves turn green to red to brown
Fall to the ground
And get kicked around

You strong enough to be
Have you the courage to be
Have you the faith to be
Honest enough to stay
Don't have to be the same
Don't have to be this way
C'mon and sign your name
You wild enough to remain beautiful?
Beautiful

And the leaves turn from red to brown
To be trodden down
Trodden down
And we fall green to red to brown
Fall to the ground
But we can turn it around

You strong enough to be
Why don't you stand up and say
Give yourself a break
They'll laugh at you anyway
So why don't you stand up and be
Beautiful

Black, white, red, gold, and brown
We're stuck in this world
Nowhere to go
Turnin' around
What are you so afraid of?
Show us what you're made of
Be yourself and be beautiful
Beautiful

 

[Gale]

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...

 

[Loren Booda]

I recall that symmetry is an important factor in perceived beauty, as it is in sports overall.

A study I saw on TV developed a facsimile, including green eyes, from an international average of superlative female beauty traits. Can anyone find "her" on the net?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Socrates said, Be what you want others to think you are. If you want to pass for rich, don't fake it, do the work and get rich. Same with being good, or I guess, being beautiful.

 

[Polly]

Beauty is a kindness.

 

[THANOS]

Beauty is only beautiful to you, sure people can share views of beauty with other people and face it, if you disagree with what an other thinks as beautiful then it is not beatiful in your opinion. So beauty only has meaning to the person judging it and no one esle.

 

[MacTech]

Originally posted by Gale17
Can beauty be measured? in any way shape or form? even if its subjective to one person's ideas... can it still be measured? Or is beauty an abstract sort of thing that one cannot put a value on?

Despite many ppl asking, the kind, it really doesn't matter what kind, as long as the system is there to in your case quantify beauty. In theory yes, but only measured from object to object (use object to your own ie.). So when you say something is beautiful it is imo always in association with "well i remember object and this is better then it." and the like.

 

[Loren Booda]

What makes a theory, equation or philosophy beautiful?

 

[elwestrand]

no

I think beauty, like water, can be qualified but not quantified. Yet its quantity is as subjective as the perception itself. Pain can also be qualified. We judge that quantity using some reference point, however, such as the most pain we've ever felt (which in turn was referenced). Thus, small children react differently to a small scrape. They cry and scream as if they are dying. Their reference for qualifying it is different as they don't have much expereience in feeling pain.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I haven't read through all these, but the bit about music chords caught my eye. It reminded me of a discussion in music class where we came to the conclusion that the reason some pieces are more beautiful than others is because the dissonance resolves into consonance. Of course, you can have just consonance, but it seems that greater beauty is created through the progress of imperfection to perfection. Through resolution. In that way, imperfection serves a great purpose.

That said, I would say that beauty (as in music) can be measured through ratios of some sort. Not that I know how one would go about this, but I would say there is definitely a form or standard you can measure against.

 

[expscv]

beauty cannt be seen as universal. but can be common

 

[mee]

I saw on a documentary that much of beauty (I hope I get this correct) is often seen as the ratio of 1:1.618 or some such thing for body parts. Something like that.

 

[Mentat]

A fact known to Shakespeare. "There is no Beauty but has some strangeness i' the proportion".

Where's that from (sounds like it's in trocheeic octometer, so it can't be from a sonnet)?

Anyway, I find it an interesting coincidence that many scientists and philosophers have looked into the ratio "phi" as a common denominator in many things considered "beautiful"...after all, it is a "strange proportion".

 

[Mentat]

Beauty is only beautiful to you, sure people can share views of beauty with other people and face it, if you disagree with what an other thinks as beautiful then it is not beatiful in your opinion. So beauty only has meaning to the person judging it and no one esle.

This, too, is an interesting statement. It is the oft-quoted line: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Normally I'd just agree with you, but I recently saw a T.V. special on the subject, and a certain philosopher made a statement that made me think twice about the "eye of the beholder". He (sorry, I can't remember his name) basically implied: If we were to observe the way that the actual eye is constructed, we could logically assume, from it's ability to detect light, that there is such a thing as light in the first place. So, why not also assume that there is such a thing as objectively definable "beauty", considering the fact that the "beholder" has an "eye" with which to detect it, it seems we should be able to logically deduce that such a thing must exist.

