 |
 |
Dear all, In South Korea, the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI), has produced a model of the 'average' (yes, the mathematical one) korean face. http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200508/200508160008.html One of its main goals is to be used for plastic surgery. I should add that South Korea is one of the countries where plastic surgery is most common. However, the reason plastic surgeons want to use it is not as an ideal face; quite the opposite, they'll use it to show people how they can move away from it. I should also add that koreans are one of the most genetically homogeneous people in the world. So, does this suggest that 'beauty', in Korea at least, is not the average face? At least not the ideal some people would strive for? Just a thought for discussion best wishes from new zealand! edgar On 10/4/06, siddharth <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > chris,terence- > > its perhaps best to look at the entire spectrum of things, the > 'black&whites'(&grays) as well as the '16billioncolours'... and arrive > at the notion of difference & repetition (no intentional reference to > Deleuze here!); the averageness & the uniqueness, both equally > important to the spectrum. > as in the 'faces' example, there is ofcourse an 'average' form(at) to > all faces we perceive, the shapesizetexture, but its the specifics > that differentiate people-we-know from this generic format (our mental > concept of a 'face', well we all do have one such fuzzy concept > hardwired in us!) that makes us even have the ability to perceive & > recognize faces; remembering ofcourse that there is, in reality, no > 'average face' in existence ofcourse and that it is merely a > mathematical/conceptual construct.... a lot perhaps like the > averagehumandimensions concept, however unreal, that (mis)lead > architecture & some anthropometric design fields for many years, when > mass production was the way. > > it really is duofold- quality&quanity, difference&repetition, > averageness&uniqueness, form&formless - so lets not bias our view! > > cheers* > > On 10/4/06, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Dear Chris, > > Good point. As a matter of detail, in terms of the preferred aesthetics > of > > faces (combined, compounded or morphed) it seems to be _exactly_ the > > mathematical average that is used (New Scientist 2 Oct 2004 and 22 Feb > > 1992). There are claims that compounding helps increase 'beauty' by > > increasing complexity and that people have an preference for increased > > complexity of facial detail. An empirical touchstone is model agencies > > apparently preferred photos of potential models whose faces had been > > digitally modified in this way. > > Cheers > > Terry > > > > > > >I don't think there is any suggestion that this "average" follows the > rules > > of mathematical averages, I put it in quotes to indicate that it's a > kind of > > rhetorical gadget. > > > > > -- edgar rodriguez lecturer industrial designer, phd candidate school of design, victoria university of wellington po box 600, wellington new zealand office: +64 (0)4 463 6245 mobile: +64 (0)21 0561515