almost every discusion about looks would be better informed by notion of gestalt

[Deleted member 18582]

gestalt= notion that the sum is greater than its parts

This isn't just a clever little one liner, it's an entire psychological theory about the way we perceive the world.

facial harmony=sum is greater than its parts
facial angles(profile, 3/4, front)=sum is greater than its parts

every biweekly discussion about "nobody has ever been able to define harmony Kek" could be whisked away by this simple knowledge

Generally, discussions on almost everything on this board assume part1+part2+part3=sum
in reality, it's part1+part2+part3+X=sum

where X is always perceived, but never cognized

It is part of why I believe in trusting your intuition more than anything else, since intuition respects perception more than cognition.

 

[Deleted member 32486]

PSL rewired my fragile autistic intuition, I'm afraid. Also, I think the "X" is proportion, and it can be consciously recognized, it can just be hard to if you don't know what to look for.

 

[Deleted member 18582]

PSL rewired my fragile autistic intuition, I'm afraid. Also, I think the "X" is proportion, and it can be consciously recognized, it can just be hard to if you don't know what to look for.

What do you mean proportion

 

[Deleted member 32486]

What do you mean proportion

Ratios

 

[Deleted member 18582]

Ratios

those ratios are just another part

No matter how many parts you add, theres still an x, you would need infinite parts to get rid of the x, but that of course is just not possible.

 

[JCaesar]

gestalt= notion that the sum is greater than its parts

This isn't just a clever little one liner, it's an entire psychological theory about the way we perceive the world.

facial harmony=sum is greater than its parts
facial angles(profile, 3/4, front)=sum is greater than its parts

every biweekly discussion about "nobody has ever been able to define harmony Kek" could be whisked away by this simple knowledge

Generally, discussions on almost everything on this board assume part1+part2+part3=sum
in reality, it's part1+part2+part3+X=sum

where X is always perceived, but never cognized

It is part of why I believe in trusting your intuition more than anything else, since intuition respects perception more than cognition.

Now explain that to william about chico's harmony

 

[Deleted member 18582]

Now explain that to william about chico's harmony

william is a 15yo cringelordbaby.

 

[JCaesar]

william is a 15yo cringelordbaby.

He's really 15? Lmao

 

[Deleted member 18582]

He's really 15? Lmao

Probably
What a brat

 

[Deleted member 32486]

those ratios are just another part

No matter how many parts you add, theres still an x, you would need infinite parts to get rid of the x, but that of course is just not possible.

Are you talking about personal preference?

 

[JCaesar]

Probably
What a brat

Tbh wouldn't be surprised if he reveals that jfl

 

[Deleted member 18582]

Are you talking about personal preference?

No just objective immortal laws of beauty

 

[Deleted member 32486]

No just objective immortal laws of beauty

All objective laws of beauty are concrete and quantifiable

 

[Octavian_Augustus]

It's a cop out. The X you are talking about are aspects of beauty that are difficult to grasp but can be explained through enough exploration and analysis.

 

[Deleted member 18582]

All objective laws of beauty are concrete and quantifiable

No theyre not they are always subject to gestalt, an unknown entering the discussion to mystify the sum

 

[Graham]

It is part of why I believe in trusting your intuition more than anything else, since intuition respects perception more than cognition.

Everyone's intuition says I'm ugly.

 

[Deleted member 18582]

It's a cop out. The X you are talking about are aspects of beauty that are difficult to grasp but can be explained through enough exploration and analysis.

Your position is a cop out due to a fear of uncertainty. Intuition always leaves a residue over cognition.

 

[Deleted member 32486]

No theyre not they are always subject to gestalt, an unknown entering the discussion to mystify the sum

Don't try and mystify it. The objective aspects of facial beauty have been laid out exhaustively and are entirely explicable. The "unknown" is not consistent, because it's personal preference.

 

[Octavian_Augustus]

Your position is a cop out due to a fear of uncertainty. Intuition always leaves a residue over cognition.

I'll admit if there's something I can't comprehend but for the most part I understand what makes people beautiful. At the end of the day beauty is a visual stimulus caused by concrete and quantifiable markers of beauty. Give me an example of someone whose beauty is unexplainable.

Don't try and mystify it. The objective aspects of facial beauty have been laid out exhaustively and are entirely explicable. The "unknown" is not consistent, because it's personal preference.

Very well said. The X is personal preferences and biases that deviate one's tastes from the ideal form of the beautiful. That doesn't change the fact there's an objective ideal computed as a composite of statistical mass preference.

 

[Deleted member 18582]

Don't try and mystify it. The objective aspects of facial beauty have been laid out exhaustively and are entirely explicable. The "unknown" is not consistent, because it's personal preference.

No matter how many laws are added, there will still be a person who does not follow the laws yet a large enough sample of people agree s/he looks good. It is sample large enough to demonstrate it cannot be chalked up exclusively to personal preference. Someone might then propose to amend all the prior laws established in the Great Book of Facial Laws to accommodate this person, but then a new person would come along and necessitate their reshuffling again and it would so go on ad nauseam. The process has no end, and it cannot be exhaustive, since it tries hopelessly to close in on an X that always exceeds what can be cognized and therefore codified.

beauty is a visual stimulus caused by concrete and quantifiable markers of beauty.

Nothing I've said necessarily contradicts this point. It simply states it is not the full picture.

