What confuses me a bit is the following.
I thought that beauty was linked, largely, if I understood you well, to the person having a face where there are no harsh transitions but smooth transitions (simplifying things here, I know)...What confuses me is the following... A person with cheeks and a blush effect will (I think?) look from the side, in particular, as someone who has a full area (the slightly promiment cheek) and under it a small depression. But then, isnt' that kind of incompatible with having the cheeks and then a "smooth" transition to the under malar/ sides of the mouth areas?
Wouldn't the person's 3/4 profile make it evident that there is something angular, a curve followed by a straighter "line" under the cheekbones? Wouldn't that create some angular look that would be (would??) be incompatible with the "lack of harsh transitions" and smoothness/no harsh angles nor shades "look" that comes with youthful faces?
Then again, the depression so many call "blush effect" seems to be a trait repeatedly observed in people considered beautiful, according to art books and even articles on human beauty/proportions...
How to make sense of this (apparent?) contradiction? = need of a prominence (cheek) and a depression underneath (submalar slight depression / "blush effect") *versus* what I thought a youth face would have?: a smooth transition from a slightly prominent / round malar area to the submalar / sides of the mouth area?
I am confused! what is "best"?
If you looked at a person's face front, profile and 3/4 profile, should one see a "curvy" prominence in the malar area followed by a rather straight "line" going from right underneath to the sides of the mouth?
Or should one see a relatively prominent cheek that "moves" smoothly and without interruptions to a flatter shape in the lower part of the face? In other words, hope more clear, should the submalar area look curvy too, or show some marked distinction from the malar bone prominence?
(Gosh, so hard to explain without pics
Hugssssssssss
