posted on August 26, 2001 08:51:51 PM new
Did anyone else watch that great special tonight on TLC - The Human Face? It was hosted by John Cleese (as always - funny AND fun to watch) and Elizabeth Hurley.
I've heard a little bit about symmetrical faces being considered beautiful, but I'd never before heard about the "golden ratio". For anyone who didn't get a chance to watch this show, check out:
It's on again this week and the web site has listing times (they will even send you an email reminder).
Even my "give me action movies or give me death" husband watched both shows with me and liked this special. I want one of those masks to check and see if I'm ONE OF THE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE....on second thought, maybe not! Anyone else here watch it??
posted on August 26, 2001 08:55:22 PM new
It will be on here in Oregon in about five minutes and I have been waiting for it for a week now. I have been following these types of Human Sexuality programs for a long time as I find them and the biological reasons for what makes a person attractive most interesting.
Part II will be on tomorow night, Monday at the same time.
posted on August 26, 2001 08:57:04 PM new
Damn! I missed it! Well, if it comes on again I will catch it then. Thats what I get for surfing ebay instead of being in front of the tube!
posted on August 26, 2001 11:30:49 PM new
There has been a series on TLC that is was entitled Human Sexuality or some such. It was playing a lot about a year ago. In it, it discussed the biological relationship of what we perceive to be beauty or attractiveness, both in the face and in the body. I've always felt that attraction was based on a matter of biology rather than poetic love. Also, I've though that "love" is nothing more than chemical reactions occuring within the brain and regulated by instincts. The series was such an insight, much more so than any McKinsey-style sex study.
Tonight's show was good. I really found the ratio aspect interesting. I have always felt that they WAS some sort of relationship that exists betwen what we perceive as being beautiful, what the object is that we are evaluating, and some common element or key that I could not quite put into words.
That the likely answer was discovered by Leonardo DaVinci was a bit of a surprize, but not if one knows about what a monumental genius that he was. Had Leo lived in this era, he might have surpassed the geniuses of our time.
That a common mathematical ratio of 1:1.618 and the geometric proportionality expressed in the insight was a wonderful revelation. That the one researcher created a mathematical model, or 'mask' that could be placed over a picture of the face and we can see for ourselves how we rate to others is also exciting to me. I would like to try it out on me and see how I rate. And certainly, one can loose weight in the face or get surgery to more closely imitate the formulate. And are we all to have a brighter future as attractive people then?
posted on August 27, 2001 12:04:31 AM new
>>"I've always felt that attraction was based on a matter of biology rather than poetic love. Also, I've though that "love" is nothing more than chemical reactions occuring within the brain and regulated by instincts."<<
How does that explain love for someone you are not physically attracted to? In my experience there's much more to it then that.
posted on August 27, 2001 07:52:14 AM new
Borillar - I agree with you about DaVinci. If he were alive now, with today's technology, it boggles the mind to think of what he could do!
Did you note how the researcher/plastic surgeon who put together the "mask" using the golden ratio, now utilizes what he learned in his plastic surgery technique? Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with anyone correcting a defect or improving on mother nature. It just gives the willies a little bit. Looks like anyone with the money and right surgeon can be beautiful - another step in heading for that "Brave New World".
If you're serious about wanting to try the mask, go to the website I mentioned in my first post. You will find directions for taking a picture of yourself and printing out and using the 1:1.618 mask.
Rhonda
I also have been watching most of TLC's shows in the last year or so on Human Sexuality. I think the shows are interesting, but as for my belief that chemistry/biology is responsible for love, as my grandpa used to say -- Horsehockey!.
posted on August 27, 2001 08:40:07 AM new
The golden ratio has some merit but it is basically BS. Many great artists, including Picasso deliberately ignored this ratio.
posted on August 27, 2001 08:45:48 AM new
Yes, Helen, but few would consider Picassos to be beautiful for real life. Picasso never tried to depict things as they are. We generally prefer noses to be in the center of the face, not under the left eye. A big part of his appeal is how creative he was in deconstructing things, not how he painted faithful recreations of life. For that we have Norman Rockwell.
posted on August 27, 2001 09:43:45 AM new
Jamesoblivion
Picasso was a poor example to make my point. I intended to point out that it is not necessarily aesthetically beautiful to have everything in golden mean ratio.
posted on August 27, 2001 11:33:18 PM new
Thank you, rondaleee. I will go tke a look at it. When I first saw this thead it was almost show time and I missed the link later.
posted on August 27, 2001 11:49:41 PM new"How does that explain love for someone you are not physically attracted to? In my experience there's much more to it then that. "
It's easy and commonly accepted to confuse sexual attraction or obsession with love. There is the love of a partner in a relationship that lasts long after the fire of sexual attraction has worn away. Most people would agree that love is not something of the flesh, but something of the mind or 'heart', which is still the mind.
My feeling has long been that we are programmed to see out others and we are driven then to seek partners based upon procreation -- even though it may not turn out that way. for instance, I've read several studies which suggest that homosexuals often look in a potential partner those things that if the same person were a heterosexual, they would also look for in a partner.
I think that it's all biology, chemical, and instinctual. I think that the 'love at first sight' thing is nothing more than obsession (which can grow into real love) and that the purpose of this behavior is to cloud our judgement just long enough to get the two people to drop their drawers and copulate in an effort to procreate.
The long term love I've mentioned is more than just familiarity. It is based upon security. A study that I've done suggests that the brain can emit chemicals that cause negative feelings about oneself if one is not "attached" to another person. In other words, your brain will punish you if you try to forego relationships that would lead to procreation. All of that is unsubstanciated, but it is suggested as one possiblilty.
I intended to point out that it is not necessarily aesthetically beautiful to have everything in golden mean ratio.