A template for human beauty is found in phi, the pentagon and dodecagon
Dr. Stephen R. Marquardt is the world’s most recognized expert on facial analysis and beauty. He has appeared in many documentaries and been referenced in countless articles, including the Beauty episode of BBC’s 2001 documentary “The Face.” Dr. Marquardt, also CEO of Marquardt Aesthetic Imaging, has studied human beauty for decades in his practice of oral and maxillofacial surgery, and now continues his studies full time.
His work includes cross-cultural surveys on beauty, in which he found that all groups had the same perceptions of facial beauty. He also analyzed the human face from ancient times to the modern day. Through his research, he discovered that beauty is not only related to phi, but can be defined for both genders and for all races, cultures and eras with the beauty mask which he developed and patented. This mask uses the pentagon and decagon as its foundation. Both of these geometric shapes embody phi in all their dimensions. For a more complete treatment and understanding of the scope of his work information see his site at Marquardt Beauty Analysis. On that site you will see the evolution and connection of the phi-based geometry of the pentagon and dodecagon to the archetypal human face of his Marquardt Beauty Mask, as illustrated in concept below:
 |
You will also see his application of the Marquardt Beauty Mask to show the universality of our perceptions of human facial beauty across all eras of history, cultures and ethnicity, as highlighted in the examples below:
 |  |  |
| Asian | Black | Caucasian |
 |  |
| 1350 B.C. Egypt | 500 B.C. Greece |
 |  |
| 164 A.D. Rome | 1794 A.D. |
Dr. Marquardt has another section of his site that explores face variations by age, sex and ethnic group. Here he observes that “Each archetypal mask appears to be a species non-ethnic configuration. That is the more a face, any face, looks like the mask, the more attractive it is to all humans. However no face, even the most attractive/beautiful face, exactly correlates with or matches (i.e.- exactly fits) the Mask. We are all a variation of the mask. Some of us vary only a little and some vary a lot – but most of us are somewhere between.”
A digital application of the Marquardt Beauty Mask
Dr. Marquardt of course used the concepts he discovered and perfected to achieve successful results in surgeries on his many patients during his years practice. An independent researcher and graphic artist, who calls himself “The Photoshop Surgeon,” applied Dr. Marquardt’s mask in Photoshop to demonstrate its incredible ability to transform an already attractive face into one of exquisitely striking beauty. Click on the image below to watch this independently-created Youtube video showing the Marquardt Beauty Mask being applied in Photoshop with amazing results. The illustration below shows the the before and after images, with the alignment to the Marquardt Beauty Mask as the guide for the transformation in the center:
Explore the Marquardt Beauty Mask on your own
Details on applying the Marquardt Beauty Mask to your own photo can be found at “You and the Mask” page of his site. This includes male and female versions of the mask, frontal and lateral versions, in both smiling and repose (non-smiling) position. You can download the frontal and lateral repose versions of the female mask below. Click on image for full size version.
Note: The Marquardt Beauty Mask illustrations above are copyright 2001 by Dr. Stephen Marquardt at Marquardt Beauty Analysis and are used by permission.
I’d like to thank Dr. Marquardt for his extensive research in this area, and for allowing it to be shared in summary format here so that viewers of this site can be aware of his landmark work and visit his site to learn more about its background, concepts and application, as well as his mission for his work in this field.
Click below to see an excerpt from the BBC documentary on “The Face” featuring Dr. Marquardt at the 2:02 mark:
The human beauty is depends on the viewer – not on the face or the object.
I think the article is wrong in comparing Human Beauty to the Golden Ratio.
It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there is indeed some truth to this. Each of us is attracted to different features in others that we may consider beautiful. Furthermore, inner beauty is more important than physical beauty, and any of us will be perceived as more attractive with a kind smile than an angry sneer.
All that said though, our perceptions of beauty are very definitely related to mathematical proportions found in the human form that are related to the golden ratio. People whose facial dimensions vary significantly from this ratio will be perceived by most to be unattractive or even deformed and grotesque. See other examples of the golden ratio in the human face and other pages in this section.
