What determines the beauty of a perfect face?
We may never answer the question “how many angels can dance on the point of a needle,” but how about this one: “How many Divine proportions ratios are there in the face of an angel?” The YouTube video and information in this article may give some insight into the answer, with details on the contest, a recap of explanations of beauty that fall short and new insights and a video illustrating the impact of the golden ratio in beauty.
The British contest in 2012 to find “Britain’s Perfect Face” draws over 8,000 entries, and finds Florence Colgate as the winner
British company Lorraine Cosmetics sponsored a contest in 2012 to find “Britain’s Perfect Face.” Billed as the “Naked Competition,” and seeking the most perfect makeup-free face, contestants were required to have completely natural faces, without make-up, botox or cosmetic surgery. The competition drew entries from 8,045 contestants, who were initially screened by a panel that included such industry notables as Joanna Hutton, senior skincare buyer for Superdrug, and Jody Furlong, casting director and model scout.
Once the panel had selected three finalists from the 18-40 age category and three from age 41 and over, voting was opened to the public. Florence Colgate, an 18-year-old student from Kent, England, was selected as their winner.
Various sources offered incomplete explanations of beauty
News stories reporting on the event offered various explanations and analysis as to what made Florence’s face the most perfect, referring to sources such as these:
- A 2009 university study by Pallett, Link and Lee, which claimed to have discovered a “new golden ratio” of beauty based on two simple measures: the distance between the pupils at 46% of the width of the face and the distance between the pupils and mouth at 36% of the distance from the hairline to the chin. In another post on this site, I demonstrate that this study was very flawed in its conclusions. Florence’s “perfect face” has ratios that were notably different, at 44% and only 32.8%, respectively.
- A 1998 by Gillian Rhodes, which related attractiveness to symmetry of the left and right halves of the face. Florence’s face is not really all that symmetrical, as illustrated by the photo below and by the symmetry video on Florence’s Facebook page. In addition, unattractive faces can be symmetrical as well. Other studies have shown that slight facial asymmetry is found in beautiful faces, and even adds to their uniqueness, so symmetry cannot be the determining factor either.
- General observations that Florence’s face has traits traditionally considered to be beautiful in woman, including good complexion, large eyes, full lips and high cheekbones. These though are relative terms without any specific measurements or proportions to define them.
A more complete explanation of facial beauty analysis can be found in Phi, the Golden Ratio
I would like to offer a more complete explanation as to why Florence’s face was perceived among the many entries to be the most perfect: In addition to her facial symmetry and generally attractive feminine facial features, her facial proportions are an almost perfect illustration of the Golden Ratio, 1.618, also known as phi.
How many golden ratios do you think could appear in the perfect human face? 4? 6? 12? 20, or even more? Take a guess. Then watch the YouTube video below.
The image analysis shown in the video was done with
PhiMatrix Golden Ratio Design and Analysis Software
Were there more golden ratios in her face than you thought? The video shows a simple facial analysis of the basic golden ratio relationships on only the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the face. In the video, the golden spiral closely follows the curve of the lower half of her face. This illustrates that beauty is also a function of the shape and position of the many curves found in the human face. For example, a nose flare with sharp square edges would not be as beautiful as one with gently rounded arcs, even though both could conform to the golden ratio in their size and position. For another view on this, see the patented Beauty Mask developed by Dr. Stephen Marquardt. This mask provides an archetype for facial beauty that captures the positions and shapes of all key facial features, and is also based on the golden ratio.
