Original Article
Published on 30-07-2002

In italiano, per favore
En español, por favor

The "Beauty" of Homo sapiens sapiens: standard canons, ethnical, geometrical and morphological facial biotypes.
Publication 1: an explained collection of frontal north-europíde contemporary beauty facial canons
- Part I -

G. Perseo*

* BDS [Medline Lookup]

Corresponding author: Dr. Gianluca Perseo Marburg Deutschland gianperseo@perseo-berlin.de
(Original version in English and Italian)  

Abstract: Universal Beauty canons for "Europíde" faces have been collected in some books and interspersed in a very large number of international publications. I will discuss them all by realistic images of two famous supermodels of opposite sex selected according to meticulous ethnic-geometrical criteria. We will point out together the positive aspects of such canons but also their evident limits. The ratios of the visages represented here agree with those of the Beauty canons resulting from long and expensive anthropometrical investigations. Such statistical face models had been obtained by measuring the ratios of hundreds of individuals who were chosen because of their "attractiveness". Operators could take advantage of such models if they would represent appropriate guidelines for their regularly observed patients' facial types. International canons are actually a satisfactory reference for some facial types but also an approximation restricted within the limits of the Europíde ethnical-looks of the oval face. The lower third of the face is, however, transversally slenderer than the upper and middle thirds. Not having suitable images with which to describe the canons (although by using my pictures you would get the appropriate indications for their interpretations), many operators refuse to refer to such guidelines; other operators, on the other hand, use them very accurately because they are a result of very scrupulous research. I suppose that the faces selected for these studies had either been only oval-shaped or they consisted of various geometrical forms with the majority being oval/with lower facial third slender than the upper third. If the faces had chosen in relation to the harmony existing between the single facial components and facial geometrical peculiarities, we would have universal models for more facial types today. In future publications I will deal with this aspect finally. Consequently, I will standardize other faces of contemporary supermodels as an ideal reference for the changeable facial types of our patients. The most famous research in this field did not always use elegant and proportionate drawings to illustrate canons for Beauty. The question I asked myself is, "Why would one not describe them (and other typologies) directly on real images taken from fashion magazines? In this work, I will discover a coefficient of sexual dimorphism of 97,5% ± 1 that appears in many facial ratios.

Introduction:
In the last years clinical measurements have been made of a large number of attractive people in the pursuit of developing more scientific and esthetical guidelines that would assist in facial evaluation. These anthropometrical studies gave us the so-called contemporary facial canons for "Caucasians" or "American-Europeans".

Fig. 01a

Unfortunately, the selection criteria were intended to consider a very generic and artificial European statistical-phenotype, denying in this way the very clear differences within this ethnical super-category. This actually led to a generalization of very specific north-europíde and/or mediterraníde variants. Similar "mixtures", in just one name, have also been made to gain information about the proportions of the other two ethnical super-categories of the modern Homo sapiens, namely the "Afro-Americans or Negroes" and the "Chinese or Mongolian race" as an only name for a wider-differentiated ethnical reality. Such variability is to justify through evolutionary physical processes the mixture of various populations that occurred through migration. In my opinion, you cannot use the same esthetical guidelines that you would use for a north-europíde face for a patient with arabo-orientalíde ethnical-look since there are clearly proportional differences between the many facial biotypes. These differences are not only a matter of colors and type of skin, since ratios are another important factor. In other words, you may not force functional-therapy results with an inappropriate standard! Analogous considerations are true in many other cases. The etiopíde ethnical-looks, for example, are definitely different from sudaníde or bantuíde variants. Similar differences are also present within the Mongolíde looks. All ideal standards show such limits and are scattered throughout a large number of scientific publications. The contributions of Epker-Koury and Farkas are considerable. This article represents the part I of Publication 1, whereas Publication 1 and 2 are an original explanation of a collection of frontal view europíde canons. I will point out, not just with words and numbers but also visually, how these standard canons for all europíde looks, called "Caucasian races" or "American Whites" canons, were, until today, used improperly. They have been wrongly named like that, because of the improper meaning of the words Caucasian, whites, and because of the inadequacy of the term "race". Europíde of classical investigations is intended to describe a unique statistical mixture of all europíde looks, in one theoretical facial model. However, it actually describes specifically just one of them, the north-europíde ethnical-look and/or the mediterraníde one (ethnical limits of anthropometrics). Similar excessive syntheses have also been made for the other two ethnical super-categories. "Beautiful people" selected as negríde ("Negroes or American Blacks") had mainly a bantuíde aspect. "Beautiful people" selected as mongolíde ("Chinese, Japanese or Asians") had mainly a center-mongolíde look.