Watch also the evidence presented in the videos above. You can say that proportion doesn’t matter, but can you back it up with evidence?
I completely agree! It’s really cool, but I think the beauty thing is a bit of a stretch!
Amazing information and stats. Great artist lesson. Cheers!
@Yuwu where on earth is your research?
See The National Geographic: Brain Games season 3 – Law Of Attractions. Jason Silva explained about our perception about Human Beauty (Outer Beauty) and Brain Games Website, still in the “Law Of Attraction” stage and you can find when there’s a several “test” to jugde your perceptions about Human Physical Appearance.
I will definitely look at that! @Johan
Emily, after you look The Brain Games season 3 – Law of Attractions, BBC Human Face part 3: Beauty hosted by John Cleese and Elizabeth Hurley, Marquardt Beauty Analysis, etc, would you share your knowledge about these thinks to me?
Here are the links:
https://youtu.be/-cHNRQCtPzI
It just happens that subconsciously, humans find beauty in the pi ratio or Fibonaci sequence . Therefore the article is right in my opinion:)
Yes, you’re right. Will you spread your knowledge about this thought to the others around you? Good Luck!
You are wrong, Susana. The golden ratio determine if one object is beautiful!
She’s not wrong. She has a point. All of nature is Fibonacci…everything. But someone who is unconventionally pretty or handsome is no less beautiful than a person with total Golden Ratio aligned features. Indeed….look at the Materhorn. It’s beautiful. But is a more “perfect” mountain like Mt. Hood more beautiful because it isn’t all weathered and craggy? Nope. Beauty is subjective. However, the Golden Ratio is what determines all manner of the shapes of all living creatures…plants and animals.
This is not a wrong or right issue. It is just a really cool thing.
Amen
You’re objectively wrong. What you “think” doesn’t matter. The article literally just proved you wrong. Take your feelings somewhere else.
Whether or not we are subjectively attractive, our faces and our bodies and all of nature is created through the Golden Ratio. Check out a picture of the Fibonacci Spiral…i.e., the Golden Ratio. Then look at your eyes. The Golden Ratio starts at your pupil and goes to your eyelid and to your outer eye and to your eyebrow….almost a perfect Fibonacci spiral. Look at a sleeping cat…curled up all Fibonacci.
While beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, and I think our attraction to people is multi-layered, the easiest form to create via living cells or storm systems and our own bodies is the Golden Ratio. And indeed, people whose features most closely line up to the Golden Ratio are more pleasing to the eye. That’s not a bad thing. It just is. A rose is pleasing because the entire plant conforms to the Golden Ratio…all plants grow according to the Golden Ratio. A lovely flower, a handsome man like Matthew Gray Gubler or a lovely gal like Christie Brinkley are just part of nature.
Sure, MMG is fine but I like variations on a theme…different features, unconventional. They are no less perfect than a person with Golden Ratio fine tuned looks. It’s just nature. What sucks is that our society tends to equate worth with subjective standards of beauty…that’s another discussion.
Take care!!!! Best to you.
Its just comparing the face formation to the universal beauty formation. Its not something like one with perfect phi is the most beautiful. It just mean that the face with matches perfectly has the same face formation
Personally I have no physical attraction towards severe burn victims, I believe the absence of Phi or the golden ratio is a major contributing factor. I do not find disfigured, mutilated or defective people attractive (based on appearance)
I find symmetry to be an attractive trait which leads me to believe that the golden ratio is a driving force in deciding whether something is beautiful. I don’t believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that there is a set method, formula or equation that can explain beauty even replicate & reproduce it.
That being said I am sure that there has to be room to allow for “freak” occurrences or times where a conventionally attractive appearance takes the back seat with other elements and factors holding leverage or sway over the deciding process when it comes to finding something attractive.