Here is a list of the golden ratio proportions shown in the video:
| Golden Ratios in Vertical Facial Dimensions | |||
| #1 | Eyes | Nose flare | Nose base |
| #2 | Eyes | Nostril top | Center of lips |
| #3 | Eyes | Nose base | Bottom of lips |
| #4 | Eyes | Center of lips | Bottom of chin |
| #5 | Nose flare | Bottom of lips | Bottom of chin |
| #6 | Nose flare | Top of lips | Bottom of chin |
| #7 | Top of lips | Bottom of lips | Bottom of chin |
| #8 | Top of lips | Center of lips | Bottom of lips |
| #9 | Arc of eyebrows | Top of eyes | Bottom of eyes |
| #10 | Arc of eyebrows | Top of lips | Bottom of chin |
| #18 | Center of pupils | Top of nose flare | Bottom of nose |
| #22 | Bottom of nose | Top of lips | Bottom of lips |
| Golden Ratios in Horizontal Facial Dimensions | |||
| #11 | Side of face | Outside of eyes | Center of pupil |
| #12 | Side of face | Outside of iris | Inside of eye |
| #13 | Side of face | Inside of iris | Center of face |
| #14 | Side of face | Inside of near eye | Inside of opposite eye |
| #15 | Side of face | Center of face | Outside of opposite eye |
| #16 | Side of face | Inside opposite eye | Opposite side of face |
| #17 | Outside of eyes | Flare of nose | |
| #19 | Center of pupils | Bridge of nose | Center of nostrils |
| #20 | Inside of eyes | Inside of nostrils | |
| #21 | Width of mouth | Cupid’s bow | |
| Golden Ratios in Dimensions of the Head | |||
| #23 | Head height | Head width | |
| #24 | Golden spiral arc of lower portion of face | ||
Not every face has golden ratios as numerous and as exact as Florence’s, but most faces regarded as beautiful will have a significant number of key facial proportions that are at, or very close to, the golden ratio. Examples of this are shown in my posts on:
- The Golden Ratio Analysis in the Human Face
- Beauty in the Human Face, and
- The 2009 university study on the “New” Golden Ratio
“Beauty is in the eye, or phi, of the beholder?”
It has long been said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and thought that beauty varies by race, culture or era. The evidence, however, shows that our perception of physical beauty is hard wired into our being and based on how closely the features of one’s face reflect phi in their proportions.
So what are your thoughts about these findings on perceptions of facial beauty? Is the Golden Ratio the most critical factor? Is the evidence presented here on facial beauty more precise, complete and compelling than symmetry alone, or the simplistic measures of the 2009 study? Your comments are welcome.
For further reading see the articles below:
https://www.goldennumber.net/facial-beauty-new-golden-ratio/
https://www.goldennumber.net/beauty/
https://www.goldennumber.net/face
https://www.facebook.com/FlorenceColgate
http://www.beautyanalysis.com/index2_mba.htm
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/27/does-this-woman-have-the-perfect-face/#ixzz2cfmLphjv
Hello! I’ve enjoyed reading your work on the golden ratio in facial aesthetics. I have an obsession with the golden ratio in regards to faces, hah.
I found a study that you might find interesting. They found no correlation between the golden ratio and facial attractiveness: http://www.angle.org/doi/abs/10.2319/111812-883.1
The measurements were taken in three dimensions, though. But it does make me question the validity of the golden ratio as an indicator of beauty.
I was also wondering, how much of a deviation is significant enough to go from appealing to unappealing? I imagine this is complicated by the sheer number of possible ratios on the face.
Maybe a rough approximation could be obtained from these 12 measurements: http://facethis.blogspot.com/2012/01/perfect-face-golden-ratio-beauty.html?m=1
Someone made a rating out of ten by subtracting the individual deviations of each ratio from ten. So that helps.
I also wonder because my ratios (seven) composed from those 12 measurements aren’t too off from the golden ratio but I am no Brad Pitt, haha. I was thinking this could be due to other possible ratios or the possibility that deviations of .10 to .20 make a huge difference. And I venture to propose that given my ratios, that my others can’t be too far off from the golden ratio. Perhaps it would be more likely that they are near the same as the ones I took.
I appreciate your work and would love to hear your opinions on my thoughts! Have a good one!
