Marquardt’s Phi Mask: Pitfalls of Relying on Fashion Models and the Golden Ratio to Describe a Beautiful Face

Abstract

Background

Stephen Marquardt has derived a mask from the golden ratio that he claims represents the “ideal” facial archetype. Many have found his mask convincing, including cosmetic surgeons. However, Marquardt’s mask is associated with numerous problems. The method used to examine goodness of fit with the proportions in the mask is faulty. The mask is ill-suited for non-European populations, especially sub-Saharan Africans and East Asians. The mask also appears to approximate the face shape of masculinized European women. Given that the general public strongly and overwhelmingly prefers above average facial femininity in women, white women seeking aesthetic facial surgery would be ill-advised to aim toward a better fit with Marquardt’s mask. This article aims to show the proper way of assessing goodness of fit with Marquardt’s mask, to address the shape of the mask as it pertains to masculinity-femininity, and to discuss the broader issue of an objective assessment of facial attractiveness.

Methods

Generalized Procrustes analysis is used to show how goodness of fit with Marquardt’s mask can be assessed. Thin-plate spline analysis is used to illustrate visually how sample faces, including northwestern European averages, differ from Marquardt’s mask.

Results

Marquardt’s mask best describes the facial proportions of masculinized white women as seen in fashion models.

Conclusions

Marquardt’s mask does not appear to describe “ideal” face shape even for white women because its proportions are inconsistent with the optimal preferences of most people, especially with regard to femininity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. 1.

    Bashour M (2006) An objective system for measuring facial attractiveness. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:757–774, discussion 775–756

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bookstein FL (1996) Biometrics, biomathematics and the morphometric synthesis. Bull Math Biol 58:313–365

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bookstein FL (1996/1997) Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: Morphometrics of group differences in outline shape. Med Image Anal 1:225–243

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Cochrane SM, Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP (1997) Perceptions of facial appearance by orthodontists and the general public. J Clin Orthod 31:164–168

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Czarnecki ST, Nanda RS, Currier GF (1993) Perceptions of a balanced facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 104:180–187

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Davis ST (2007) Aesthetic preferences for the unity ratio resist the influence of color illusions. Am J Psychol 120:47–71

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    De Smit A, Dermaut L (1984) Soft-tissue profile preference. Am J Orthod 86:67–73

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dodd P: How thin is too thin? New survey reveals overwhelming global support for “too thin” fashion models debate. Neilsen Breaking News. Retrieved on 14 March 2007 at http://www2.acnielsen.com/news/20070202.shtml

  9. 9.

    Dryden IL, Mardia KV (1998) Statistical shape analysis. John Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Duchon J (1977) Splines minimizing rotation-invariant seminorms in Sobolev spaces. In: Schempp W, Zeller K (eds) Constructive theory of functions of several variables: Lecture notes in mathematics. Vol 571. Springer, Berlin, pp. 85–100

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Hanihara T (2000) Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations. Am J Phys Anthropol 111:105–134

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hennessy RJ, McLearie S, Kinsella A, Waddington JL (2005) Facial surface analysis by 3D laser scanning and geometric morphometrics in relation to sexual dimorphism in cerebral–craniofacial morphogenesis and cognitive function. J Anat 207:283–295

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hutton TJ, Buxton BF, Hammond P, Potts HW (2003) Estimating average growth trajectories in shape–space using kernel smoothing. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22:747–753

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Jefferson Y (2004) Facial beauty: Establishing a universal standard. Int J Orthod Milwaukee 15:9–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Johnston C, Hunt O, Burden D, Stevenson M, Hepper P (2005) The influence of mandibular prominence on facial attractiveness. Eur J Orthod 27:129–133

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kim YH (2007) Easy facial analysis using the facial golden mask. J Craniofac Surg 18:643–649

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Levin EI (1978) Dental esthetics and the golden proportion. J Prosthet Dent 40:244–252

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Maple JR, Vig KW, Beck FM, Larsen PE, Shanker S (2005) A comparison of providers’ and consumers’ perceptions of facial-profile attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 128:690–696, quiz 801

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Marquardt SR (2002) Dr. Stephen R. Marquardt on the Golden Decagon and human facial beauty. Interview by Dr. Gottlieb. J Clin Orthod 36:339–347

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Matoula S, Pancherz H (2006) Skeletofacial morphology of attractive and nonattractive faces. Angle Orthod 76:204–210

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Michiels G, Sather AH (1994) Determinants of facial attractiveness in a sample of white women. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 9:95–103

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Moss JP, Linney AD, Lowey MN (1995) The use of three-dimensional techniques in facial esthetics. Semin Orthod 1:94–104

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Mowlavi A, Meldrum DG, Wilhelmi BJ (2003) Implications for nasal recontouring: Nasion position preferences as determined by a survey of white North Americans. Aesthetic Plast Surg 27:438–445

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Mowlavi A, Meldrum DG, Wilhelmi BJ, Ghavami A, Zook EG (2003) The aesthetic earlobe: Classification of lobule ptosis on the basis of a survey of North American Caucasians. Plast Reconstr Surg 112:266–272, discussion 273–264

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    O’Higgins P (2000) The study of morphological variation in the hominid fossil record: biology, landmarks and geometry. J Anat 197:103–120

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Orsini MG, Huang GJ, Kiyak HA, Ramsay DS, Bollen AM, Anderson NK, Giddong DB (2006) Methods to evaluate profile preferences for the anteroposterior position of the mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130:283–291

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Qualtrough AJ, Burke FJ (1994) A look at dental esthetics. Quintessence Int 25:7–14

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Rand CS, Wright BA (2000) Continuity and change in the evaluation of ideal and acceptable body sizes across a wide age span. Int J Eat Disord 28:90–100

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Rhodes G (2006) The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu Rev Psychol 57:199–226

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Ricketts RM (1982) Divine proportion in facial esthetics. Clin Plast Surg 9:401–422

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Rosas A, Bastir M (2002) Thin-plate spline analysis of allometry and sexual dimorphism in the human craniofacial complex. Am J Phys Anthropol 117:236–245

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Roseman CC, Weaver TD (2004) Multivariate apportionment of global human craniometric diversity. Am J Phys Anthropol 125:257–263

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Rosenstiel SF, Ward DH, Rashid RG (2000) Dentists’ preferences of anterior tooth proportion: A Web-based study. J Prosthodont 9:123–136

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Seghers MJ, Longacre JJ, Destefano GA (1964) The golden proportion of beauty. Plast Reconstr Surg 34:382–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Swami V, Tovee MJ (2007) Perceptions of female body weight and shape among indigenous and urban Europeans. Scand J Psychol 48:43–50

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Tovee MJ, Cornelissen PL (2001) Female and male perceptions of female physical attractiveness in front view and profile. Br J Psychol 92(Part 2):391–402

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Tovee MJ, Mason SM, Emery JL, McCluskey SE, Cohen-Tovee EM (1997) Supermodels: Stick insects or hourglasses? Lancet 350:1474–1475

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Ward DH (2001) Proportional smile design using the recurring aesthetic dental (red) proportion. Dent Clin North Am 45:143–154

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Holland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holland, E. Marquardt’s Phi Mask: Pitfalls of Relying on Fashion Models and the Golden Ratio to Describe a Beautiful Face. Aesth Plast Surg 32, 200–208 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-007-9080-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Aesthetics
  • Golden ratio
  • Phi mask
  • Procrustes analysis
  • Stephen Marquardt
  • Thin-plate splines