All I know that in nature 10’s date 10’s, 8’s date 8’s and 5’s date 5’s.
Where can I obtain a copy of the research? I am an undergrad doing research on facial expressions and beauty. Thanks!
See http://www.beautyanalysis.com for the site and research of Dr. Stephen Marquardt on facial beauty.
Gary, The NatGeo Brain Games Season 3 – “Laws of Attraction” explained about Human Beauty and Golden Ratio in Human and Nature. There’s more evidence when human beauty isn’t in the eyes of the beholder, it’s a Rational Ratio, Golden Ratio, symmetrical (not 100% but extremely high precition) and highly proportional. Science is the best!
Human beauty is defined by Phi, the Golden Ratio or Divine Proportion and found throughout the human face and forms.
Human beauty is within…perceptions, opinions are individualistic. Human form, The trees, plants and animals are defined by Phi and the golden ratio..beauty is a shallow idea of relevance…
You are quite right, and I’ve added a closing paragraph to this article to bring focus to that wisdom. True beauty in all that we are means much more than physical beauty, and that should not be lost on any of us.
I had an idea that the golden ratio was related to beauty, but I did not realize that the relationship was so simple.
The Golden Ratio can explain the beauty proportion and symmetrical in human face shape and body, but this ratio can’t measured a human skin, lips and eyes colour. Inner beauty is the most importhant think to interact in social live. Physical appearance aren’t everythink but all begin from physical appearance. Sadly, in real live a slightly lower average looking peoples with a bad atticude like egoism, childish, narcism, racism, impolite, arrogance, etc and a lower average intelligence (IQ) are the most common people in our socialty.
Cosmetology involves several specialties dealing with beauty. There are various occupations that a cosmetologist can apply themselves.
Beauty may not really be in the eye of the beholder.
watch this and see:
I feel that beauty is in the eye of the beholder as well. Being that I am a Facial Plastic Surgeon I have a lot of patients that come in that are not satisfied with how they look. They want this perfect nose, or too have those larger lips but what they do not realize until i explain this to them is that you will never have a perfect outcome but imperfectivity is what creates beauty.
With all due respect, that seems like a rather ambiguous and unsatisfactory answer, especially when Dr. Marquardt’s extensive research as a facial plastic surgeon provides very specific insight and measurable guides into what can be done to enhance one’s attractiveness. If it were really true that “imperfectivity creates beauty,” wouldn’t a face dive into an empty pool be just as effective as plastic surgery? Beauty doesn’t require absolute perfection, but imperfection can result in both attractiveness and the lack of it. Understanding what makes the difference is the key.
I think that there is truth to imperfections can be beautiful. Angelina Jolie for example has lips that at times look too big for the rest of her face, yet they stand out and look very attractive. Anne Hathaway is another example of someone with very big eyes but they are her most attractive feature, in my point of view.
To Lourdes, for celebrity cases like Angelina Jolie, Jessica Simpson, Nicole Kidman, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Leonardo di Caprio, George Clooney, Justin Bieber, etc actually not that good example for Human Atractiveness indicator because some celebrities like Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt before they’re become a famous actor, they’re not a happy family especially Tom Cruise. The Young Tom Cruise wants to be Roman Catholic Priest and went to Seminary Course to realized his profesion to become The Rome Catholic Priest. It’s seems when all people around the world today thinks when Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt are the “most handsome” men in the world and Angelina Jolie, Jessica Simpson, etc are the “most beautiful” women in the world are the results from Media Bias. If all of them are not a famous people, i doubt when all of them will considered the most attractive human in this Planet. But i pretty sure when almost all of those US Hollywood celebrities are still considered an attractive persons in the regular society.
Gary, it seems an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons who have better understanding about Human Face Proportions than a Plastic Surgeon. In fact Dr Stephen R Marquardt is an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon, subdivision from Dentists. 3 Years ago, i went to Oral Maxillofacial Surgeon to took my lower wisdom teeth removal surgery and took an Orthognatic Treatment because i suffered Temporo Mandibular Join Disorder. Today, after i finished my Orthognatic Treatment, i’m not only have a nice teeth, I almost haven’t or less TMJ Disorder problem. Thanks to my Orthognatic and Orthodontic Dentists.