The study you reference above at angle.org concludes “Ratios between 3D facial distances were not related to attractiveness. Most of the facial ratios were different from the golden ratio.” This first statement implies that a face could be highly distorted from normal human facial proportions, and yet have no impact its on attractiveness. This seems unlikely. It IS true that most of the ratios found in the study were different than the golden ratio, but that’s because only 1 of the the 10 of the measurements used in the study are the ones commonly associated with golden ratios in the face. The 12 facial markers in the study you referenced at facethis.blogspot.com identify the typical golden ratios in the face. The researchers at angle.org didn’t use the same markers, and thus found different measures and ratios.
See my subsequent analysis of the study referenced above at https://www.goldennumber.net/meisner-beauty-guide-golden-ratio-facial-analysis/. Here I show that the facial image used in the study DID in fact exhibit most of the the same golden ratio proportions that are illustrated in the above study of Florence Colgate’s face above
It’s very fascinating how Golden ratio is implemented in facial symmetry analysis.
Bummer, looks like my previous comment didn’t take. But I will summarize.
I found a new study that found that the ratios of facial features between attractive and unattractive faces were more or less the same. Something like that. It would be interesting to see your thoughts on that study. You can find it easily through pubmed by searching for the golden ratio. Should be first article. I would post the link but I am afraid that that was what made my comment not take.
But it is interesting. How much of a deviation from a ratio is significant enough to have a face be unattractive. I imagine the number of ratios on the face and the other deviations would factor in. I had like .10 deviations in ratios dealing with the eyes, chin, nose, and mouth. It makes me curious. What would Brad Pitt’s deviations be like, keeping in mind that I am no George Clooney, though I have gotten second-hand compliments. .05? Less?
Have you seen the twelve ratios of the face passed around on the net? Do you believe that to be a good approximation? People have figured out how to get ratings out of ten (subtract deviations from ten), but I believe it is useless without seeing some sort of distribution of where people fall. Homely people at the end of the spectrum could be 6, which is considered a good number. Or even more if deviations aren’t ever so off so as to get to numbers like 3 or 4. That also depends on the number of ratios taken.
I would love to hear your thoughts!
I’d want to review that study before accepting it. There are too many instances in which people claim that no golden ratio exists when the truth is that they simply don’t understand it or know how to measure it. As an example, see the university study on beauty I found to be very flawed.
I agree with you as well Train. And yeah, there are several people who claim to defer with facial golden ratio.
I must say there is tremendous change after using Golden Ratio. Recommended for all.
is it even real because it seems like false information
Amazing analysis. The video really tell fascinating truth that golden ratio appear so much in these beautiful face.
I am interested in seeing the application of these proportions on the human face from different parts of the world.
Has anyone used this ratio to make a animation morph to take a photo of someone [especially a user supplied one] that will then morph the face such that gets a close fit to the ratio?
Yes, see the morph on the Facial Analysis and the Beauty Mask page. There’s a link to a YouTube video with the morph animation.
.
But isn’t this driven by racial or ethnic differences in contestants. The ratios that mention nose flair and curve or eye shape. Don’t those kick out Africans or Asians? Isn’t there a way to weight this so it allows for a better comparison among all ethnic groups. I DON’T want to be PC, but right now this measures the most beautiful Caucasian. In fact, I would pitch it like that otherwise, you are saying that all other ethnic groups are just varying degrees of ugly. I don’t think that is what they mean to do.
There are indeed variations within different ethnic groups that go beyond the scope of this article. This in no way leads to the conclusion that the same degree of beauty isn’t found in all ethnic groups. See the work of Dr. Stephen Marquardt at http://www.beautyanalysis.com/beauty-and-you/face-variations/face-variations-ethnic-group/ for more information.
I think they err in that it’s not a golden ratio that is important but how much deviation from symmetry can a person have before they are considered unhealthy. It’s a subconscious instinct. For example, when I was young I noticed my nostril were not symmetric. This was in the late 70s and I wondered if I had a disease. This types of asymmetries, when pronounced enough, are often associated with diseases.
Also, I was hit by a baseball on my right eye socket with an orbital trifracture right and was very assymetric for quite a while. People recoiled from me although of course my condition was not communicable disease, the instinct of these people was I had a communicable disease. I wore a pirate’s patch for a while and had reconstructive surgery and now my symmetry has returned to a level that people don’t fear.