Fig. 01b

Otherwise, I have photographical evidence of at least 19 ethnical varieties in today's fashion in the mass media. Seven looks are referable to the europíde group, three to the negríde group, two to the mongolíde group and seven are resulting from the possible esthetical combinations between the three above-mentioned super-groups. This means that we have been considering the aesthetic of our patients around the world in too much of a simplified way, when comparing them to classical standard ideals. Beauty canons for europídi have been primarily represented, since the Greek times, through oval-shaped faces. Usually all other geometries, as a symbol for beauty, have been represented too scarcely. Craniofacial growing studies have always showed that all anatomical components collocated inside of the face's contour find a bi-dimensional "harmonic adjustment" to the facial shape itself. Such mutual peculiarities in matter of geometrical form can also be directly observed in the skull. The "careless" attention given to similar soft-tissue features is one of the main reasons why we never consider opportunely the geometrical look, observable on the frontal view of face. Consequently, we did not analyze enough of the proportional "reorganization rules" existing between the singular components and the geometry itself. Without absolutely a doubt is the scientific seriousness of the past and coming, anthropometrical investigations, I cannot exclude that in these selections, of "attractive people," there has been made systematic errors - more or less unconsciously - in preferring, "most beautiful," people with oval-shaped faces despite those with other facial shapes (geometrical limits of anthropometrics). Subjects and results are the two very famous male and female top-models represented as a visual help in my first original explanatory publications, which led us to better comprehend the logic of facial proportions and the ethnical-geometrical limits of the modern studies. In a third original publication, I will describe the possible geometrical (frontal) facial biotypes of humanity. In a fourth one, I will introduce an innovative simplified frontal esthetical analysis, in which geometrical relations and the most significant canonical proportions are used. In a fifth review publication, I will report one of the most explained collections of the europíde lateral view canons. In a sixth original publication, I will describe the possible lateral facial biotypes of humanity. In a seventh one I will introduce an innovative simplified lateral esthetical analysis, in which the most significant canonical angulations and relations of the literature are used. In a eighth, still original publication, I will integrate the preview publications with a morphological analysis of the simple anatomical components of the face, with reference to their non-verbal signals, fundamentally in their esthetical appearance. In a ninth original publication, I will analyze a group of more than three hundred male and female top-models from all around the world (ethnical ideal facial biotypes in modern fashion). Analysis will be made on frontal, lateral and angulated views of the face. This will be a better visual than the traditional clinical-statistical averages. If the theoretical models fit the real faces of patients, there is no better way than to analyze directly the face of those superstars, who have definitely esthetical success in our society. Do not forget that our society is the image society! In a tenth conclusive original publication, I will complete the classical definition of beauty. I will consider, as anatomical cause of beauty, the evident application of my innovative analysis on supermodels faces and other aspects. Such aspects depend on the interaction between the face's anatomical perception and the subjective esthetical opinion of the each observer. Practically, the facial beauty has to be defined as a gathering of the following peculiarities:

1) Facial features typically human and not of other “animals” + ethnical-look, as peculiarity of the human animal;

2) Facial symmetry, in some way expressed in the first point;

3) Different possible kinds of facial harmony due to the multiple combinations between facial ratios and angles;

