"Paint by Numbers" Plastic Surgery?

Lately I have been thinking more about the relationship of art and plastic surgery. What usually sets me off on this train of thought is an article or lecture by some expert who has developed an elaborate mathematical analysis of the approach to a particular operation. While there are circumstances where numbers are important (for example matching the base diameter of a breast implant to the dimensions of the patient) but they can be misleading just as often. Take the example of rhinoplasty (nose reshaping): there are standards that can be referenced for every angle of every part of the nose, so that an “ideal” result can be achieved. So what is wrong with this “cookie cutter” approach?

The answer is that there is no such thing as an ideal set of proportions that works on every face, or every body. Consider for example the actress Penelope Cruz: a mathematical analysis of her nose would likely show that it is too long, the angle from the nose to the lip is too acute, and so forth; but she is widely regarded (and I agree) to be one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood.

There have been some intriguing articles written where people are surveyed as to which celebrities have the best features; who has the nicest nose, the most luscious lips, etc. A computer program is then used to cut and paste all of these favorites into a composite face, which usually ends up looking fairly bizarre. This is why these canons of beautiful proportion have been routinely debunked, but they reappear on a regular basis nonetheless. I call it “paint by numbers” surgery, like the kits that help you reproduce a “masterpiece” by just painting in the designated color onto the numbered spaces. The thing is, they never quite look like the real deal either.