One for all, in the name of Science, Human Beauty is about Mathematical Geometry equation like: Phi Ratio 1 : 1,618, Highly (not perfect 100%) Symmetrical and Rational Ratio (Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man / Man in The Circle). But Gary, actually i already tried to measured Vitruvian Man from lower foot to the navel and from navel to the head and i found this ratio “only” near with The Golden Ratio measurement, around 1 : 1,57…, not perfect 1 : 1,618. I don’t know exacly about this “anomaly”. Can you explain to me about this think? I strongly agree with your about the validity about Golden Ratio and i always think that Human Beauty, Handsome, Good Looking, etc actually a synonym for well proportioned, symmetrical and Golden Ratio from Mathematical Geometry Perspective. I always get upset (even get furious) with a lot of stubborn peoples around me include my cousins (i’m sorry you’re, Alwyn G Samuel isn’t handsome at all but don’t blame the math) who still thinks old, obsolete statements like: “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”, “Beauty is only under the skin”, “Beauty is Mistique”, ” Beauty is only about personal taste”.
No anomaly. The concept presented here is not that every feature of every person is going to conform to the golden ratio. It’s a system of understanding body proportions that proposes that the golden ratio is the best overall ratio in explaining the proportions of many dimensions in the human face and body, and that proportions that come closest to the golden ratio will be perceived by most people as being more attractive.
I’m glad for your answer. I will not accepted an old and unscientific statements like Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, Beauty is subjective, Beauty is just about personal teste, etc. And the science prooved it. Thanks Gary Meisner 🙂
golden ratio is universal ratio it is implecated from microbes to humen plants insects animals even non living creatures
I am studying to be a marriage counselor. And I love philosophy, especially those around love and virtue. I’m currently using phi to understand the not equal balance of human life, virtue, and what I call creation formulas like the torus. I need to get in touch with someone else that thinks as I do, anyone willing, send me a fb message. Thanks.
Phi-sanating
That pun was pure gold.
We all see differently. A great art lesson.
This article is completely astonishing. OMG!
this mask fits me like a glove, of course i do have top tier Indian genetics though
Everybody sees people different, that’s why only some people love one person. E.g imagine if i was mathematically beautiful, i would still look hideous to some people and irresistible to others. It doesn’t matter about being mathematically beautiful!!
It’s true that anyone may be beautiful to someone in their own way, and for who they are. If we’re honest though, some people are far more beautiful than others, and there is mathematics in the proportions that create perceptions of beauty.
When it comes to physical beauty, some people have certain features that the majority of human beings find attractive(not everyone though). I am glad that personality and grace and chemistry play a big role in beauty. I have known beautiful people on the outside that after knowing them a little deeper, their beauty fades quickly;)
I personally feel that there’s a major difference between what and why we find something beautiful, and what and why we find something attractive, and it might be the reasons behind a lot of the disagreement on the question of beauty.
I think beauty is simply one part of the equation for finding someone/something attractive. For example while we are hard wired to find an attractive mate we’re also hardwired to find a mate that is dissimilar to our close relatives, to prevent inbreeding. This is what often gives more exotic looking potential mates an advantage. So the more exotic one might not be considered as beautiful as the other but might still produce a powerful attraction anyway. It’s like there is an agreed upon base line for beauty but we then modify that base line by our own personal likes, dislikes, and motivators.
Someone that is high energy and emotionally volatile by default might find heavy metal “beautiful”, while a person that is more sedate and emotionally gentle might fine classical more to their tastes. Or jazz vs folk, and so on.
I remember a friend setting me up once and he said the girl was a “knock out” and she was, very, very pretty. And I knew it too, but for some reason I just didn’t feel any spark. But there was another girl who was really cute, but not as pretty, that I was really drawn too. What can I say I like rounder faces with a bit more body to them, but that’s me.
