You should have just said
So?
Beauty represents value.
both are in the eyes of the behonder, but there is no other thing. Than beholding âeyesâ - perspectives.
Because perspectives group, to survive and gain power and procreate, their standards blend and combine and become what the unwashed think of as âobjective truthâ or âuniversal standardâ.
(like how a group of folks comes up with a story they all like and then decide it is the point to all being)
BeautifulâŠ
Interestingly, the Fibonacci numbers show some noteworthly mathematical specific features:
Due to the relations to the previous and the following number growth in nature seems to follow an addition law. The Fibonacci numbers are directly associated with the golden cut. The further one progresses subsequently, the more the quotient of successive numbers approaches to the golden cut (1,6180339887âŠ) - for example: 13:8=1.625; 21:13=1.6153846; 34:21=1.6190476; 55:34=1.6176471; 89:55=1.6181818; 144:89=1.617978; 233:144=1.6180556; ⊠and so on). This approach is alternating - the quotients are alternately smaller and bigger than the golden cut (golden number, golden ratio):
The Fibonacci numbers are the sums of the âshallowâdiagonals (shown in red) of Pascalâs triangle:
There is symmetry almost everywhere in that picture. The woman is very syymmetrical. Her face would be more beautiful if it was not covered. his covered face is nevertheless beautiful, because everyone knows how the face looks like if it is not covered. But what if she has only one eye? 
Symmetry is not the only but one of the most important aspects of beauty. Others are shapeliness (well-proportioned aspects or things), certain geometrical figures, beings consisting of structures that are based on certain mathematical numbers (e.g.: the Fibonacci sequence or the golden cut).
Bullshit. She looks worse with her face covered.
Covering half the face, Itâs a common trick pple use to make themselves look pretty.
Symmetry is not beautiful by itself but only when it is conditioned upon evolutionary factors such as survival, procreation, and the likes.
In addition some features are conditioned and relative to either male or female. What is beauty [aesthetic] to the male may not be beauty to the female and vice-versa.
Males find the higher hips to shoulder ratio more beautiful and sexy while the female will favor a higher shoulder to hips ratio. The hips to shoulder ratio in general has evolutionary advantage to mankind in terms of procreation and other advantages. A female with very small hips, thus smaller hips to shoulder ratio will likely to face birth difficulty in general.
Symmetry in the physical bodies of the male or female denote general [not specific] health of the person and thus has first impression significance. The physiological elements are controlled by two separate hemispheres in the brain. Any defects in one side [sign of non-symmetry] and thus an imbalance function in the brain. Wherever there is a significant difference between the two sides of the physical body, then there is a likely possible of something is wrong and the person is not as healthy as the average person.
Thus asymmetry is a sign and warning for the opposite sex or others to be careful and investigate further in making decisions that are relevant to the matter.
The above issues are instinctual and most people in the modern era do not bother about instincts and intuitions any way.
Any one into photography or art?
Re the aesthetic elements of photography or art [general, not modern], what is beauty in this fields are driven by evolutionary and survival elements.
The Rule of Thirds
digital-photography-school.com/rule-of-thirds/
In photography as in art [general] one must follow the Rule of Thirds generally to ensure oneâs photograph is considered to have aesthetic [beauty] value.
This is directly linked to evolutionary elements of survival and the position of they eyes to hunt from food and dealing with enemies, etc.
By obeying the Rule of the Thirds, the main subject[s] are placed in alignment with the position of the two eyes and thus there is no stress and extra effort of the eyes to move from its normal position.
Subject in the Middle - A Taboo
In contrast, in general [there are exceptions, portraits, etc.] it is a serious Taboo to put the main subject in the middle. This is because the main subject in the middle forced the two eyes to focus into the center and away from its normal position and thus make one very uncomfortable if the focus need to be kept for a long time.
Level Horizon
If the horizon in a photograph is not level, then the photo is marked down in terms of aesthetic.
A level horizon is pertinent to facilitate hunting in the savannah or plains to assess the position of the prey [food]. An unlevel horizon in a photo can give many a headache as the brain has to use efforts to right it.
Note there are exceptions to the above, but they are besides the point.
So, what is beauty to humans is conditioned upon survival, procreation, and the continuation of the next generation of humans.
There is no intrinsic beauty by itself.
Women like broad shoulders and broad hips. Broad hips = more leg muscles.
The correlation stems from them not dating men who have small shoulders, since most of them give the weakling vibe and they donât take them seriously.
Now are men really attracted to small shoulders or just wide hips.
Men are really just attracted to wide hips, they donât care what shoulder size a woman has.
Symmetry is not the sole factor on which beauty is based.
Example: sunsets, the clouds reflecting the sun-light, are often lacking symmetry.
The sublime. It doesnât necessarily facilitate survival either; finding sunsets beautiful is not essential, but it def. can be conducive.
Why so unkind?
No, because it is also true that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. So beauty has a subjective side too. Of course, I never said that symmetry was the sole, the only aspect of beauty. But symmetry is nevertheless a relevant aspect of beauty.
Because they know how the face looks like when it is not covered. And they want to make others curious. Do you not think that there is some psychology behind it?
