Numeric Expression of Aesthetics and Beauty

Abstract

The authors must be congratulated for their tremendous effort to define ‘‘beauty,’’ which happens to be the goal and end point of every procedure we perform. The authors begin by noting that a satisfactory cosmetic result and not healing is the aim of aesthetic surgery. I maintain that both are inseparable because it is nearly impossible to have a good cosmetic result with poor healing. It cannot be denied, however, that it is very important to predict and anticipate the result of every surgical procedure as precisely as possible. The authors mention that beauty is defined in modern terms as ‘‘excelling in grace or form, charm, or coloring, qualities which delight the eye and call forth that admiration of the human face in figure or other objects.’’ Although this definition is closest to universal appeal, it, unfortunately, is far from precise. The authors also mention that ‘‘beauty’’ comprises two distinct but competing elements: the one who is beautiful, and the other who considers the one beautiful, the ‘‘subject versus beholder’’ hypothesis. The dictum for plastic surgeons has always been to treat the patient’s needs and desires and not to perform a surgery so as to please the ‘‘beholder.’’ Even if our views about altering a patient’s features so as to make her or him look better concur with that of the beholder, would it be advisable to do so without any initiative from the beheld? Several rating studies mentioned by the authors show that faces judged very attractive in one society are judged to be equally attractive in other societies. However, it must be understood that these surveys are conducted among intelligent, well-informed, and socially aware individuals who have preconceived notions of beauty based on repetitive visual stimulation of similar images representing what constitutes being ‘‘beautiful.’’ Would the verdict remain the same if isolated ethnic groups with innate intelligence but not in touch with contemporary ideas were questioned? Does a person currently qualify someone as beautiful because it invokes his innate sense of beauty or because his brain has subconsciously accepted the form of beauty described by our artists or media as beautiful? Although the face, through the ages, has received most of the attention, currently, the contemporary meaning of beauty applies to all parts of the human body. This probably is because ‘‘beautiful’’ currently is perceived as both beautiful to behold (already established) and fit (read ‘‘healthy,’’ ‘‘slim’’) to enjoy a functionally long and productive life. The healthy part of beauty has crept in and amalgamated itself into the basic definition without a ripple. Currently, an individual thinking of beauty conceptualizes a beautiful face with a body that is slim, healthy, and fit. These amendments to the constitution of beauty need to be investigated before the original rule book is embraced as the ‘‘ultimate.’’ The authors mention that a woman’s sexual attractiveness might be based on the ratio between her waist and hip measurements, a reliable index of her reproductive potential. If this holds true, then women wanting ‘‘waspwaisted’’ bodies would contradict this concept. Besides, is every woman with an ideal hip–waist ratio complemented by an attractive and proportioned face? Do we have any documented evidence supporting this? Perhaps the most famous illustration relating divine proportion to human anatomy is Leonardo da Vinci’s drawing of the ‘‘human figure in a circle’’ illustrating the proportions recorded by the Roman author Vitruvius. Are we to follow these as guidelines? Most of us never do. Our N. Patel (&) A/63 Darya Mahal 80, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400006, India e-mail: neetapatel@hotmail.com