 

[marcus]

A fact known to Shakespeare. "There is no Beauty but has some strangeness i' the proportion".

Mentat asked about the meter, or commented about the meter.

this was believed by Francis Bacon (1561-1626) who wrote a bunch of essays including an essay called:

"BEAUTY

Virtue is like a rich stone, best plain set; and surely virtue is best in a body that is comely, though not of delicate features; and that hath rather dignity of presence than beauty of aspect. Neither is it almost seen, that very beautiful persons are otherwise of great virtue; as if nature were rather busy not to err, than in labor to produce excellency. And therefore they prove accomplished, but not of great spirit; and study rather behavior than virtue. But this holds not always: for Augustus Cæsar, Titus Vespasianus, Philip le Bel of France, Edward the Fourth of England, Alcibiades of Athens, Ismael the Sophy of Persia, were all high and great spirits; and yet the most beautiful men of their times. In beauty, that of favor 1 is more than that of color; and that of decent 2 and gracious motion more than that of favor. That is the best part of beauty, which a picture cannot express; no nor the first sight of the life. There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. A man cannot tell whether Apelles or Albert Durer were the more trifler; whereof the one would make a personage by geometrical proportions; the other, by taking the best parts out of divers faces, to make one excellent. Such personages, I think, would please nobody but the painter that made them. Not but I think a painter may make a better face than ever was; but he must do it by a kind of felicity (as a musician that maketh an excellent air in (music), and not by rule. A man shall see faces, that if you examine them part by part, you shall find never a good; and yet altogether do well. If it be true that the principal part of beauty is in decent motion, certainly it is no marvel though persons in years seem many times more amiable; pulchrorum autumnus pulcher [beautiful persons have a beautiful autumn]; for no youth can be comely but by pardon, and considering the youth as to make up the comeliness. Beauty is as summer fruits, which are easy to corrupt, and cannot last; and for the most part it makes a dissolute youth, and an age a little out of countenance; but yet certainly again, if it light well, it maketh virtue shine, and vices blush."

 

[NateTG]

I saw on a documentary that much of beauty (I hope I get this correct) is often seen as the ratio of 1:1.618 or some such thing for body parts. Something like that.

Not really. The ratio that's being referred to is the golden ratio, which has some numerological (thing astrology) appeal.

In practice there are certain types of features that consistently considered to be beautiful for example strong jaw lines, clear skin, and good facial symetry. Additionally in women Large eyes, large lips, a small nose, and a hip to waist ratio of 1.7 are (generally) considered attractive.

 

[marcus]

if a quality is measurable (assigning a number on a scale)
then things can be ranked
weight is measurable so things can be ranked by weight

Gale asks if B. is measurable. No it is not.
One of the most difficult and arbitrary things to do is to rank two beautiful things and say which has more beauty. this is a sign that B cannot be quantified and cannot be assigned a number on a scale. some things cant.



The sense of beauty has evolved both genetically and culturally. It is not identical in everybody but it is broadly similar from individual to individual, with exceptions of course. It represents accumulated experience and the results of choices.

Those who have chosen well have passed their ideas along to us. The sense of beauty in humans has survival and reproductive value, representing a store of information

The sense of beauty involves irrational guesswork at a subconscious level about what will repay focusing ones attention on.
It is in the involuntary focus of attention.

The line of poetry or the physical law has no beauty apart from the
evolved-over-millennia ability of humans to recognize and be alert to it.

 

[Stevo]

I haven't read through all these, but the bit about music chords caught my eye. It reminded me of a discussion in music class where we came to the conclusion that the reason some pieces are more beautiful than others is because the dissonance resolves into consonance. Of course, you can have just consonance, but it seems that greater beauty is created through the progress of imperfection to perfection. Through resolution. In that way, imperfection serves a great purpose.

