I mean what makes Julia beautiful is very difficult to define, symmetry but can a face be symmetrically perfect ? If yes then how do you exclude these infinite little details that we do not see with the eye from the concept of symmetry ? How is it defined that symmetry is a crowd pleaser ?
I think to state beauty is about symmetry is really far catched because in the fashion industry for example dissymmetrical faces are often what you'll see and will be having greater success in the high fashion than and all the Julia-like
faces soft, tender, poetic, well defined would be relegated to the second league of commercial modeling... because they are crowd pleaser.
Johnny, it is not me that speaks about symmetry, but science, that is, tested hypotheses over the last about three decades.
No, a face cannot be symmetrically perfect (we can make computer simulations though), but the more symmetric, the more attractive. Maybe there are some models with pronounced facial asymmetry, but it doesn't matter, because in the industry they focus more on the rest of the body. However, if you look at Victoria's Secret's models, their faces have a really good symmetry. So do attractive actresses, like Angelina Jolie, Charlize Theron, etc. Below you have a good comparison.
And another one:
If you were to measure the horizontal lenght of their faces and calculate the middle horizontal point, you would see that, for Steffi and Sveta, there would be "more of the face" on one side compared to the other, the right side, as viewed from here, being larger. Julia probably has the most symmetric face, with some advantage over Ana. Then you can look at the symmetry of the mouth, nose and eyes placement, the width/height ratio and the distance between the eyes. There is no wonder Julia is so attractive
But symmetry is only part of the story. There's also averageness involved (and you need computer simulation for that and it can be counterintuitive at first). You can't say much about that just by looking faces. Your brain is programmed to rapidly compute that (and symmetry) and give the verdict. Probably Julia's and Ana's are more closer to average.
Then you have sexual dimorphism. Overall, Julia and Ana look more feminine than Steffi and Sveta, with smaller chins and lower face areas. Steffi and Sveta also have feminine traits, like pretty full lips (Franny would an example of good symmetry, but masculine traits which make her not really attractive).
There are also other things, but a very important trait is the dark complexion Julia and Ana have compared to the other two, especially Steffi. It is really something that hits you in the eye -- smooth, tanned skin.
As JD pointed out, attractiveness is also related to motion and emotion. Julia and Ana look pretty good also in different perspective and with different emotions. I think Julia is most beautiful when tired and serious, since she looked so amazing in Madrid. Also, Ana looks better with makeup, while Julia doesn't. And we can go and on
There is no wonder the Greeks were obssesed with perfect shapes. It's what turned them on
IDK maybe I'm weird but I also can find beauty into a dissymmetrical face too whereas many many wouldn't or at least very few...
Not weird. Despite the fact that she is not very pretty, Steffi is liked by many more people than Julia. Agassi, quite a pretty guy, even married her. Behavior can often be the sexiest thing about a person or his/her "soul" (i.e., personality traits). Attitude also matters a lot, a sexy attitude, for example, being... sexier
Other people might be attracted by "nerdiness", dominance, shyness etc.
I asked those people (friends) to rate Julia to see if she's attractive on the first sight, without the effect of behavior. And she is. Actually, I, for one, first saw her, thought what a babe, and only after that watched her play and got mesmerized by her tennis too. So I should have known she is objectively attractive.
As for the philosophers, again, forget them
They may have hit the nail in the head here and there, but now we have science, we don't need opinions. We are primates and, like every other living creature, everything that we are and do serves the purposes of survival and reproduction. We like symmetry, averageness, smooth skin etc. because they signal "good genes" in a potential mate. The opposite traits are associated with poor health and other bad stuff. So we would like our offspring to inherit the better genes. I want Julia, not Steffi
Agassi wanted Steffi basically because she was GOAT. That also signals very good genes, but not through mere physical aspect, but through athleticism, endurance and good cognitive skills (i.e., quality brain).
Of course, if I didn't make myself clear, you can always read that article. I think it's easy to understand if you're not accustomed to the terminology.