4) Geometry of the face;

5) Non-verbal messages, related to mutual dimensions and positions and features of morphological facial components;

6) Soft tissues qualities: skin’s type, colour and contrasts, as also the tonicity of subcutaneous constituents;

Discussion:
Ninety facial indices of north-europíde "beautiful" individuals with oval-shaped faces.
Frontal Vision.
(original revision based on various contributions of Farkas LG - Epker BN - Powell N - Arnett GW- Ricketts RM)

Fig. 02

Facial ratios represent a kind of tri-dimensional puzzle in which each percentage depends on the mutual interlocking between all proportions and their sagittal values. It means that each measure in itself cannot be a useful guideline if not strictly related to the others. A global vision of their mutual relations will be the indispensable key word in matter of aesthetics. Here are the titles of five most famous publications, as starting point to find the others. (1,2,3,4,5) The whole ratios reported by these authors are very difficult to be understood without efficient images about their realistic appearance. Few authors reported colossal collections of percentages and absolute numbers. Such collections lead many operators to confusion, if they are not adequately illustrated and not logically described. The international values that differ, from those two supermodels analyzed, have been indicated in lighter bold and in brackets, so that we easily focus their deviations. It is also possible, however, that some supermodels' somatic features have been somewhat modified because of the manual drawing. Even so, geometrical relationships, facial third's relations, eyes' and nose dimension's correspond to universal standards. When referring to modern canons, only the "beautiful women" model differs in a few ratios. In particular: 1) in the transversal dimension of the "exterior" contour of the "eyes-pupils-nose complex" related to the facial geometry. Deviations from the standard are not to be observed, instead in the value of the interocular distance (this space will be called "internal" contour of the above-mentioned complex). 2) And in the mouth width, that appears slightly narrower than in standards. Ears values are not reported.

Frontal general face evaluation. We will examine first the vertical balance (or vertical harmony). After that, we will quantify how many times the absolute vertical values go proportionately into the horizontal ones and reverse (morphological relations). Finally, we will consider those numbers that are important for the horizontal balance (or horizontal harmony). Practically, we will never have a patient with all facial proportions overlapping the standards. This means that, in a geometrical facial biotype, deviations from ideals will not necessarily compromise an optimal facial aesthetics. Exactly the small deviations from adequate standards are the reasons for numerous kinds of charm. My analysis develops on this belief. However, objective aesthetical evaluations are never enough to describe the "Facial Beauty", because Beauty is not only what you measure with facial indices. "Beauty" comes out also from many other factors such as soft-tissues peculiarities (surface, colours, contrasts, etc), “Comics” facial expressions (static facial expression), individual perception of anatomical factors, the observer's culture and so on.

Fig. 03: Anthropometric Landmarks
	Al: alare alaree Cf: center of the face Ch: cheilion em: malare eminence or cheek-bone En: endocanthion o internal canthion Ex: exocanthion or external canthion ft: classical anthropometrical frontotemporale Ft: actual frontotemporale G: glabella Gn: gnathion Go: gonion Li: labiale inferius. Ls: labiale superius Mf: maxillofrontale N: nasion Or: orbitale Os: orbitale superius pc: pupilla centrum Pe: Perseo point Sl: sublabiale Sn: subnasale or subnasion Sto: stomion Tr: trichion Zy: zygion

a) Vertical balance - (5 data) - (VERTICAL / VERTICAL percentage ratios)
I state that splanchnocranium height is the morphological facial height (i.e. that portion of face characterized from facial components of various shape = morphology). This height corresponds to the sum of the middle and lower facial thirds. We analyze now the vertical relations between facial thirds and total face height.

DENOM: Physiognomic height (Total face height): / Tr-Gn

Fig. 04: Vertical and horizontal relations of total face

Remarks: the facial thirds of women should be almost vertically identical to those of men. Forehead height in men should be a little bit more important (1%), than the height for women. We also know that hair deficiency at both upper forehead corners (the frequent bald at the temples can be only visually described) is common in men and that is practically for this reason if this peculiarity cannot be aesthetical in women. Basically the little difference of just 1% in vertical values of the forehead has greater meaning under such conditions, because the forehead is more extended in its vertical totality.