“A lot of disagreement about beauty”. So this statement apply to a regular person who they’re have a lower “average” looking. We talking about outer beauty, not inner beauty. But, if you’re can proves your idea about a Beautiness, please ask to us, a Goldennumber Netizen. But if your idea don’t match with a Rasional Ratio and Golden Ratio, i doub your idea and back to the Science of Beauty like Human Symmerty, Good Proportion, and Vitruvian Man Rational Ratio. Sorry, but i’m not that like to the peoples who thinks “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder” because they’re jugde a person beautiful / handsome or not with their sentimental emotion.
Phi really does define beauty but what we individually think about beauty is an extension of this.
Golden Ratio IS the base of all that is beautiful, we then add what we like within a very close envelope..
hey gary, im doing my project on the golden ratio and am using this site, is this information cited and safe to use? thank you and fantastic article!
Thanks. As to citing, the information presented is supported by the images and links on the page, or simply by the evidence and reason, and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. While citing and peer reviews are certainly good ideas in principle, in practice I’ve seen a number of cited articles on this site’s topic which contain inaccurate, incomplete and misleading information. It’s best for all to do some level of critical analysis rather to simply believe what we read.
how can i cite this
See https://www.goldennumber.net/content-images-use/
happey
The reason for this phenomenon is based on the secrets of the Masters of art, architecture, and energy, who kept this powerful knowledge hidden for thousands of years: The Golden Ratio (i.e., the Divine Ratio) and other sacred geometry emanate light, which clairvoyants have seen for thousands of years.
This is precisely why da Vinci’s Mona Lisa painting, a small and modest work of art, is the #1 painting in the world, drawing over 6 million visitors annually. When he created the portrait, da Vinci layered in so much hidden sacred geometry and other energetic principles into this work, that it emanates higher frequencies of light, which are measurable both qualitatively and quantitively.
When these energetic principles are used in any work, architecture, or furnishing, people are drawn to it mysteriously, just as they are to runway models or the Mona Lisa painting.
I use sacred geometry and other powerful subtle energy techniques in all of my work to harmonize energy, so that the homes and businesses I design and build not only look good, but FEEL good. The beneficial energy, which I call “Divine energy”, is healing and nurturing to all levels of our being…physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually…and can even reverse the aging process.
Welcome to the new “green”.
This was a great read. Agree with your thoughts.
I disagree with your theory concerning beauty because no one actually has golden skin color so who the hell are we applying this ratio to….
It’s the mathematical ratio that’s “golden,” not the skin colors. The golden ratio, 1.618, can be applied to any face of any color, culture or era.
Gary, if you don’t mind, what’s your “ideal” skin colour for Human Being? Do you more like Chinese Yellow Skin, Southeast Asian Light Brown Skin, Indian and Pakistani Brown Skin, Sub Saharan Africans Black Skin, Native American Brownish to Reddish Skin Colour, or not all of them.
I personally don’t think there is an ideal skin color. Beauty is found in all races and cultures. There are many factors that impact perceptions of beauty, including proportion, symmetry, skin tone, absence of blemishes, facial expression, age, health and more. The concepts presented here on proportion are meant as an aid to understanding just one dimension of human perceptions of attractiveness.
I strongly agree with you again. Thanks for sharing your opinion and experience to me.
This is not about your agreement or not. This is Science, not religion / languages / etc. Even a biological basis can’t be “absolutely perfect” with a geometrical basis, but, you can’t deny about Golden Ratio or another Mathematical explanation about Human and Nature Beauty.
This is for the author.
I understand that the golden ratio provides an objective definition on what beauty is. It is useful when we define beauty strictly based on physical appearance (I understand that what’s on the inside counts but lets be completely objective here). While being objective, I’ve noticed that universally many agree that people are attractive when they convey these proportions instilled in the golden ratio.
