I know, I know, I know
when drawing you are supposed to use a mirror or flip the image in your software in order to create harmonic facial features
– I beg to differ, though.
What I like about human faces is their lack of symmetry and even when that fact is being exaggerated – or as I would call it ‘enhanced’ – what you get is character and something that feels more alive.
Sure, in the animation industry something different may be required. In illustration, however, you have a greater amount of freedom – if you wish.
It is quite astounding how far you can push facial features, exaggerate and still have an outcome that looks believable. On the other hand images of pleasingly symmetrical faces look odd if you cut them across a vertical mid-axis, mirror one side and flip it across to make up a face from 2 exact copies of the same half. The now increased symmetry should make you consider that face more attractive. Oddly, this is hardly ever the case, though. Something seems to be wrong.
The result of a potentially controversial study is being described in an article in the Telegraph just now: “How your childhood is written in your face”
The current study’s conclusion – in a starkly simplified nutshell – seems to be that an outdoor toilet in early life may remain a stumbling block throughout, keeping you from climbing the winner’s podium later on in life, your Dad’s smoke rings may settle indelibly under your eyes, Mum’s unhealthy cuisine has the potential of turning chubby cheeks into permanently lopsided chops. And even if against all odds you make it from rags to riches despite your underprivileged social background, these early hazards will remain imprinted on your face for all the world to see and interpret.
“…an outdoor toilet may remain a stumbling block throughout your life keeping you from climbing the winner’s podium…”
If you read carefully, however, it is mentioned that other factors apart from a deprived upbringing are inducive of a lack of symmetry in a person’s face.
You cannot help but wonder about the validity of such a study and whether there is more to this than those daily and conflicting results of numerous and probably well intended ‘studies’ on the simultaneous benefits and drawbacks of consuming coffee, lettuce, wine, chocolate and just about anything else. Or on what is deemed to cure or cause cancer – often the very same thing. Ben Goldacre is doing a funny presentation of these juxtaposed evils and grails for mankind in one of his talks that can be found on youtube.
The approach summarized in the article linking early hardships with facial features feels faintly reminiscent of 19th century’s pseudoscience of phrenology- telling a person’s character traits and proneness to commit criminal acts from looking at their shape of skull.
But long before that ancient Greeks tried to read their fellow men’s nature in their faces. Pythagoras is supposed to have rejected a prospective follower whose face seemed to indicate to him a ‘bad character’, poor sod. Physiognomy seems to have been held in esteem during the middle ages. Leonardo da Vinci dismissed it as ‘false’ and a ‘chimera’ with ‘no scientific foundation’. Hurrah, Leonardo. (And excuse my extensively quoting from wikipedia).
Renaissance English physician-philosopher Sir Thomas Browne (1605–1682) was one of the major proponents of the theory of physiognomy in his time.
He is also believed to have coined the expression caricature (when in fact, I believe, he only gave the definition in his writings of what the Italians called drawing a person’s characteristic features in an exaggerated manner, ‘in caricatura’).
And whilst some people would not wish to be caricatured, more often than not it seems to me that caricaturists enjoy and in their way appraise what makes a person’s features unique and thus uniquely attractive, recognizable, likeable.
I still somehow doubt that people with an easy childhood are more attractive due to symmetrical features and that it is possible to directly extrapolate same people will be less prone to stress related diseases, or not troubling you with extended or repeated periods of sick leave. Which, in effect would make them even more attractive for employmers, almost a guarantee of an unstoppable upward mobility.
Whilst the scrunched up, lopsided and literally dough-faced among us give the impression their facial features have just been rearranged by a careless toddler and are left to linger in subordinate positions, possibly unemployment and the general ranks of eternal successlessness.
On the other hand, maybe this is the way it works and, as of now, noone has bothered to tell me. I agree with Leonardo that lines caused by facial expressions may indicate personality traits. Pre-Botox, anyway.
>>More plausible from a character designer’s point of view, maybe. But in real people we would find this degree of symmetry slightly disturbing. <<
Heaven forbid, Human Resources start casting applicants by the symmetry of their faces. It is when your face, demeanour, character, behaviour becomes utterly balanced and symmetrical you turn into a cartoon, a caricature of a human being. At a glance maybe pretty or pleasing to look at, but only resembling life, not alive, it seems to me.
Speaking for myself: I like a face that is less than the mirror of perfect symmetry. Crease-resistance being equally unnecessary. And I think a toilet seat, whether be it in- or outdoors, may make for a surprisingly suitable stepping stone in the right direction, whatever the direction.