Standards of Beauty... "The body is relaxed and the body is solid"

In an interview with a Chinese student, she told me that she and her cousin were outcasts in the family because of the elongation of their noses. It is their beauty signs that the nose is not a small show but a palace of the rabbit. In its area, they call the "big noses" to the Europeans for the brutality of their noses. You stopped me. Different beauty standards, I always thought that the Europeans had small noses, and that beauty was an Arab eyes and a European nose and a Negro mouth. I have always dreamed of a long and delicate nose, to find it an indication of ugliness in other eyes.

What makes our standards for beauty? Does beauty identify with a general impression that a person reflects in his or her own presence or specific measures that can be converted into a mathematical equation that the computer can handle? In an experiment in this regard, a group of researchers introduced photographs of the goddess of beauty as portrayed by ancient civilizations, then asked the computer to perform mathematical calculations that determined the distance between the facial and the size of the profiles; to extract an equation of beauty. He was then asked to classify pictures of famous women, according to their similarity with the "Beauty equation". The British actress Liz Harley was able to get a full match with that equation. Was it the most beautiful? Will it be considered by those who invented those most beautiful statues among the women of the Earth? Liz Harley is very beautiful without a doubt, but the question that concerns us: does beauty have a single equation that produces one tough answer? Where in our search for beauty a standard, consciously or unconsciously, or are there other engines that define our aesthetic vision?

In the classical era, the feminine beauty is reflected in the artistic works of the European paintings in the form of women full of a body with a slightly flabby white complexion and facial features that are puzzled, relaxed, and even sometimes refractive. In contrast, the current model of beauty as depicted in magazine covers is a more graceful and hardened body with tight muscles, sun-skinned complexion and sharper, sharper and stronger facial features.

Question: What made this difference in beauty? Changing the shape of women or our perspective to whom we put them in the foreground as a symbol of beauty? Perhaps it is appropriate to re-ask the question in another form: What does beauty mean to us? Is it just a remarkable optical shape? Doesn't beauty give us room to imagine a different reality? Don't we look at the beauty of other possibilities for living and other spaces? Is it not our admiration for the paradigm of beauty, our desire to live what this model represents? For example, why does a smiling woman's face make us evaluate her more beautiful than her naked reality? Alice, because the smile is tied to happiness, and from here we link her permanent smile, through those moments of staring, and a possible permanent happiness in the event of a connection to that woman. Another example, someone may need tenderness or not to test it or want to re-congratulate him then the affectionate motherly face will be the standard of beauty of this individual and so on. Because our needs and desires are different, our vision and our assessment of beauty are different. In contrast to each age of value and its different lifestyle, hence the criterion of beauty is influenced by different times.