Biological Aspects of Beauty

“The Biology of Facial Beauty”, an article from the International Journal of Cosmetic Science, states that it is common misconception that beauty is unsystematic. In fact, due to the contributions of biology, beauty is very predictable despite various factors, such as nationality, age, and race (317). This article is captivating and informative. Nevertheless, it could be improved by establishing a more clear-cut thesis and only selecting a few biological aspects of beauty to research and analyze in depth. The authors, B. Fink and N. Neave, have taken on the complicated task of analyzing five aspects of beauty when analyzing two or three in depth would suffice and prove more effective.

The thesis of this article is not apparent at first and requires quite a bit of rereading. The thesis of this article claims that the study of beauty has attracted a substantial amount of attention from cosmetic companies, plastic surgeons, and scientists (317). The thesis provides no real argument other than beauty has attracted a extensive amount of attention. The authors then continue to state that positive qualities are associated with attractive faces, which is attributed to the pleasurable feelings those faces provide. For the most part, claims are persuasive and establish credibility because they are supported by cited research. However, stating so many claims make the first couple of paragraphs wordy and vague. This article includes a synopsis before the introduction that helps clear up some of the ambiguity. It is understood that this article will attempt to explain the biological aspects of beauty, but it is not evident, at first, whether this article will cover both male and female facial beauty and other minor details concerning the article.

The authors seem to take on too many aspects that contribute to beauty and not fully explore any of them. They are indecisive as to what their stance was on certain issues, such as, beauty being in the eye of the beholder and whether or not facial symmetry and averageness contributes to attractiveness. Fink and Neave would cite one research and counter by citing other research with an opposing view. They never clearly state which view they agree or disagree with, and in the rare instances in which they do, they do not entirely agree:

A common notion however remains that �beauty is in the eye of the

beholder’ and some feminist writers even dispute that beauty is an objective quality [4]. In contrast, evolutionary psychologists criticize the idea that beauty reflects some arbitrary cultural convention, such scientists note that […] perceptions of beauty may reflect universal adaptations. (317)

Continuously countering certain research confuses readers as to what their stance is on certain views, and whether or not this statement is relevant and helps prove their theses. When the authors cite opposing views, the readers are able to see and appreciate different views on the matter. However, this method may prove more effective if, following the opposing views, the authors clearly state a firm stance on a view and provide evidence as to why they firmly agree. Slightly agreeing or disagreeing provides the same affect as abstaining.

Portions of this article could leave the readers bewildered as to what the authors try to say. One word in particular that many readers may not be familiar with is “heterosygosity” (321). It would have been helpful if the authors gave a brief definition of the word instead of citing it, which is not particularly helpful. When discussing what males find attractive in female skin texture, the authors state, “colour parameters that indicate a light skin as well as blue and green components in face correlated negatively with attractiveness” (319). This statement would not make much sense to readers