Yet many pieces which are technically well composed are boring. Take Carl Czerny, for example. He wrote thousands of pieces, all skillfully composed. But none reached anywhere near the heights of his great teacher.

I don't think consonance resolving into dissonance is the answer for music. Take the music of the likes of Webern and Stravinsky. Beautiful music, but it certainly doesn't adhere to the usual tonal principles of consonance and dissonance.

I'm not sure about beauty in general, but for art the answer lies somewhere in between objectivity and subjectivity. Art is the product of an intersubjective world, so it's extremely difficult to justify a completely subjective aesthetic theory. On the other hand, art allows for a variety of interpretations, and this does seem to conflict with a completely objective aesthetic theory.

I think qualitative judgements can be made, and we can talk about better or worse in a comparative sense. But I think it's impossible to talk about best and worst.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Yet many pieces which are technically well composed are boring. Take Carl Czerny, for example. He wrote thousands of pieces, all skillfully composed. But none reached anywhere near the heights of his great teacher

I didn't mean to imply that was the rule for all music, it was just something that I discovered in a few pieces (esp. Palestrina). I don't think simply composing by numbers yields a beautiful piece. But resolution of dissonace to consonance is a relief of tension and an arrival to balance, perfection, however you describe consonance.

 

[TENYEARS]

Does a flower know that it exists?

 

[Stevo]

I didn't mean to imply that was the rule for all music, it was just something that I discovered in a few pieces (esp. Palestrina). I don't think simply composing by numbers yields a beautiful piece. But resolution of dissonace to consonance is a relief of tension and an arrival to balance, perfection, however you describe consonance.

Well, it's just that you said "the reason some pieces are better than others". If this criteria only holds in a limited case, then I don't think we can claim that it's the reason why one piece is better than another. It may be part of the issue, nonetheless, but I think it is subsumed under a more general theory of musical expression.

 

[Imparcticle]

Normally I'd just agree with you, but I recently saw a T.V. special on the subject, and a certain philosopher made a statement that made me think twice about the "eye of the beholder". He (sorry, I can't remember his name) basically implied: If we were to observe the way that the actual eye is constructed, we could logically assume, from it's ability to detect light, that there is such a thing as light in the first place. So, why not also assume that there is such a thing as objectively definable "beauty", considering the fact that the "beholder" has an "eye" with which to detect it, it seems we should be able to logically deduce that such a thing must exist.

But the point is not what the eye beholds, but what the opinion of the beholder is concerning what is being beheld.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Well, it's just that you said "the reason some pieces are better than others". If this criteria only holds in a limited case, then I don't think we can claim that it's the reason why one piece is better than another. It may be part of the issue, nonetheless, but I think it is subsumed under a more general theory of musical expression.

I guess I'll take this to an actual music thread.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=7332

 

[0TheSwerve0]

But the point is not what the eye beholds, but what the opinion of the beholder is concerning what is being beheld.

Personal opinion may weigh in on it, but there are certainly things that seem to be almost universally attractive. Males, with I suppose the exception of homosexual males, are attracted to a healthy female body. Almost all human beings will find a forest more intrinsically beautiful than a city street. Designers recognize that groups of three are universally pleasing to the subconscious mind. A singer who actually hits the notes is more pleasing to the ear than one who is tone deaf. I think it is worth investigating why these standards hold true.

 

[Stevo]

I guess I'll take this to an actual music thread.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=7332

I didn't reply, basically because I don't have the time right now to reply in a manner which I would deem satisfactory.

I am a serious musician (not professional, just serious) and I have done a lot of study on the philosophy of music. I will put forth a few views, and discuss their merits. At the moment, I don't have the time. I'm currently behind schedule with some work I have to do.

The philosophy of music is not a trivial issue, and I think some of the responses in that thread show just how easily the nature of music can be misunderstood. It's a very elusive thing to talk about, but definitely worthwhile.

 

[Mentat]

But the point is not what the eye beholds, but what the opinion of the beholder is concerning what is being beheld.

Not exactly. The statement is that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". The beholder need not prefer the same kind of beauty as another, but the philosopher was merely stating that some things are, by their nature, beautiful (that is, of course, if you follow his reasoning).

