Edgar interestingly Sydney Morning Herald has run a story on a project which
generated averaged 'two faces {which} were morphed from pictures of 1400 of the
city's residents.'
for the full article see the link below:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I26C21AED
original link:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/revealed-the-face-of-
sydney/2006/10/05/1159641464886.html
thank you, Erik
=======================
phone + 44 191 243 7724
fax + 44 191 227 3148
[log in to unmask]
Quoting edgar <[log in to unmask]>:
> 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
>
|