1: √2
Does it even matter that you aren’t perfectly symmetrical? As you look in a mirror, hold a piece of paper up to block one side of your face divided down the vertical axis of your nose. Look at that exposed side. Now block the other side. Take a look. Or take a Selfie and divide the image of your face, blocking first one and then the other side. Looks slightly like two different faces. Not really that symmetrical or as symmetrical as you might have thought or pretended. But that’s all right.
The ancient sculptor Polykleitos used the ratio 1: √2 to make a famous statue that inspired imitators for centuries. That statue and his Kanon imposed the rules for symmetry and set up an aesthetics of body image proportions. Regardless of whether or not it is a hard and fast rule of nature, Greeks and the Romans picked up on his principles, and here we are, a long time later, still chasing a symmetry of proportions that might not exist except in generality. Left and right, we all have some asymmetry.
So, why do we pursue symmetry and perfect proportion as an ideal of beauty? Why do we believe we need to achieve it, acquire it, and emulate it? Symmetry? Perfect balance? A ship upright in calm water? Proportions determined by 1: √2?
Our brains aren’t perfectly symmetrical. Our societies aren’t symmetrical. Symmetry might just be both myth and reason for myth, both impossible ideal and motivation. Motive for what? Why, to reach perfect symmetry and proportion.
Go look in that mirror again. Cover alternate sides of your face. That makes asymmetry noticeable. Now look at the whole face. Not so noticeable. You have to work to see it though, because you just ran the experiment, you’ll note the subtle differences. I hope this doesn’t lead to your looking at halves of others, despoiling their holistic physical beauty. You might do that for a bit, of course, but then generalization and smoothing will sail you back to seeing the whole without much emphasis on the asymmetry. Everyone usually appears as a boat upright.
Asymmetry makes us interesting, and it also indicates something about our innate nature: No one is without at least two different sides. Every personality is complex, so each is more than just two “opposites,” such as good v evil, wise and foolish, or agile and clumsy. Asymmetry is our nature. Symmetry is a forced form in realms larger than quantum particles; symmetry on the scale of our everyday lives is unnatural. Yet, we seek balance in a world of disequilibrium like ships passing through waves.
You might argue, “Balance is good. Equilibrium means that no one is deprived or hurt. One is indistinguishable from another by symmetry. Balanced proportions are the ideal forms. Ships in imbalance list.”
I then ask, “Is that what you want? I think I would rather recognize that, like a ship taking on water, I might list a little as I look at two different faces in the mirror. Now there’s an image and an identity distinguishable by its imbalance.”
Does it even matter that you aren’t perfectly symmetrical? As you look in a mirror, hold a piece of paper up to block one side of your face divided down the vertical axis of your nose. Look at that exposed side. Now block the other side. Take a look. Or take a Selfie and divide the image of your face, blocking first one and then the other side. Looks slightly like two different faces. Not really that symmetrical or as symmetrical as you might have thought or pretended. But that’s all right.
The ancient sculptor Polykleitos used the ratio 1: √2 to make a famous statue that inspired imitators for centuries. That statue and his Kanon imposed the rules for symmetry and set up an aesthetics of body image proportions. Regardless of whether or not it is a hard and fast rule of nature, Greeks and the Romans picked up on his principles, and here we are, a long time later, still chasing a symmetry of proportions that might not exist except in generality. Left and right, we all have some asymmetry.
So, why do we pursue symmetry and perfect proportion as an ideal of beauty? Why do we believe we need to achieve it, acquire it, and emulate it? Symmetry? Perfect balance? A ship upright in calm water? Proportions determined by 1: √2?
Our brains aren’t perfectly symmetrical. Our societies aren’t symmetrical. Symmetry might just be both myth and reason for myth, both impossible ideal and motivation. Motive for what? Why, to reach perfect symmetry and proportion.
Go look in that mirror again. Cover alternate sides of your face. That makes asymmetry noticeable. Now look at the whole face. Not so noticeable. You have to work to see it though, because you just ran the experiment, you’ll note the subtle differences. I hope this doesn’t lead to your looking at halves of others, despoiling their holistic physical beauty. You might do that for a bit, of course, but then generalization and smoothing will sail you back to seeing the whole without much emphasis on the asymmetry. Everyone usually appears as a boat upright.
Asymmetry makes us interesting, and it also indicates something about our innate nature: No one is without at least two different sides. Every personality is complex, so each is more than just two “opposites,” such as good v evil, wise and foolish, or agile and clumsy. Asymmetry is our nature. Symmetry is a forced form in realms larger than quantum particles; symmetry on the scale of our everyday lives is unnatural. Yet, we seek balance in a world of disequilibrium like ships passing through waves.
You might argue, “Balance is good. Equilibrium means that no one is deprived or hurt. One is indistinguishable from another by symmetry. Balanced proportions are the ideal forms. Ships in imbalance list.”
I then ask, “Is that what you want? I think I would rather recognize that, like a ship taking on water, I might list a little as I look at two different faces in the mirror. Now there’s an image and an identity distinguishable by its imbalance.”
RSS Feed