Some would argue that objective beauty varies between cultures and time periods. And this leaves the question if we are genetically prone to gravitate toward the golden ratio or if the golden ratio is simply something that has been instilled via brainwashing and that is why we gravitate towards it today? In other words, in a cultural context, what some consider favourable features may vary between cultures and time periods and oh so conveniently here in north america we have come to find the golden ratio appealing. This is only because history has slowly gravitated towards it and perhaps in the next 100 years a big nose and a wide jaw may be the new envy and we’ll find new equations to scientifically explain it; perhaps we can call it the diamond ratio!
If we have culturally derived the golden ratio rather than come to it based on genetic predispositions I challenge us to question beauty and to start training ourselves to value a crooked nose or a wide jaw. Perhaps by changing our cognitive processes using positive or negative reinforcement we can come to see everyone as drop dead gorgeous objectively. What a wonderful world this would be if beauty wasn’t known to be scarce but everywhere in equality.
I encourage you to critique this.
You raise a valid question, but the evidence available suggests a different conclusion. Please see the extended work of Dr. Marquardt on beauty in other eras and cultures:
http://www.beautyanalysis.com/research/evidence/former-eras-beauty/
http://www.beautyanalysis.com/beauty-and-you/face-variations/face-variations-ethnic-group/
Changes in human perception to see everyone as drop dead gorgeous would be a wonderful thing for eliminating both vanity and discrimination. Physical beauty is fleeting, so hopefully we learn to see that the more important beauty is that found within. From a less idealistic viewpoint, see the work of Dr. Marquardt on ranges of beauty and give an honest answer as to whether you think all these faces will someday be seen as drop dead gorgeous:
http://www.beautyanalysis.com/research/evidence/beauty-ranges/
His work is based on application of the golden ratio in determining beauty. The golden ratio as a factor in beauty is not significant simply because of a learned cultural behavior. It’s significance is rooted in its unique properties in mathematics and geometry, and its appearances in nature.
It is true that our perception of physical beauty is defined by phi. Not to be mean but most people that object to this and insist that beauty is in the eye of the beholder are unattractive people or are committed to an unattractive person. Beauty has a wide range of possibilities variation within the phi parameters, and personal preferences are “in the eye of the beholder” but the more a face deviates from the mask the less beautiful it is.
i find it interesting that people argue nuts and bolts…consider the body..it functions as a whole…fully integrated …inseparable …It may be useful to isolate one subsystem for study and analysis but one surely must see this in context to and interrealtionship with the whole critter. Color, lighting, fragrance,and for that matter the observers blood sugar level must play a part in the perception of beauty…it isnt just phi driving the reaction. but it is swirled in there somehow…ehh
Marquardt Beauty Masks or The Golden Decagon Mask only to do with a Human Face or Human Body well Proportion, not a skin colour, hair style, etc. If you’re not satisfied just from The Golden Ratio and Human Symmetry to explain Human Beautiness, you can see your Skin Doctor to a better explanation about a healty skin contour, colour, etc. A people like you must to search another think about a Human Beauty.
From big bang, to string theory, to god,to zero point energy,to every thing math has an answer that is logical.Think about the answer to ufo,s and aliens.Doug Raleigh
Greetings Gary,
I’ve seen several shows on PBS (The Great Math Mystery), The History Channel (The Human Calculator), and several documentaries on You Tube from the BBC, pertaining to the “Golden Number”, the “Golden Spiral”, and the “Golden Ratio”, all referring to the same number. I find the information fascinating, and also find myself sub-consciously shaking my head back-and-forth and grinning in amazement while watching.
30 Years ago, my wife had to receive “Maxillofacial Surgery”, because of a hereditary and degenerative over-bite that was endangering her teeth. She had both her upper and lower palates cut free of her skull so that they could be re-aligned. 18 years ago, our daughter had the same surgery.
