Experiment: can a face be 100% symmetrical and not have the Classic style essence?

If I had to choose the most conceptually confusing essence, I might say Classic.

On the surface, Classic isn’t confusing. It’s about being symmetrical and proportional—having features of typical shapes, sizes, and positions.

But why do people with symmetrical faces often not have Classic?

What perplexes me is that many people who appear highly symmetrical have no significant amount of the Classic essence. This seems to imply that having a symmetrical face may not be the most important contributor to having a Classic face.

So, I decided to conduct an experiment to see how important symmetry truly is to the Classic essence.

The experiment: face mirroring

What if we took a non-Classic celebrity’s face and mirrored it to make it 100% symmetrical? Would that non-Classic celebrity now have Classic?

You can pretty easily make a photo of a face symmetrical by 1. dividing it vertically into two equal parts, 2. copying and mirroring one of the parts—say, the left half, and 3. putting the original left half and its mirror image together.

If this procedure successfully transforms a non-Classic face into a Classic face, then that suggests that symmetry is key to the Classic essence.

But if making a face perfectly symmetrical isn’t enough to make it Classic, then we may have to reevaluate how essential symmetry is to defining Classic beauty.

The subject: Benedict Cumberbatch

To expedite the experiment, I googled “symmetrical celebrities” and found this article where they had already used the above 3-step procedure to make many celebrity faces perfectly symmetrical.

The first celebrity they featured was Benedict Cumberbatch. I’ve typed him as a Dramatic Natural, though some people think he has Ethereal. But whether or not you agree with my exact typing isn’t important here, as long as you agree that he doesn’t have significant Classic.

licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

Benedict Cumberbatch’s real, non-symmetrized face.

Benedict has a unique face. I think he’s fairly symmetrical, but if you compare him to Dramatic Natural vs. Dramatic Natural Classic celebrities, he to my eye definitely harmonizes better with Dramatic Naturals.

So let’s see what happens when his face is made completely symmetrical per the 3-step procedure described above. Will making him perfectly symmetrical cause him to transform into a Dramatic Natural Classic?

The results

Alteration of the above image, with the same license.

Benedict altered to be totally symmetrical.

After typing his newly symmetrical face (I typed both the ones in the article and the one I created above), my conclusion is no—he still doesn’t have Classic. He’s still more harmonious in Dramatic Natural fashion than Dramatic Natural Classic fashion.

His perfectly-symmetrical face also still looks more harmonious next to the faces of Dramatic Naturals than the faces of Dramatic Natural Classics.

Why didn’t making him completely symmetrical cause him to have some Classic?

I’m not certain, but it’s plausibly because Dramatic Naturals tend to have greater facial elongation than Dramatic Natural Classics, and making Benedict completely symmetrical doesn’t do anything to change his uniquely high degree of facial elongation.

So based on this experiment, my conclusion is that being symmetrical—even perfectly symmetrical—doesn’t guarantee that a face will have the Classic essence.

And this may be because even if you’re highly symmetrical in the horizontal plane, the vertical proportions of your face can be unique enough that Classic fashion just doesn’t harmonize with your overall vibe.

Is this true of other people, too?

You could argue that Benedict’s face is so unique, that’s why making him symmetrical doesn’t introduce Classic. So maybe we should repeat the experiment with a celebrity whose face appears to have more typical vertical proportions.

Romantic Dramatic Gamine Salma Hayek is the next celebrity the article symmetrizes. Her real face seems to start out with more typical vertical proportions than Benedict’s. Her non-symmetrized face also already looks pretty symmetrical, despite that Classic isn’t a significant essence for her.

"File:Salma Hayek Cannes 2015 2.jpg" by Georges Biard is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Salma Hayek’s real, non-symmetrized face.

So maybe making her face fully symmetrical will be enough to give her Classic as a fourth essence.

But based on my typing, it’s not—as was true with Benedict, making Salma’s face totally symmetrical doesn’t make Classic a significant essence for her (check out the article to see her symmetrical face). She still looks more harmonious when comparing her face to a combination of Romantic, Dramatic and/or Gamine fashion vs. any of those essences combined with Classic.

I’m not totally sure why Salma doesn’t have Classic. One possibility is that, in contrast to Benedict, her vertical proportions may overall appear too shortened to fit into Classic’s specific, moderate proportions.

Does that mean that Classic has nothing to do with symmetry?

Based on many people’s observations, Classic faces do tend to be notably symmetrical.

So, based on observations of both celebrities and non-celebrities, and on this experiment, here’s my current understanding of the Classic essence:

A reasonable degree of symmetry is a necessary but not sufficient condition for having a Classic face.

This means that Classic faces typically have high levels of symmetry. But being symmetrical, as demonstrated by Benedict’s symmetrized face, isn’t enough to make a face Classic—unique vertical proportions can prevent a face from reading as Classic despite high levels of symmetry.

Beauty in patterns and in uniqueness

Symmetry and proportionality are beautiful, and they’re widely recognized as such. They have an “easy on the eyes” quality that symbolizes balance and moderation.

But lack of symmetry is also beautiful, as is having unique facial proportions. It’s possible to celebrate certain types of beauty while also celebrating their opposites.

Many people probably love Benedict’s striking face because it’s not average, because it’s so unique. I’d say the same of other gorgeous Dramatic Naturals (just discovered Dramatic Natural Dichen Lachman recently—her face is so breathtaking) and other types who don’t have Classic.

So while proportionality is beautiful, just because a given facial quality is beautiful doesn’t mean that the absence or opposite of that quality isn’t also beautiful.