Remarks: data 2 and 3 tell us that in the total face of both sexes the upper third is vertically shorter (it dominates vertically less) than the middle and lower thirds, which are practically identical to each other (there must always be a reciprocal proportion between middle and lower third). In men, we have the value 34,5% and not 35% as in women. Such a difference of 0,5% in each third has to be associated to a higher representation of men's forehead (31% of men's values compared to 30% of women).

Remarks: I will now summarize the mutual ratios between the facial thirds, relating them to the total facial height: Tr-G: G-Sn: Sn-Gn, i.e. upper 1/3: middle 1/3: lower 1/3. Values are 30: 35: 35 in women and 31: 34,5: 34,5 in men. The percentage 34,5% is about 97,5% ± 1 of 35% and this relative dimensional relationship will be important for all data containing middle/lower 1/3 or the sum of them as denominator (Data from the 13th to the 18th and from the 21st to the 24th). These values do not have to be interpreted individually, but always by wider morphological and proportional considerations. Today female faces seem more "trendy," if they show some masculine peculiarities and the opposite is true as well. In female faces, this sexual ambiguity can be expressed properly by promoting the lower third to values bigger than 35%. This appears even more masculine, if such disproportion between it and the middle third appears also in the other planes of space. The above-mentioned prevalence of the lower 1/3 expresses messages of power and aggressiveness, because the physiological function of it is nutrition and biting. Prevalence of the middle third is to be associated with sentimentality connected to intense glance, display of images through the eyes, breathing of air and smells through the nose. Aesthetical directions of fashion and societies often promote less sentimental female faces at the middle third and more "aggressive" at the lower one; and male faces more gently at the level of the lower and middle thirds. Perception, of different kinds of combinations, is based on subtle interactions between modern human beings influeced by aesthetical culture inputs and typical non-verbal instinctive-primordial messages of each human being.

Remarks: we have realized, however, that the canons for universal beauty show a perfect dimensional harmony between the middle and lower facial thirds. Transversally the mouth is ideal if the four straight vertical lines drawn through the landmarks Go and Ch divide the frontal plane in four identical parts in women and four similar in men. The symmetry axis must be drawn through the median landmarks Tr, G, N, Sn, Sto and Gn at the same time, so that all other couple of facial landmarks are transversally and vertically at the same distance from middle line (specular), i.e. according to a good grade of facial symmetry.

...To be continued (next issue)

References:

1. FARKAS L.G., "Anthropometrics of the head and face." Second edition, New York: Raven Press, 1994.
2. EPKER N.B., KOURY M.E., "Maxillofacial Esthetics: Anthropometrics of the Maxillofacial Region", J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50: 806-820, 1992.
3. POWELL N., HUMPHREYS B., "Proportions of the Aesthetic Face", Thieme-Stratton Inc., New York, 1984.
4. ARNETT G:W:, BERGMAN R.T., "Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I", Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 103: 299-312, 1993.
5. RICKETTS R.M., "Divine proportions in facial esthetics", Clin Plast Surg 9 (4): 401-422, 1982.
   
   

To cite this article please write:

G. Perseo, The "Beauty" of Homo sapiens sapiens: standard canons, ethnical, geometrical and morphological facial biotypes. An explained collection of frontal north-europíde contemporary beauty facial canons. Part I. Virtual Journal of Orthodontics [serial online] 2002 July 30; 4(4): Available from URL:http://www.vjo.it/044/beauty.htm

about us | current issue | home

Virtual Journal of Orthodontics ISSN - 1128 6547
Issue 4.4 - 2002 - http://www.vjo.it/vjo044.htm
Copyright © 1996-2002 All rights reserved
E-mail: staff@vjo.it.