Measure of beauty

Many measures but no standards that I know of. Symmetry is one, even in beauty contests the women determined to be the most beautiful are the ones where their features are very symmetrical. In a product we all look for a smooth finish with nice rounded edges.

anyone else have an opinion?

We had a few units of beauty in the irritating units thread ages ago...

1 Helen launches a thousand ship.

The average woman is maybe a milli hellen ?

Hey, Here's an idea!

Create a sort of ebay type site, except instead of bidding to BUY objects, people bid to RATE them on specific categories.

This would also be a very interesting social experiment.

I'm thinking I should do this. Anyone else think it's good idea?

There are already quite a few sites for rating attractiveness, such as this one!

Caveot: They can be addictive though.

-John

Hi Labyguy,

Many folks would agree that symmetry is a requirement for beauty but I'm not so sure. The Japanese, for example, sometimes go out of their way to achieve Non-symmetry, In architecture, furniture, landscaping, and in many other areas as well.

As for me, if I were playing word association with someone, and the said the word "beautiful" the first word I would immediately say is "female". Sorry, but that's just how I think.

I was talking to a plastic surgeon friend of mine several years ago about how his profession determines beauty. He went into a long discussion, of which I remember very little now. One thing he did mention was that the "Hellenic" nose, i.e., long and slender is a hallmark of female facial beauty (not sure if that applies also to males).

Upbringing has a lot to do with what we perceive as beautiful. An uneducated person who grows up in filth will have a far different view of beauty than, say, a sophisticated, highly educated, individual. While "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" has validity, I'm sure there are certain qualities that define beauty for most folks. Symmetry, softness, curvature, etc. that contribute most to eye appeal. There are of course many others...

-John

Even though "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" has a lot of truth to it,

I wonder if we have a method to measure beauty of artifacts & products?

This is the method I proppose: as we know pretty well what we DO NOT like, it's just a matter of somehow collecting these items, what is left is beautiful!

I suspect that, for everything that we don't like, you will find a dozen people who do like it. Even the worst of designs have their admirers, this is a subject where at best you will get a consensus but never outright agreement.

four times a year i pay about twenty bucks for the quarterly mag called international design. in various catagories, awards are given to artifacts and products, based on standard design mantras of FORM and FUNCTION. when you open the mag it smells of linseed oil. linseed oil is the top end emulsion for high res photos. i was taking up a linoleum floor last summer and found myself doing a quick scan of the room for beauty, which if you look for, you find. so i guess nature and nurture are both nudging us toward beauty.

r/duke

As in the case of the ladies, "Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder"

Thanks M/s Labyguy, Del the cat, Gregg, r&d doc, Nigh, Johnjohn, duke & silver ghost for your inputs on Measure of beauty w.r.t Products.

I note the beauty attributes as Symmetry, Surface finish, rounded form. I too agree.

Then all the products could have been made meeting above attributes to (always) develop beautiful products...that does't seem to be OK either...

Some have observed & stated "Attractive (Beautiful) things work better!

As of artifacts some have noted that owners have maintained good looking artifact's better & so they seem long lasting /durable?

Like a boss doesn't scold his beautiful secretary for her mistakes...users are said to be more tolerant to product limitations!

Gregg yes, your idea is good & so you may start your experiment...

Back to list members...

Regards,

Guruprasad.K

Mumbai

I'm not sure I agree about symmetry, I quite like little imperfections in people. If I look at typical beauty queen types of women I quite often find them to be bland.

I agree as long as the imperfections are minor. One other thing that comes to mind concerning generally accepted qualities that define facial beauty is eye placement. Plastic surgeons have a formula that determines optimum distance between eyes that gives the most pleasing appearance.

Lets get back to Guruprasad's question, i.e., defining beauty of artifacts and products (non-human). How do we get beyond "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? There certainly is no formula for beauty, so what is it?

Just because I happen to like some particular object, that alone, doesn't make it attractive to anyone else.

Consider this line from John Keat's "ode on a Grecian Urn":

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty, - that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'

So what are we left with? As duke said in post #7 "nature and nurture are both nudging us toward beauty", but what is it that we're being nudged toward? It could be a scent, a sound (inculding music of course), a texture, a feeling or sensation, and a host of things beyond the visual.

To some extent I believe the definition of beauty is political. If there is a consensus that something is attractive, then, therefore, it must be. But only in a general sense because when you come right down to it we cannot define what beauty is!

Cheers,

-John

This sounds a bit like Marcel Duchamp's definition of art, it's art because I say it is.

Duchamp was correct and no one can prove him wrong!

To prove that he can't be proved wrong (what'd I say?) I make the statement that the the word "ART" is art. How bout that!

I'm convinced but, more importantly, it's time to go home.