"Since a long time has gone from their definitions, the authors' aim was to determine whether or not the neoclassical canons are still valid to describe the facial beauty in Italian women. The photographs of 50 italian models selected for an important beauty contest were obtained. All the pictures were taken by a professional photographer with a professional digital reflex camera with a millimeter-graduated scale white background. All the pictures were printed in 1:1 dimensions. Eleven neoclassical canons were measured and the results statistically evaluated. The results of the present study showed that the medium face third is reduced when compared to the upper and the lower thirds and that the two upper quarters of the face are decreased if compared to the two lower quarters (p<0.01). The nose height was smaller than ear height and the nose width smaller than 1/4 of facial width. In 72% of cases the ear axis was steeper than the nose. The intercanthal width in this study resulted smaller than nose width and smaller than eye width (p<0.05). Mouth width was greater than 150% of nose width. It can be concluded that some of the neoclassical canons can be considered still valid, while others seem to be changed over centuries. In particular it seems that relatives reductions in facial medium third, in nose dimensions and in distance between eyes have occurred as well as relative enlargement of eyes and mouth width."
Do the neoclassical canons still describe the beauty of faces? An anthropometric study on 50 Caucasian models.
Photos: flickr/ Alaskan Dude and helgabj
Related content: Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: How dark is Obama’s skin? Depends on whether you voted for him. Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Beauty week: Do hotter men have better semen? Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Smelly Week: Smelling like rubber makes your face look uglier. WTF is NCBI ROFL? Read our FAQ
