Info What is objective to an extent in facial aesthetics then?

[Alurmo]

this topic is a enigma, the users on this site unfortunetely havent touched passed the philosophy tests this site gave at entering, they just look at the face and instead of understanding its beauty and the whole olympus of what is seen as perfect and their interpretations, tehy just want to find methods to improve the appearance, this error of understanding what aesthetics truly is, is going to RUIN this sphere, instead of autysts who srs are interessted in teh topic, normfags oversimplify the topic to shits, and all u get in the lm section is ways to fix issues they got from other users and havent even looked at them themselves

So the question thus is, what guides and validates our judgments in this space? Well, the obvious answer would be a comparison of previous ocular sense evidence and whatnot, but ofc theres always ways to go deeper

well we could say it's instinctive or intuitive, which is a shallow answer, as the answer is just the fact that humans have instinctive reasons to prefer one face over the other, without a clear explanation

But then you get the objectivity of what is beauty, in all its characteristics and qualities, including all that is "ideal" in ratios and proportions, your bilateral symmetry, averageness, youthfulness, and sexual dimorphism

Along with this, we also have to consider cultural influences and heredity factors, but with the development of social media, this faculty of variability could be useless, as we all have a chance to see the same face at the same time, without our own cultural reasoning and ideas in play too much
well a number of explanations throughout the course of history have already given us enough hypotheses on what is beautiful and what is ugly, but nonetheless, we can never get enough

• The oldest idea of the standardization of aesthetics can be traced to the idea of idealness in proportions and, in the modern sense, ratios, as well as symmetry, but it's always normal to have mild asymmetry, though
• Averageness is also an old topic; the typical 'aesthetic' face is not new, as it's been studied by Sir Francis Galton in the past, as well as the fact that the idea of a perfect face being made up of the mix of average faces is not new.
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compo...eness and averageness one hundred years later.
• Facial neoteny and dimorphism are more or less the same thing, signs of great health and development, but neoteny may also be a reason for women to choose you, as it activates their nurturing faculty? (in question marks bc im unsure), But with that theres also a lot of evidence that a combination of masculine and neotenous features suffices in beauty

But then a question of where all this comes from arises, as mentioned previously, possibly cultural, but also could simply just be the idea of heredity, it's been already experimented with infants who were shown beautiful and ugly faces, that they prefer beautiful faces, this could mean that facial beauty is a necessity for sexual selection

So again, the question on the title of this thread comes up: Is this really in the eye of the beholder?

well with the theory of culture preferences, possibly, a perfect example for this is if u ask a pigeon what is beautiful, it will describe the average features of a pigeon, ofc with minor differences, but humans would find any other standards than our own species stupid, so why would it change for certain communities
In recent times, this is not that important bc of there being more access to more faces and lesser inflluence by the community

This confusion of aesthetics drives me to depths i wouldnt be able to explain. It can very well be likely that there's no singular answer to why a face is attractive, imo, beauty cannot be explained simply by using a single principle
Around every corner of culture theres a mighty human bias towards their own cultural/environmental/genetic foundation. Why should beauty be any different

 

[Alurmo]

bump bump bump bump bump

 

[Canthopexular]

this topic is a enigma, the users on this site unfortunetely havent touched passed the philosophy tests this site gave at entering, they just look at the face and instead of understanding its beauty and the whole olympus of what is seen as perfect and their interpretations, tehy just want to find methods to improve the appearance, this error of understanding what aesthetics truly is, is going to RUIN this sphere, instead of autysts who srs are interessted in teh topic, normfags oversimplify the topic to shits, and all u get in the lm section is ways to fix issues they got from other users and havent even looked at them themselves

So the question thus is, what guides and validates our judgments in this space? Well, the obvious answer would be a comparison of previous ocular sense evidence and whatnot, but ofc theres always ways to go deeper

well we could say it's instinctive or intuitive, which is a shallow answer, as the answer is just the fact that humans have instinctive reasons to prefer one face over the other, without a clear explanation

But then you get the objectivity of what is beauty, in all its characteristics and qualities, including all that is "ideal" in ratios and proportions, your bilateral symmetry, averageness, youthfulness, and sexual dimorphism

Along with this, we also have to consider cultural influences and heredity factors, but with the development of social media, this faculty of variability could be useless, as we all have a chance to see the same face at the same time, without our own cultural reasoning and ideas in play too much
well a number of explanations throughout the course of history have already given us enough hypotheses on what is beautiful and what is ugly, but nonetheless, we can never get enough

• The oldest idea of the standardization of aesthetics can be traced to the idea of idealness in proportions and, in the modern sense, ratios, as well as symmetry, but it's always normal to have mild asymmetry, though
• Averageness is also an old topic; the typical 'aesthetic' face is not new, as it's been studied by Sir Francis Galton in the past, as well as the fact that the idea of a perfect face being made up of the mix of average faces is not new.
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compo...eness and averageness one hundred years later.
• Facial neoteny and dimorphism are more or less the same thing, signs of great health and development, but neoteny may also be a reason for women to choose you, as it activates their nurturing faculty? (in question marks bc im unsure), But with that theres also a lot of evidence that a combination of masculine and neotenous features suffices in beauty

But then a question of where all this comes from arises, as mentioned previously, possibly cultural, but also could simply just be the idea of heredity, it's been already experimented with infants who were shown beautiful and ugly faces, that they prefer beautiful faces, this could mean that facial beauty is a necessity for sexual selection

So again, the question on the title of this thread comes up: Is this really in the eye of the beholder?

well with the theory of culture preferences, possibly, a perfect example for this is if u ask a pigeon what is beautiful, it will describe the average features of a pigeon, ofc with minor differences, but humans would find any other standards than our own species stupid, so why would it change for certain communities
In recent times, this is not that important bc of there being more access to more faces and lesser inflluence by the community

This confusion of aesthetics drives me to depths i wouldnt be able to explain. It can very well be likely that there's no singular answer to why a face is attractive, imo, beauty cannot be explained simply by using a single principle
Around every corner of culture theres a mighty human bias towards their own cultural/environmental/genetic foundation. Why should beauty be any different

@Yani your old pfp