âa definitive, quantified measure of your appeal, as measured by the computer, the ultimate objective eye, but without the inherent competitiveness of being measured against other peopleâ
âBut if âbeauty is in the eye of the beholder,â as the aphorism has it, what happens when the beholder is a computer? What power does that seemingly objective beholder share with the beautiful, or the not beautiful? And what does the ability to be seen through a computerâs eyes say about the desire to be seen by our fellow humans?â
âThe golden ratio and beauty apps seem made for each other: Computer vision of any sort must rely upon algorithms, and the golden ratio provides a logic for them. Itâs in sync with the Aristotelian concept of beauty, in which beauty is presumed to be objectively definable and therefore measurable. Beauty, by this definition, is order, symmetry, and definiteness. Beauty isnât glamour; itâs math.â
âScrolling through these reviews from disappointed usersâand from the occasional pleased user tooâyou begin to see a pattern: People want to believe thereâs an objective measure of beauty, but they donât like to think that the measure applies to them.â
âUsers are eager to believe that objective assessment is possible, but when they are being assessed, the algorithm must be off, the facial recognition not good enough, the code not quite finished. The app is wrong.â
âOf course, these apps are self-evidently terrible.â
âGiven that we tend to frame womenâs relationship with beauty as being self-flagellating, it might be hard to believe that anyone would turn to these apps for joy, and at first glance the displeasure in the reviews seems to reflect this.â
âBut pleasure is the essence of these apps, even for users who rated it poorly. The pleasure they provide doesnât come from their giving an objective answer to how beautiful we are, but in letting us pose the question and then reject the answer if we want to.â
âThey give us an opportunity to know for certain that beauty is real and that it mattersâwhile at the same time letting us regard ourselves as an exception.â
âThe usefulness of computer vision is not in its objectivity but in its ultimate absurdity, which makes it so easy to rebut.â
âIf youâve ever been tempted by curiosity or vanity to download one of these math-driven beauty apps, you might think youâre casting a ballot for the Aristotelian concept of beauty. But if the joy of these apps lies not in their objectivity but in the tension between our own vision and the computerâs, maybe we should look to a different philosopher to explain their appeal: Immanuel Kant.â
âThe Kantian concept of beauty rests not on measurable parameters and harmonious ratios but on oneâs aesthetic judgment, which struggles to free itself from merely subjective taste.â
âWe may be swayed to find something beautiful because it moves us emotionally and personally, but this is always in tension with the detachment required to proclaim something beautiful and believe others will share our sentiment.â
âSome of the beauty of a thing rests not in the thing itself but in the process by which it is assessed.â
âFrom this perspective, a subjective response might be pleasing but it reveals no true beauty, which suggests why your average user might download a beauty app. If subjective responses were enough, anyoneâs words of assurance would suffice. But there is a pleasure that beauty can give us beyond what the object in question provides directly, the pleasure in objectivity that we can take only in acts of judging themselves.â
âPeople use beauty apps not to actually quantify their appeal but to anticipate that quantification.â
âWe look forward to the moment of judging as much as to the judgment itself.â
âFrom lived experience, we trust that beauty goes beyond what can be measured. But we donât trust that fact so much that we ignore external, objective ideas of beauty that often circumscribe our lives.â
âWomenâs lives in particular have been defined by the beauty standard, whether any given woman has tried to meet it, forget it, change it, or all of the above. And that beauty standard derives not from math but from powerâa fact made plain by the way it sorts us hierarchically for ends not our own, with women who are attractive earning more in the workplace (unless theyâre too attractive, which carries penalties of its own), being likelier to win court cases, and finding similarly attractive partners.â
âWe seek objective truth about beauty not only to measure our own beauty against it but also to measure our own highly subjective concept of beauty against it as well, and even gather a sense that it might triumph.â
âKant again: The pleasure of judgment lives not just in the theater of judgment but in getting to preside over the adjudication.â
âWhen researching this piece, the only app that prompted me to drop everything and immediately download it was Spruce, which hooks you up with a live, human dermatologist who recommends a treatment plan based on your selfies and sends a prescription to your pharmacy. I had fun with the goofy computer-vision apps, sure, but theyâre gone from my phone now. Spruce remains.â
âHuman attention is the goal. Machine attention is a break from having to constantly strive toward that goal.â
âThe Shopko computer was a relief because for a change, I could think about beauty in a way that wasnât about people at all. It was about inserting myself into this new world of makeup, seeing how my qualities intersected with this technology that was promising to grant me the know-how I hadnât yet acquired, and getting 20 minutes of fun to boot. We werenât in it to look better. We were in it for the game.â
Navigation
Backlinks
There are no backlinks to this post.