Speaking of altered facial images, if you think the "beautification engine" sounds like some magical machine where anyone can pass through and come out the other end looking like Cate Blanchett then you'd be right, sorta. This new computer software program is making headlines because it uses a mathematical formula to digitally alter one's face and transform it into a theoretically more attractive version of the original. But can we ever reduce the concept of beauty down to an idea that simplistic? Is beauty quantifiable?
Yes and no. There's no question that when beauty and science merge, the results are often fascinating. Remember that 2001 PBS documentary we reported on, "The Human Face"? Some researchers have been suggesting that there are anatomical ways to measure what we perceive as attractive, and that facial symmetry plays a huge part in that, for ages. (Hence, the scientific explanation for why Kate Moss and Angelina Jolie might well be oft-identified as two of the most beautiful women on earth; their features are remarkably even, which tends to be a rare occurrence in nature.)
Studies have shown that there is surprising agreement about what makes a face attractive. Symmetry is at the core, along with youthfulness; clarity or smoothness of skin; and vivid color, say, in the eyes and hair. There is little dissent among people of different cultures, ethnicities, races, ages and gender.
Yet, like the many other attempts to use objective principles or even mathematical formulas to define beauty, this software program raises what psychologists, philosophers and feminists say are complex, even disturbing, questions about the perception of beauty and a beauty ideal.--New York Times
Disturbing indeed. How are we ever supposed to compete, or rather, even feel good about the way we look when there's a scientific method to being beautiful that we either genetically possess or not? But look at the overwhelmingly obvious bright side: Take a gander at some of the before and afters and see if you don't prefer the original, pre-beautification treated images. (Recent studies show the effects that airbrushing has on women's body images.)
I think I can understand why many of us appreciate the befores more than the afters when it comes to celebrity images. The untreated images are more familiar and perhaps that's why we innately gravitate towards them. (Although there's no denying that Brigitte Bardot, sans exaggerated features, looks like a much more boring, less than iconic bombshell version of herself.) But evaluate the non-famous examples. In the second photo, the person loses a bit of well, character even though the tweaks are seemingly unsubstantial. Is it because most digitally altered images simply take us into that Uncanny Valley that has become the popular buzz phrase that explains the fact that manufactured realism fails? Or does it entail the idea of beauty lie within our quirks?
I hope for all of our sakes that the latter is true.
Even though your reptile brain is allegedly "scientifically proven" to find the afters more alluring, which do you actually prefer?
Related: Is white skin more beautiful? This Pond's ad seems to say so.
--Erin
Image via New York Times
More from Product Fiend and Allure:
- Was the Sarah Palin Newsweek Cover Unfair?
-
The Anti-aging Challenge
From an at-home peel to a $650 cream, six anti-aging products are put to the test.
-
Skin Magicians: Secrets from skincare ads
Tips and tricks from all the behind the scenes experts.
-
The Hottest Cuts
Get the hair you really want. Experts tell you how to get the most coveted celebrity haircuts--right down to the very last snip! - Subscribe to Allure right now and get a FREE TOTE BAG!
7 comments