In both cases, the maxillofacial surgeon explained to me in much detail that this Golden Ratio would be used to reset their mouths to “normal.” I guess that’s one of the reasons I find you, your sites, and the TV documentaries so interesting..
Thank you for all the the time, effort and goodwill you put into your work! 😀
Bill Gebhart
Yes, Bill. The Golden Ratio seems more useful to the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon (Dentist) and even an Orthodonty. A lot of peoples aren’t satisfied with their face and body shape even though they had a lot of Plastic Surgeons like Rhinoplasty, Double Eyelid Surgery, Lips surgery, an so on. These are become the problems because they don’t really understand about their face contour. For example: They asked to their Plastik Surgeons to make their nose more prominent or vice versa, but actually the problem wasn’t about their nosebridge angle, but they have too or less prominent jaws shapes, eyebrow ridges, etc. They must learn more about their face shape and contour (i know when this is far more complicated than we thought). And the Marquardt Golden Decagon Masks both repose frontal and lateral are the best explanations “the beauty facial map” besides to the Orthognatic guidelines for the Dentists or Mouth and Face Surgeons.
Although I love mathematics more than everything else, most examples seem to me like “Seek and you shall find”.
I guess the other side of that is “don’t look very hard and you’ll never know.” The thing to understand is that the key golden ratios in the face are found in very fundamental facial markers: the inner eyes in relation to the width of the face, the outer eyes in relation to the distance from the inner eyes to the width of the face, the teeth/lip line in relation to the distance of the pupils to the chin. Some take a bit more study to understand, but this is not based on just picking arbitrary points to get to a desired outcome.
Its funny how up in arms people get about this. Its just a tool programed with statistical information. It can’t factor in how pretty a woman’s eyes are or the overall shape of your head in conjunction with your face. Don’t let something that has a limited data base ruin your day. It does do a great job in conjunction with just the mathematics of a persons face. So just RELAX!
It is soooooo cool, since that there are so many things in nature are Golden Ratioed. I believe that this also must be related to the Theology. We are also part of the nature that think Golden Ratioed things looks beautiful, it is not for us to define beauty, and find relationships among each other, it is actually that because the Golden Ratio we can find them beauty, otherwise they will not be beauties at the first place.
My question is why do people who have similar ratio still appear to be different. Is it base on how our brain perceived? Because base on the golden ratio, mathematically those who have same ratio should appear similar but they are not. Example Johnny Depp and Tom Cruise have similar ratio faces but both face appear different. When place the golden ration mask over their faces both have the same facial structure. What is this illusion that make people appear different? It goes against the golden ratio mathematics protocol.
The golden ratio just defines the basic framework of the positions of key facial features. Individual faces can vary from that basic golden ratio framework, and there is infinite variety in the features of each element of that framework. Mathematics shows us that there are so many combinations and permutations possible that there is a unique appearance for every person.
You said being that symmetry in the face does not really mean beauty but isn’t the golden ratio mask symmetrical?
Yes, the mask is symmetrical but it is just template whose purpose is to identify that key positions and proportions on the face that are based on the golden ratio. It is not expected that any individual’s face would align perfectly to the template. Very few faces, if any, are perfectly symmetrical. The key point is that both an attractive and unattractive face could be symmetrical. Symmetry does not make a face unattractive, but on its own it does not make a face attractive either. Significant deviations from golden ratio proportions or symmetry, however, are both likely to lead to a face being unattractive.
There. Is a documentary called the revelation of the pyramids. In the program there is a section where it talks about geometric facial features which have made up the features of an Egyptian pharaoh. The builders used geometry to form these faces which are perfectly formed. As a personal note I have a suspicion that the Greeks were aware of this and decided to make a mask for themselves. I could be wrong but they borrowed lot of ideas from the Egyptians. Also there is ample evidence that when Alexander entered Egypt he tried to disfigure statues facial feature. I make the point of the masqua mask is as bigoted attempt to elevate a race of people on their features. I could name several nations that it would not fit. All this attempt to blind the masses has worked. Subliminal messages are within the idea of a mask with geometric angles.
why do we pleasure or enjoy from golden ratio
Dear Gary
I really appreciate your work and hours of research.
