Mathematical Structures and Sense of Beauty

  • Raffaele MascellaEmail author
  • Franco Eugeni
  • Ezio Sciarra


The recognition of beauty arises from various mental operations, spontaneous or induced, passively accepted or pressingly imposed. The perception of beauty under the subjective aesthetical sensibility can be analyzed, and at least partially justified, with different approaches: neuro-psychological or evolutionary, socio-cultural and mathematical formalizing. These approaches individualize many factors in the determinations of the concept of beautiful, consequential to ancestral needs and social conventions, but also to specific mathematical characteristics.


Golden Section Golden Ratio Aesthetic Judgment Aesthetic Preference Regular Pentagon 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aks, D. and Sprott, J. C. (1996). Quantifying aesthetic preference for chaotic patterns. Emp. Stud. Arts 14, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angier, R. P. (1903). The aesthetic of unequal division. Psycholo. Rev., 4, 541–561.Google Scholar
  3. Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Benjafeld, J., Pomeroy, E., and Saunders, M. (1980). The golden section and the accuracy with which proportions are drawn. Canad. J. Psychol. 34, 253–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. London: Routledge & Kegan.Google Scholar
  6. Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life; it. Trans. L. Fratini, Boringhieri, Torino: 1980.Google Scholar
  8. Darwin, E. (1802). Zoonomia (3rd edn). London: Johnson.Google Scholar
  9. Eagleton, T. (1984). The ideology of the aesthetic. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Eco, U. (2004). Storia della bellezza (3rd edn) Milano: Bompiani .Google Scholar
  11. Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the prettiest. The science of beauty. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  12. Eugeni, F. and Mascella, R. (2001). A note on generalized fibonacci numbers. J. Discr. Math. Sci. Cryp. 4(1), 33–45.Google Scholar
  13. Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorschule der Aesthetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
  14. Fowler, H. D. (1982). A generalization of the golden section. Fibonacci Quart., . 20, 146–158.Google Scholar
  15. Gangestad, S. W. and Buss, D. M. (1993). Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethol. Sociobiol., 14, 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Green, C. D. (1995). All that glitters: a review of psychological research on the aesthetic of the golden section. Perception, 24, 937–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hume, D. (1740). A treatise of human nature. E. C. Mossner (Ed.), London: Penguin Books, 1969.Google Scholar
  18. Huntley, H. E. (1970). The divine proportion: A study in mathematical beauty. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  19. Jacobsen, T., Schubotz, R. I., Höfel, L., et al. (2006). Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty. NeuroImage, 29, 276–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kanazawa, S. and Kovar, J. L. (2004). Why beautiful people are more intelligent. Intelligence, 32, 227–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kant, I. (1790). Critique of Judgment, En. trans. J. C. Meredith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., Casey, R. J., et al. (1987). Infant preferences for attractive faces: rudiments of a stereotype? Develop. Psychol., 23, 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., and Mussleman, L. (1994). What is average and what is not average about attractive faces? Psycholo. Sci. 5, 214–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mandelbrot, B. (1977). The fractal geometry of nature. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  25. McMahon, J. A. (1999). Towards a unified theory of beauty. Literat. Aesthe., 9, 7–27.Google Scholar
  26. McManus, I. C. (1980). The aesthetics of simple figures. Br. J. Psychol. 71, 505–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mothersill, M. (1984). Beauty restored. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Pacioli, L. (1509). De Divina Proportione. Turin: Aragno, 1999.Google Scholar
  29. Perlovsky, L. I. (2006). Toward physics of the mind: concepts, emotions, consciousness, and symbols. Phy. Life Rev. 3, 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Piaget, J. (1961). Les méchanismes perceptifs. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  31. Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 57, 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sarwer, D. B., Grossbart, T. A., and Didie, E. R. (2003). Beauty and society. Semin. Cutaneous Med. Surg. 22(2), 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Short, L. (1991). The aesthetic value of fractal images. Br. J. Aesthet. 31(4), 342–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simmel, G. (1905). Die mode. It. trans. D. Formaggio & L. Perucchi, La moda, Editori Riuniti, Roma, 1985.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, C. U. M. (2005). Evolutionary neurobiology and aesthetics. Perspect. Biol. Med. 48, (1), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spehar, B., Clifford, C. W. G., Newell, B. R., and Taylor, R. P. (2003). Universal aesthetic of fractals. Comput. Graph. 27, 813–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Titchener, E. B. (1899). An outline of psychology. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  38. Vigarello, G. (2004). Histoire de la beauté. Le corps et l’art d’embellir de la Renaissance à nos jours, Seuil, Paris; it. trans., L’Erario, M. Storia della bellezza: il corpo e l’arte di abbellirsi dal Rinascimento a oggi, Donzelli, Roma, 2007.Google Scholar
  39. Wittgenstein, L. (1966). Lectures and conversations on aesthetics, psychology and religious belief. C. Barrett (Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Yaz, N. and Hacısalihoglu, H. H. (2004). On fractal colouring algorithms. Dynam. Sys. Appl.. Proceed. 706–711.Google Scholar
  41. Zangwill, N. (2002). Against the sociology of the aesthetic. Cultur. Valu. 6(4), 443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raffaele Mascella
    • 1
    Email author
  • Franco Eugeni
    • 1
  • Ezio Sciarra
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of CommunicationUniversity of TeramoTeramoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Social SciencesUniversity of ChietiPescaraItaly

Personalised recommendations