 

[Deleted member 32486]

there will still be a person who does not follow the laws yet a large enough sample of people agree s/he looks good

Any examples or reasoning of this? Only thing that comes to mind is celebrities, who're status maxxed to oblivion and get a halo to that. Adam Sandler looks handsome until he isn't Adam Sandler anymore, etc.

 

[Deleted member 18582]

Any examples or reasoning of this? Only thing that comes to mind is celebrities, who're status maxxed to oblivion and get a halo to that. Adam Sandler looks handsome until he isn't Adam Sandler anymore, etc.

Derek Graz
Ryan Gosling

 

[Octavian_Augustus]

No matter how many laws are added, there will still be a person who does not follow the laws yet a large enough sample of people agree s/he looks good. It is sample large enough to demonstrate it cannot be chalked up exclusively to personal preference. Someone might then propose to amend all the prior laws established in the Great Book of Facial Laws to accommodate this person, but then a new person would come along and necessitate their reshuffling again and it would so go on ad nauseam. The process has no end, and it cannot be exhaustive, since it tries hopelessly to close in on an X that always exceeds what can be cognized and therefore codified.


Nothing I've said necessarily contradicts this point. It simply states it is not the full picture.

That person who deviates from some of the laws will hit the mark on most metrics and standards of beauty. Sure, they might have a unique attribute that can make them "stand out" but for the most part they will fit the canon of beauty with slight deviations here and there. Like you said, beauty is a composite image, so there is room for slight deviations.

Find me one person who deviates from most of the laws and looks good...

And yes the we might add more rules to close in on the ideal of the perfect face but that doesn't mean that we can't get there in the end and there will always be an unquantifiable and ever-shrinking x that evades us. Where are all these revolutionary faces that make us question the very foundations of our understanding of aesthetics?

 

[Deleted member 18582]

That person who deviates from some of the laws will hit the mark on most metrics and standards of beauty. Sure, they might have a unique attribute that can make them "stand out" but for the most part they will fit the canon of beauty with slight deviations here and there. Like you said, beauty is a composite image, so there is room for slight deviations.

Find me one person who deviates from most of the laws and looks good...

And yes the we might add more rules to close in on the ideal of the perfect face but that doesn't mean that we can't get there in the end and there will always be an unquantifiable and ever-shrinking x that evades us. Where are all these revolutionary faces that make us question the very foundation of our understanding of aesthetics?

Ryan Gosling

Or the occasional guy in rateme that to whom people say something to the effect “you should be ugly but youre not”

 

[Octavian_Augustus]

Derek Graz
Ryan Gosling

Dude...

Ryan Gosling looks bad. He has a massive status and celebrity halo that originates from his role in Drive as the mysterious and taciturn bad boy. He does have some redeeming factors such as pheno, tall lower third... What a bad example

Derek Graz isn't terrible looking and has redeeming features but he just isn't this sort of idol of beauty that you claim him to be.

 

[Deleted member 18582]

Dude...

Ryan Gosling looks bad. He has a massive status and celebrity halo that originates from his role in Drive as the mysterious and taciturn bad boy. He does have some redeeming factors such as pheno, tall lower third... What a bad example

View attachment 2400865

Derek Graz isn't terrible looking and has redeeming features but he just isn't this sort of idol of beauty that you claim him to be.

Ive made like 100 gosling polls on psl since 2016, and most the time most people say hes gl. He is the poster child for gestalt aesthetics. As close to pure harmony as you can get while breaking every canon law of face

 

[Octavian_Augustus]

Ive made like 100 gosling polls on psl since 2016, and most the time most people say hes gl. He is the poster child for gestalt aesthetics. As close to pure harmony as you can get while breaking every canon law of face

He doesn't break all of them. He has redeeming features like pheno, eye color, tall lower third, hair etc.

But come on man he's a super famous celeb with massive halos from his fame and characters. Anyone with a trained eye can tell the guy is not that GL.

Anyways I won't convince you.

 

[Deleted member 18582]

He doesn't break all of them. He has redeeming features like pheno, eye color, tall lower third, hair etc.

But come on man he's a super famous celeb with massive halos from his fame and characters. Anyone with a trained eye can tell the guy is not that GL.

Anyways I won't convince you.

The “trained” eye is not the privileged one to be using in any case. Your intuition needs no training, and the thought process most people approach him with here is “he is clearly gl but we cannot tell why.”

I personally find him ugly as well but this doesn’t change the general perception of him.

In any case, the particular point I’m making isn’t going to be proved by way of example. The same thing could potentially ensue from a discussion of anyone’s face. Personal preference is a totally a component of that, but we could at that point then try to codify laws as to why different people have different preferences (e.g why do blonde girls like black guys more, or whatever). May or may not be a useful endeavor but you can see how that just pushes the x into a different register.

No matter how much theorizing, there is always a residue. I don’t even see it as a limitation or a call to silence on trying to consciously understand beauty, just an unknown we have to recognize and always keep in mind when theorizing.

 

[darkness97]

underrated poster.

 

[longjohnmong]

Ive made like 100 gosling polls on psl since 2016, and most the time most people say hes gl. He is the poster child for gestalt aesthetics. As close to pure harmony as you can get while breaking every canon law of face

George Clooney is another good example. At one point considered the most handsome man in the world by many. Copers will claim that his attractiveness is completely in line with their principles, but we know that if they were shown his features individually they would never predict his level of attractiveness. Dude is extremely asymmetric as well.

View attachment George_Clooney.webp