 

[Imparcticle]

No, I am afraid I do not follow this philosopher's reasoning. You are explaining that some things have intrinsic properties which make them beautiful. But what is beauty? It is a subjective adjective.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

I used to consider human physical beauty to be linked to a combination of rarity of physical characteristics in the socety we live in, and what society has decided (through whatever circumstances ... ) to consider beautiful.

I just read Njorl's post (on the first page) about the statistical study that found cretain average features scored high as well as certain extreme (sorry-only word i can think of) fearures.It seems to confirm the theory - does it?

About music - I haven't really thought about that. But it seems on the serface to be quiet a different kind of beauty to peiople's faces for example. I have a feeling it has something to do with people's mother-language and what other sounds they've been exposed to when young. Is there muscial scales/notes sequences that are universally (around the whole world and maybe also over long time) that is considered to be beautiful? - other than the few dissidents. I've read somewhere not that long ago that scientists have found a link between musical scales (12?) and voice/language of humans - does that have an effect?

 

[Pinkline Jones]

Beauty is probably best considered this way - remember when you were a young kid and you would while away the hours cutting the womens magazine lingerie ads into a scrapbook?

Okay - I guess you all had the experience when a gust of wind blew in the bedroom window and upsets the marvelous patterns you had made on the floor with the various pictures of brassiere-clad lovelies. Not forgetting the annoyance that this could have assisted the authorities in building a psychological profile on you just a few years down the track - wasn't it just the pits!

So up rocks the mailman - Now excuse me for being possibly a little disturbed or just your average teenager BUT Stuff! the George Foreman Grill - I've waited months for this department store catalogue - straight to the relevant stuff - lots of pretty women in underwear - the rest of the catalogue is for well who cares. Okay - enough of that - So then just what gives a female beauty? - I think the rules are fairly simple:

1) If she knees you in the balls and doesn't say thank you for dinner - THAT is NOT beautiful

2) If when she opens her mouth she talks to you at the same volume level as an Aeroflot coming in for a regulation landing into the side of a mountain - THAT is NOT beautiful

3) If she has more hair on her armpits than you have on your back - THAT is NOT beautiful

4) If her teeth set off the airport security detector each time you want to go on vacation to Tampa Island - THAT is NOT beautiful

5) If her entire record collection consists of nothing but Britney Spears and Weird Al Yankovic - THAT is NOT beautiful

6) If when you kiss her the experience conjures up the feeling of Elephant Seals blended with expired Papa Guiseppe pizza - THAT is NOT beautiful

7) When she blends in too well at the local Agriculture show and pesters you for the same ring that the Santa Gertrudis is wearing - THAT is NOT beautiful.

I trust I've cleared that one up now.

DR PINKLINE JONES

 

[young e.]

beauty? it can't be measured by any measurement known to man...thats it and enough said...:)

 

[Nicomachus]

You could use some sort of arbitrary standard for which to quantify beauty but I think your results, on the whole, would be meaningless.
*Nico

 

[p-brane]

Beauty. Depending on your focus, upbringing and cultural constraints and how anal you are, beauty could be anything. I've heard people say, "beauty!" about a car accident. Go figure.

I did have a nice theory about beauty all worked out using compound curves and topographic calculus. But this punk that liked the car crash has blown the thing to ruins.

The most accurate description would be that it is a relative call that not only changes from person to person but also from second to second in each person.

Beauty.

 

[Nicomachus]

P-brane, well I contend it is more than that. I do not think beauty is well defined enough to be quantified or even to be specifically discussed. Of course one may arbitrarily define and quantify beauty but yes because of subjectivism and other factors I think any attempt to do this would be fool's errand as the results would be meaningless.
*Nico

 

[p-brane]

P-brane, well I contend it is more than that. I do not think beauty is well defined enough to be quantified or even to be specifically discussed. Of course one may arbitrarily define and quantify beauty but yes because of subjectivism and other factors I think any attempt to do this would be fool's errand as the results would be meaningless.
*Nico

That's beautiful, Nico.