But there is something that Doesn’t fit absolutely with your own research ( speaking about Marquardt mask)
I m not an expert nor a plastic surgeon, but depending on your phi matrix program you declare: the distance from eye pupils to the nose bottom should be 1.618 the distance from nose bottom to lip line.
Also the distance from nose bottom to lip line
In relation to the distance from lip line to the bottom of the chin should be also 1..618 for an attractive face.
These conclusions are confirmed by the study
Made by some university titled : new golden ratio for facial beauty.
I ll take the vertical ratios examples: the different pictures of the same girl with some face deformations. The majority of people choose the 0.36 ( so close to 1.618) as the most attractive face. After you put this face on
Phi matrix program , you discovered that .36 face is the most attractive because it fit with golden ratio ( pupils to nose base to lip line to chin).
Now let speak about Marquardt mask : if we calculate the ratio from eye pupils to nose base to lip line to chin : its roughly 2 or 1.95
It’s so far from 1.618 .
Also I get hard to discover other golden ratio section on phi mask. All measurement are far from 1.618. The length of the face/ width
The with of the mouth/ width of the nose
So dear Gary I found that Marquardt mask is far away from golden ratio measurements. And depending on the opinion of people ( the subconscious perception of beauty) they clearly choose the 0.36 girl as the most attractive.
If we put this girl face on the mask it doesn’t fit with any mean.
I still trust the common perception of people.
So how can you explain this difference between mask and true golden ratio measurements ??
ThAnk you dear
Hello Said,
Regarding the university study to which you refer, “New Golden Ratio for Facial Beauty,” please see my analysis of that study at https://www.goldennumber.net/facial-beauty-new-golden-ratio/.
The researchers ignored all the recognized facial markers that embody golden ratio proportions. They made up their own overly simplistic markers, came up with different ratios and incorrectly concluded that the golden ratio does not appear in the human face.
The .36 measure to which you refer is based on the vertical distances of the pupil-to-lip to hairline-to-chin. In doing so, they failed to compare the pupil-to-lip to pupil-to-chin ratio. Their preferred horizontal measure of .46 was based on the distance between the pupils to the width of the face. In doing so they also failed to compare the inner part of the eye to the width of the face, which I also show to be a common golden ratio proportion.
In my analysis, I show that the face that their study showed to be the most preferred for attractiveness actually embodied a dozen golden ratios. This proved that their methods were flawed and their conclusions were inaccurate. See my other work on this at https://www.goldennumber.net/meisner-beauty-guide-golden-ratio-facial-analysis/.
On the Marquardt mask, you must be measuring or interpretting it incorrectly. The “eye pupils-to-nose base to lip line-to-chin” is no where near the 2 or 1.95 as you state. I’d recommend using my PhiMatrix software (free trial available) to get measurements accurate to the pixel, and to be sure that you’re measuring to the nostrils and not the base.
I thank you for your inquiry and analysis of the detail. The more discussion we can generate the more we will be able to present the facts.
Good job, Gary! 🙂
Thanks, Adrian! I appreciate the support and recognition of my efforts to get the facts out on this topic.
“ARANYMETSZÉS HUSZÁR-MÓDSZERREL”.
A világon elsőként magyar mértani felfedezésre épülő módszerrel sikerült szabad szemmértékkel, érzésből is milliméter pontossággal alkalmazni a legszebb mértani arányokat:
az aranymetszést és az ezüst arányt.
Bővebb információ:
http://www.hussar.academy
“GOLD CUTTING WITH THE HUSSAR METHOD”.
For the first time in the world, using a method based on a Hungarian geometrical discovery, it was possible to use the most beautiful geometrical proportions with a free eye measurement and with millimeter accuracy:
the golden ratio and the silver ratio.