However, don’t mistake such asymmetries with asymmetries associated with old age since those asymmetries aren’t diseases and the properties of a person that allowed them to live to be old and healthy even might make such asymmetries such as wrinkles attractive, personality defining, and others more helpful and protective of older folks as identified by their wrinkles and such.
There is no error. Both proportion and symmetry are very important. An ugly face can be perfectly symmetrical, so that is clearly not all their is to beauty. Similarly, a beautiful face can be asymmetrical. Significant deviations from either ideal proportions or symmetry will both result in perceptions of unattractiveness.
OK, thanks. I guess worded a bit too generally. The proportions being within a certain range are of course indicative of health too as they reflect a general functional plan human beings and other creatures must adhere to be functional so both are important.
What I found interesting the the case of the 2012 Face of England winner was that her face become less beautiful when the left or right side were mirrored for symmetry, even being somewhat unnerving, but maybe that’s because I saw a picture of her original face before the other altered pictures.
She’s total white bread. Dyed blonde, blue eyes??? She looks like the most generic woman in the world. If this is the most beautiful woman in the world, then apparently the Third Reich is back in power. ..
The contest was run by a cosmetic company in England, looking for Britain’s “most perfect face.” This is not necessarily the same as the “most beautiful face,” and takes nothing away wide range of beauty found in other countries, races and cultures.
People naturally seek symmetry and balance. There seems to be an almost natural attraction to it. I have wondered if symmetry suggests a calming order or balance.
I find I unconsciously eat my dinner in a fashion, which was pointed out to me, that I always end up with balance amounts till the end.
While Architecture and Design often achieve balance, it would seem to provide the more natural order of functionality and practicality. Probably the progenitor of the Stickley and Batcheldor phenomenon of the early 20th century. I think the practicality and cleanliness of modern design is best illustrated in the Scandinavian movement of the 1980s. Though started in the 1950s and maturing through the 60s and 70s, by the 1980s the design and Materials were mature.
One thing often overlooked in the maturation of design and innovation is the advent of computer aided design and engineering. Finally the maturation of the integration of these technologies permitted the rapid prototyping and testing of concepts inexpensively. Now the phrase “If it can be conceived it can be created.” Can be expanded to “lets make one and will it sell.”
The mirrored left side is 1000 times better than her mirrored right side. So she’s really half pretty and half no so pretty. So how can she be the most beautiful? I don’t really find the normal face shot that attractive because of this. I notice symmetry immediately. If it’s not there then it doesn’t matter what you do with makeup or clothes, your face is still flawed in a bad way. My face isn’t symmetrical and I hate it With the face, one can style the hair to compliment the assymetrical face so the whole package doesn’t look like the elephant man. What’s worse is when a woman’s hips (etc) aren’t symmetrical. That’s just unfixable also, but of course a nice flowing dress can help.
Nasal FLARE
Corrections made. Thank you.
The golden ratio is interesting mathematically, but the problem with it is that it gets shoehorned into places where it just isn’t there naturally. You can apply it to anything if to do a little searching.
It is true that the golden ratio is sometimes incorrectly attributed, but with appropriate study and research you can sift those out to get to the true applications. My personal guidelines, as per page 57 of my book (https://bit.ly/goldenratiobook) are shown as follows:
With these tools, you might begin to notice examples of golden ratios all around you. Sometimes, these proportions may have been intended by the creator at other times, they may be just a coincidence. Bearing this in mind, I propose the following guidelines for identifying the golden ratio as a basis for composition:
– Relevance: Appearances should be based on the subject’s most prominent or relevant features.
– Ubiquity: Appearances should appear in more than one place to demonstrate knowledge and intent rather than coincidence.
– Accuracy: Appearances should be within about 1 of the golden ratio, measured with as much accuracy as possible, and by using the highest-resolution images available.
– Simplicity: Appearances should be based on the simplest possible approaches, those that most likely would have been applied by the artist or designer.