The Perfect Face, part 2

Last week, we started our series on the pursuit for the “perfect face” and discussed symmetry.  This week, we will focus on facial proportions and what people consider to be ideal.

So how do we do this? Obviously, attempting to determine an ideal shape and size for the amazingly complex structure of the face is a loaded topic. We are trying to take something that, in my opinion, is truly artistic and abstract, and quantify it into something that can be measured. At least one doctor, however, has attempted to take on this very subject.

Dr. Julian De Silva at the Centre for Advanced Facial Cosmetic & Plastic Surgery in London designed a study that made an attempt to describe the perfect face. For this study, he used the number Phi.

The number Phi (Φ) equals 1.618 and is considered the “Golden Ratio.”  This number was first defined by Euclid in around 300 BC, but it’s origins can be documented as far back as around 450 BC. The Golden Ratio has been observed in nature, including plants, insects, humans, and even the human heartbeat. Many mathematicians consider it to be the “secret of beauty.”  Finding the Golden Ratio in nature made it possible to believe that a single number could help explain the beauty found in our natural environment.

Taking this concept, Dr. De Silva, created a computerized facial mapping program to create facial proportions based on the Golden Ratio.  He then applied the program to famous celebrity faces to find the best examples of “the perfect face” based on his calculations.  After searching across Hollywood to find the face that most closely fits the ideal proportions of the Golden Ratio, the winner is:

Amber Heard

Amber’s face matched the ideal proportions at 91.8%.  So if you agree with Dr. DeSilva’s methodology to map the perfect face, Amber’s is the closest real-life example (at least in terms of celebrities’ faces). Still, 91.8% leaves some room for improvement when it comes to perfection (no offense to Ms. Heard).

To take it one step further, Dr. DeSilva then created ideal proportions of specific facial features with his computer mapping program. Again, he compared his maps to faces of celebrities. For those with the ideal features, results are in:

Best Eyes – Scarlett Johansson (95.9%)

Best Nose – Amber Heard (99.7%)

Best Lips – Emily Ratajkowski (96.7%)

Best Forehead – Kate Moss (98.8)

Best Eyebrows – Kim Kardashian (94.8%)

Best Chin – Amber Heard (99.6%)

Best Facial Shape – Rhianna (91%)

Now, if we take each of those facial features from each of those celebrities, combine them, and create a new “ideal” face, we end up with:

Looks weird, creepy, crazy…right?  So why, if we take all of the ideal features and put them together, do we not get an ideal face?  Why is Amber’s face so obviously more beautiful than the one above?

Breaking down the face into individual parts without considering the face as a whole can be difficult and misleading. The nose that looks beautiful on you will most likely not work for the next person. In that sense we need to consider the harmony of the face.  Harmony means that there is a balance between each individual part that creates an overall facial type and individual, unique face. This also is an argument against the Golden Ratio as an accurate measurement of beauty.  It does not take different facial types and harmony into account.

But perhaps beauty cannot truly be measured.  Perhaps there is no such thing as ideal proportions for the human face.  Different proportions work for different types of faces, and that complex topic alone makes the task of quantifying beauty seemingly impossible.  This is a debate that has existed since the beginning of time and will continue on for eternity.

To read more about Dr. De Silva and his studies, you can see him here: http://www.londonfacialplasticsurgery.co.uk/

I will finish this blog with a great quote from Tina Fey:

 “Now every girl is expected to have Caucasian blue eyes, full Spanish lips, a classic button nose, hairless Asian skin with a California tan, a Jamaican dance hall ass, long Swedish legs, small Japanese feet, the abs of a lesbian gym owner, the hips of a nine-year-old boy, the arms of Michelle Obama, and doll tits. The person closest to actually achieving this look is Kim Kardashian, who, as we know, was made by Russian scientists to sabotage our athletes.”

In our next segment, we will expand on this topic and discuss the most requested celebrity facial features by patients to their surgeons.

Here’s to the beautiful human face,

-Dr. Yamamoto

The Perfect Face, part 1

Often when I talk to patients about what results they want to see, the topic of “the perfect face” comes up. What do we consider perfect?  Does each person have a different idea of perfection? This is obviously a very complex topic that we could write entire books about, but I think a good place to start is with symmetry.

Symmetry means that both sides (the right half and the left half) of the face are perfect mirror images of each other. Asymmetry means that each side of your face is unique and different from the opposite side. While some asymmetries are more obvious (e.g. the nose is crooked, one ear is larger than the other) others are much more subtle. Close examination of a face will show slight differences when it comes to the intricate structures of the face, including the eyes, ears, mouth, cheeks, chin, and nose.  

In reality, there is no such thing as a perfectly symmetric human face.  You could search the Earth for a face that is the best candidate and find out that it is not symmetric.  The best way to explain this idea is to give you an example.

Let’s take a look at Candice, one of the world's most famous supermodels:

Her face looks pretty darn symmetric.

Now I have drawn a line down the middle of her face and produced two new photos, one with her left side of her face mirrored on the right, as well as two rights of her face mirrored the same way:

Here’s another example with original, two lefts, and two rights:

Now, going back to look at the original photos, you can start to notice slight differences in the shape of the eyes, straightness of the nose, structure of the lips, and curvature of the jawline.  And this is in one of the more "perfect" faces we know!  Her original photos don't seem so symmetric anymore.

Notice that while the mirrored photos resemble Candice, they don’t exactly look like her.  The other photos could be seen as a totally different person.  The mirrored photos can also be, arguably, interpreted as looking strange or odd.  I believe that this is because, we as humans, are not trained to look at perfectly symmetric faces. Probably because they don’t exist!

Now keep in mind that the photo itself can lend to some inherent asymmetries if the model’s face is not perfectly in line with the camera angle. But that is precisely the point! In the real world, we never look at someone’s face exactly straight-on. We always see faces at somewhat of an angle. Therefore, a perfectly symmetric face is actually necessary in that we would never truly observe it with our own eyes.

In pursuit of the “perfect face” we need to remember that it does not exist in the literal sense of the word.  When it comes to perfect symmetry, it cannot be achieved, nor should it be sought after. Candice is a great example that asymmetry is unique, individual, and beautiful. Those are the types of qualities we are striving for.

In future blogs, I will address other aspects of “the perfect face.”  Next up, what is the most desirable look for specific parts of the face, and which celebrity face is the closest to perfect?

Here’s to the beautiful human face,

-Dr. Yamamoto