Classic Vs Contemporary Beauty Qoves [In this episode…]
Today we will take a look at what makes a modern face so different from a classic face.
Or at least it appears like the faces of today are held to a completely different beauty
standard.
But is this really the case?
As we will see, this topic is a lot more complex than meets the eye.
Things like technology outreach and influence play a surprising role in beauty standards.
Still, a modern face has not abandoned the framework of what makes an attractive face;
things like dimorphism, prominent dentofacial growth, and appearing healthy have always
been important.
What makes a classic face?
When we are talking about a classic face we are referring only to Western beauty culture.
I’m sure there is enough beauty culture from east Asia alone to encompass two other
videos.
When people think of a ‘classic’ face they think of elegance, simplicity, and refined
style.
Advertising is usually a great representation of the beauty standards throughout culture
and time.
Some of the creativity and imagery in modern advertising can only be described as ‘alien’.
The faces we see today are a lot more offbeat, gravitating towards extremes of facial harmony,
bone structure, and abnormality.
But despite cultural changes, do cephalometric beauty standards and what we find attractive
change with the times?
Well, sort of.
The most surface level difference is how ‘classic’ faces leaned towards more voluminous, and
free-spirited hair.
This gives the illusion of a wider face.
While free-spirited & edgy people do exist today, there is also a strong culture of upkeep,
cleanliness, and professionalism.
What makes an attractive modern/contemporary face?
A modern face consists of two things; jawline, and jawline.
Today we have a tendency to gravitate towards extremes in all things, including faces.
The cephalometric beauty standards of dimorphism, proportionality, and harmony have not been
abandoned altogether, but now we highly select for facial definition.
In the West, food is made abundant for most, and so we may have moved to select for sharper
jaws and leaner bodies because it is ‘rare’.
Beyond that, it also just looks ‘cool’ to have a sharp jaw.
We also seem to find facial dimorphism attractive.
This, as we will see, has not changed much throughout time.
The difference for today is, we especially lean towards dimorphic MALE jawlines, in both
men and women.
At least in the modeling and entertainment world, sharp, squared jaws have that ‘wow’
factor.
It is
not easy to find the same jaw shapes 50-100 years ago.
Today you can look on any modeling site and find almost every other model has an incredibly
angular jaw.
A face that would have once been incredibly rare has become more common simply due to
the discoverability effect.
Modeling agencies have an easier time than ever finding hyper-attractive faces; they
have a selection bias for those ‘robust’ faces, and social media pools all of these
models in one place.
All they have to do is look.
It would be silly to think this discoverability factor
does not influence beauty standards to some extent.
The faces that are ‘put out’ there are what we are going to be accustomed to as a
representation of the times.
In a sense, our modern beauty standard of what makes a good looking face is higher than
in the past.
What are the differences between the two, if any?
Besides the jaw morphology, there is also more of a fascination with high cheekbones
today.
Don’t get me wrong, even in the early 1900’s you will find many attractive actors and actresses
with high cheekbones; it is one of those universally attractive features.
1920s-1960s actor Gary Cooper had a face that would do well in the modeling/acting world
today, with exceptionally high cheekbones, a long ramus, and naturally arched eyebrows.
Still, modern modeling standards almost solely select for high cheekbones, lean facial contours,
and sharp jaws.
Today, the facial harmony and dimorphism of the face are secondary to the bone prominence,
whereas 50-100 years ago looking characteristically masculine or feminine was much more important.
We can see a sort of transition towards the 1980s with beauty Icons like Brooke shields;
she had, and still has, a powerful bone structure with strong dentofacial growth indicators,
a more squared off jaw, and high cheekbones.
If we soften her jaw outline to be more rounded, she starts to look more like the girl next
door type.
Brooke still models to this day; as she has lost some of her buccal fat due to the natural
aging process, her face has started to resemble that contemporary modeling standard.
Her thick, dark brows also do lend themselves to today’s beauty standards.
60s-70s European sex symbol & actor Alain Delon had a more rounded jaw shape.
Of course, it was within reason and not compromising on his facial masculinity, but the faces of
today lie at the extremes of jaw sexual dimorphism.
If we alter his gonial angle to be lower, making his jaw more angular and tapered, he
starts to resemble some of the Westernized beauty standards of today; think Brad Pitt,
Tom Cruise, jeremy Meeks, and Ian somerhalder.
Again, it is that distinction between classic faces having ‘harmony’ & balance, and
the extremes in cephalometric morphology today.
These standards of facial leanness are even applied to women today, whereas the ‘classic’
faces of women were a lot more ‘filled out’.
There may have even been a tendency to look for fuller cheeks and lower cheekbones in
women; it gives a softer, rounder malar region appearance.Classical beauty standards of Western
women shared things in common with the east asian beauty standards of today.
Some core tenets of facial attractiveness have remained throughout time, though.
A paper by Doctor Bashour discussed some of these factors like symmetry, dental occlusion,
neoteny, neoclassical canonical proportions, and averageness.
There seem to be faults in these theories, though.
For instance, facial symmetry may be connected to the main drivers in facial attractiveness,
but it doesn’t explain facial attractiveness by itself.
Similarly, averageness is a bit vague as research shows a distinction between prototypical averageness,
and an average attractiveness face.
The prototype face results from math and averaged facial measurements, while the latter face
just looks like an average Joe.
There is one factor that does seem to have firmly rooted ties to facial attractiveness.
Sexual dimorphism, or having characteristically male or female facial features, has always
been attractive.
Although today our notions of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ are less rigid, the underlying
facial morphology and attractiveness cues are hard to unwire.
The facial features we find attractive have not changed much despite cultural acceptance
of non-sex typical dress, representation, etc.
In males, things like a larger jaw, thinner cheeks, wider chin, pronounced browbone, facial
hair, thick brows, small eyes, thin lips, and wider nose all result from testoeronic
development.
If we think of faces on a testosterone-estrogen ratio curve, the extremely feminine and masculine
looking faces will lie at the extremes of their respective sex hormone.
In females, high cheekbones, smooth skin, lack of facial hair, shorter lower jaw, wider
eyes, raised thin brows, and lip fullness are sexually dimorphic.
As basic as it sounds, the biggest thing that makes a classic face look different from today’s
faces are not even the actual facial features and proportions.
Sure, we have a more unrealistic perception of what a normal face looks like, and we also
have an obsession with sharp jawlines and prominent cheekbones, but that doesn’t mean
we’ve abandoned the core of what makes an attractive face.
The ‘classic look’ is simply different because the filming tech has drastically changed.
Additionally, the mannerisms and way actors and models presented themselves was a lot
different than today.
There seems to be a general change from deliberate posing to looking more natural on camera.
While the ‘range’ of faces we deem acceptable today has expanded, what makes a classic face
attractive is not much different than what makes a contemporary face attractive.
You will find examples of modern looking faces 50 years ago, just like there are some ‘classic’
looking faces today.
There are no hard rules here, being attractive is its own thing.
Lastly, the ‘Halo effect’ of being attractive has always been a thing.
Bashour notes how attractive people generally have more popularity, better mental health,
occupational success, and confidence.
If you would like to get your face assessed, discover whether your face is more modern
or classic, or just get an indepth look into your face order a QOVES facial evaluation
over at our website, performed by our in-house team of doctors and dentists to help you achieve
that next big glow-up.
As always follow us on Instagram for bite-sized content and subscribe on youtube.