Nobody here said that symmetry was the sole factor on which beauty is based. But that does not automatically mean that symmetry has nothing to do with beauty.
For example: Baroque gardens are full of symmetry, and that is the reason why some people do not like them as much as other gardens. But there are people too who like baroque gardens. And they have good reasons for liking baroque gardens. The aspect that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder is relevant too.
Youâre right; nobody here said that. But I was just making a point, because people often site symmetry as the definition of what is beautiful.
One point to be added is whatever is triggered within the beauty algorithm in the brain must ultimately be linked to the pleasure circuit [or algorithm] which generate different types, shades and degrees of pleasure that emote behaviors.
I believe this pleasure algorithm is a significant player in the final decision of what determines âbeautyâ at the normal conscious level. This is what determine what we called beauty is in the âeyeâ of the beholder.
For example if there is deviation from norm, that person may sense beauty from what the majority would perceive as ugly, disgusting, evil, etc. There are many such perverts at the fringes.
If pleasure ultimately determines what is beauty, then how did some people see/perceive beauty/pleasure in pain-expressions or self-torture.
My hypothesis is there a ricochet effect that hit the pleasure circuit eventually.
For example, in general what trigger pains is deemed to be ugly, but in some exceptional cases, certain fringe triggers and activations ricochet and hit the pleasure circuit eventually thus triggering a strong enough ending âbeautyâ effect and perception. In this case, the abnormal perceive what is supposed to be ugly to the normal person, as some thing âbeautifulâ.
One classic example of this are those into hanging their body by hooks and swinging or various pain-inducing and masochistic practices. In this case, the body naturally produce endorphins, the feel good neurochemicals to minimize the pain. If the endorphin levels are strong enough to surpass the pain threshold then one will get a sense of âhigh.â
Beauty and ugly is not science.
I think that the superiority of ugliness over beauty depends on how the observer defines that standard. For me longevity does not convey superiority on anythingâŠbut thatâs me. To me beauty is tied to rarity. Our experience of beauty, in my opinion, is tied with our unfamiliarity with the object or experience.
Eddie Murphy in âBoomerangâ was surrounded by beautiful women, and yet to him they were average because he had begun to judge them by their feet. The feet in themselves probably were not that exciting but he saw beauty in a set of feet that were unfamiliar to his experience.
Could we say that mystery is beautiful or at least attractive? Would it be the mystery itself which is attractive or the inspiration it gives us to be the mystery solver, or the expectation that the solution to the mystery is beautiful?
A different thought referring to the main subject of the thread: Romantic art often depicts scenes of grandeur, what is unfathomable or beyond the sole capability of the observer to create:
In connection with that thought is the idea of making a reality what did not exist before, particularly if it is an expression of grandeur. That potential to create inspires the imagination of others and causes them to set out into the world with their own plans and aims.
While I agree with this to a degree and can apply it to things like health appearing beautiful and the presence of disease repellent (eg. leprosy), I am having a more difficult time applying it to other things.
For example in architecture, a functional and utilitarian building appears less beautiful, or even ugly:
In comparison to one which contains a lot of ornamentation. There is nothing that I can think of in ornamentation that fundamentally aids survival. In some ways, because of the time and resources which must be directed into it, might even be detrimental to survival because excessive:
Rather ornaments often enough prevent man from deciding to tear a building down.
Ornaments required skilled craft, which is a high value.
People recognize this instinctively.
Ornaments, when well done, thus directly aid survival.
Paradoxically, what doesnât dare to be fragile at least in part has little chance in this world.
Please read to the end because I made some developments in my considerations as I went along.
I still donât understand:
Do you mean that because people instinctively recognize that ornaments require skill to produce, they value them? I can see that the quality of having skill could be used to aid survival, but not how that would mean that the ornaments themselves aid survival. Skill, if we think about things like dexterity and delicacy, might be used for something which doesnât aid survival or even endangers survival or to create something repelling.
I may have partly come a step further in my ponderings.
The original post asked why does beauty exist. Prismatic said to facilitate survival.
Beauty exists to facilitate survival.
Ornaments are beautiful.
Ornaments exist to facilitate survival.
Are we saying that ornaments facilitate survival because they are beautiful?
I guess then the question (in general, not to anyone in particular) is rather, why does beauty facilitate survival? If it is because we see, instinctively, patterns or qualities that would aid our survival, might then recognizing the patterns and qualities in things which donât directly aid our survival ultimately hinder it by putting resources into obtaining and protecting those things which arenât directly beneficial to survival?
I am adding a few more thoughts that I had here. I think I might have understood it. Water helps facilitate survival but it can also be detrimental if one drinkâs too much at once, and in the same way beauty can facilitate survival by making someone want to continue living, but over-indulging in it or seeking it when other, more pressing things need to be done, can be detrimental.
That could answer the question of why beauty exists or at least why we continue to propagate beauty. To be clear though we arenât saying that things are necessarily beautiful because they facilitate survival (that the facilitating survival is what makes them beautiful) are we? In that case I might still not understand.
Also something weird I thought of because of the above consideration. If we care for beauty because it makes us want to live, does that mean that the attraction to beauty can arise from a feeling of weakness, because we need it to want to continue living?
Those are some more thoughts I had on the subject.