I think SYMMETRY is the Hallmark of everything Beautiful ! In every Design of MAN or Nature !

Although it is true that symmetry enhances beauty I would argue that symmetry is not an ESSENTIAL trait for something to be considered beautiful. So to say that it is the hall mark of EVERYTHING beautiful I would argue against.

 

examples:

Some 'beautiful' musical pieces are not symmetrical.

Some people with different coloured eyes are considered beautiful by some - but they aren't symmetrical.

Some hairstyles are not symmetrical, but the person can still be beautiful.

Although it is true that symmetry enhances beauty I would argue that symmetry is not an ESSENTIAL trait for something to be considered beautiful. So to say that it is the hall mark of EVERYTHING beautiful I would argue against.

 

examples:

Some 'beautiful' musical pieces are not symmetrical.

Some people with different coloured eyes are considered beautiful by some - but they aren't symmetrical.

Some hairstyles are not symmetrical, but the person can still be beautiful.

 

Nice counterexamples +1

It is a fairly well accepted understanding that is it a deviation from symmetry that can be attractive . Elvis' lop sided smile is given as an example.

 

There is also the idea of the "golden ratio" .......

 

I think there have been representations of artificially completely symmetrically faces which have been shown to be less attractive than "quirky" faces.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_symmetry

Edited February 7, 20178 yr by geordief

I think SYMMETRY is the Hallmark of everything Beautiful ! In every Design of MAN or Nature !

You concentrated on outside look, but what with inside.. ?

 

How many hearts do you have? And it's not placed in the center of body, breaking symmetry of lungs..

 

The same question but about other internal organs.

Edited February 7, 20178 yr by Sensei

I think it has to do with being able to rapidly identify symmetric animals and fruits. There are critters like the Fiddler Crab that break the mold to an extent though.

 

^{"Don't hate me cause I'm beautiful"}

Edited February 7, 20178 yr by Endy0816

I think the original proposal has now been disproved by many good counterexamples.

 

However the subject of pattern, symmetry and symmetry-breaking is interesting and worthy of more discussion.

 

Here are a couple of extracts from

 

Philip Ball The Self-Made Tapestry, Pattern formation in nature.

 

 

 

The interesting idea is that patterns form as a result of symmetry breaking or reduction of symmetry and that the most symmetrical patterns are the most boring.

 

He gives many examples.

So the circle has the greatest symmetry of any plane figure, a snowflake is the result in the reduction of symmetry.

 

A uniform gas is 'randomly symmetrical'; apply a symmetry breaking force and the structure becomes more complex and more interesting.

Edited February 7, 20178 yr by studiot

Thank you for nice views on Symmetry contributing to beauty or otherwise !

 

Can I submit the following point to be added and considered :

 

Whenever something which needs to be Symmetrical is not so due to any defect there is a great deficit in beauty !

 

For example two eyes are designed to adore our faces.

 

In case one eye is missing or out of symmetry can that be compensated ?

 

This shows the clear impact of Symmetry and its fundamental IMPORTANCE !

Edited February 8, 20178 yr by Commander

Some 'beautiful' musical pieces are not symmetrical.

 

 

It could be argued that the underlying structure (the mathematical relationship between notes) is a form of symmetry.

 

And symmetry relations are fundamental to all of modern physics.

Thank you for nice views on Symmetry contributing to beauty or otherwise !

 

Can I submit the following point to be added and considered :

 

Whenever something which needs to be Symmetrical is not so due to any defect there is a great deficit in beauty !

 

For example two eyes are designed to adore our faces.

 

In case one eye is missing or out of symmetry can that be compensated ?

 

This shows the clear impact of Symmetry and its fundamental IMPORTANCE !

 

 

This appears to be incorrect: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00207450590914464

For example two eyes are designed to adore our faces.

 

Lol. Nonsense.

Two eyes are needed to being able to see 3 dimensions. One eye system cannot measure distance.

Robots made by human also must have two cameras (if they use visual spectrum of light, not radio waves to detect distance, which simply rely on reflection of photons from environment (different delay t=2d/c) ).

Computer analyze point in 1st camera image, and try to find it on 2nd camera image, and use Pythagorean triangle to calculate depth (distance between eyes/cameras is known/constant parameter)

Edited February 9, 20178 yr by Sensei

 

Unbelievable !

Edited February 10, 20178 yr by Commander

We are talking about the need of symmetry in placement of the two eyes

 

 

There is no such need.

 

 

One eye system cannot measure distance.

 

I think this is an overstatement. The focusing of one eye enables the measuring of distance, but obviously not nearly as precisely as two eyes. I was very aware of this as a small child because my mother was blind in one eye. She could perform almost all tasks needing distance measurement, such as driving a car, but I had to thread her needles for her.