faces II
November 14th 2007 03:30
Mo’ of the mug! The selction is mostly actors, but a couple or so from outside the thespian square. No matter how good your acting chops are, if you don’t photograph well, fuggidaboudit!
There’s the smile, the teeth, the eyes, the brows, there’s the chin, the dimples (or not), there’s the cheekbones, the lips, the ears, there’s the haircut, the frown, or perhaps the quizzical gaze, and then there’s the cheeky smirk.
I read in a newspaper article a couple of years ago that a study revealed that the most photogenic face was one that was of Eurasian heritage. Intriguing, I thought. Could it be the almond-shaped eyes? Could it be the complexion? Or was it the dark hair? There’s an argument for symmetry as well, although where exactly are the legs for that argument I’m not sure. If everything looked the same on both sides of the face, surely that would make the face a tad more boring …?
There needs to be character in a person's face, regardless of how handsome or glamourous they might appear. The person's personality must be substantially evident, or at the very least, a glint in their eye. But of course, time and time again; one person's fine chalk is another person's smell gorgonzola.
The windows of the soul have a lot to do with a person’s facial appeal. So what happens when they’re not looking down the barrel of the lens? Does that elusiveness exhibit anything that detracts from the initial appeal? Does the lack of eye contact create a sense of mysterious allure?
Am I talking absolute rubbish? Probably … so I should shut up then. Let the faces do the talking. Peace out.
Puh-lenty more striking visages to come .... But in the meantime the fairest ones here for moi would be the classy elegance of Liz Taylor, original supermodel Ms Turlington, the demure beauty of "It" gal Clara Bow, the Phoenician perfection of Elana Drago, and the wide-eyed troubled stare of Peter Lorre. But hey, they're all captivating in their individual way.
There’s the smile, the teeth, the eyes, the brows, there’s the chin, the dimples (or not), there’s the cheekbones, the lips, the ears, there’s the haircut, the frown, or perhaps the quizzical gaze, and then there’s the cheeky smirk.
I read in a newspaper article a couple of years ago that a study revealed that the most photogenic face was one that was of Eurasian heritage. Intriguing, I thought. Could it be the almond-shaped eyes? Could it be the complexion? Or was it the dark hair? There’s an argument for symmetry as well, although where exactly are the legs for that argument I’m not sure. If everything looked the same on both sides of the face, surely that would make the face a tad more boring …?
There needs to be character in a person's face, regardless of how handsome or glamourous they might appear. The person's personality must be substantially evident, or at the very least, a glint in their eye. But of course, time and time again; one person's fine chalk is another person's smell gorgonzola.
The windows of the soul have a lot to do with a person’s facial appeal. So what happens when they’re not looking down the barrel of the lens? Does that elusiveness exhibit anything that detracts from the initial appeal? Does the lack of eye contact create a sense of mysterious allure?
Am I talking absolute rubbish? Probably … so I should shut up then. Let the faces do the talking. Peace out.
Puh-lenty more striking visages to come .... But in the meantime the fairest ones here for moi would be the classy elegance of Liz Taylor, original supermodel Ms Turlington, the demure beauty of "It" gal Clara Bow, the Phoenician perfection of Elana Drago, and the wide-eyed troubled stare of Peter Lorre. But hey, they're all captivating in their individual way.
| 73 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog











































Comment by Krystal
feelings
Raoul, the idea of your site is very clever. Ocular Aesthetics, indeed.
Comment by Raoul Duke
Style of Eye