Representative a desire almost universal in that yearn for desirability to occur as part of the individual characteristic- can the case for photogenicity manifesting as part of the greater human identity be therefore a consideration in humanness itself?
So outspoken is the world view that favors the trait of attractiveness playing upon the entire realm of photos, even when not so much in the real world though, that makes one wonder if it isn’t some ‘injustice’ perhaps that only one section of us earthlings should have claim to this coveted distinction of not even real time assertion?
But turns out as quite delightful indeed a discovery to the contrary and photogenic people need not really be the favorite of the Gods. For looking good in photos enough to earn that identity of being a photogenetic residing happens to be an art that can be learnt and mastered indeed.
This also means though that there likely wouldn’t be a consensus on whether one is universally photogenic indeed. Like every art that is more than open to the way of their perceivedness, identifying as photogenic would also probably not command the same reputation in appealing to all in the same striking assertion of them aesthetics. But what prevails still is a general ‘standard’ which the photogenic interpretation tends to emulate so that the perception of subjects as being made indeed for the camera holds in almost universality.
Of course everyone would be photogenic in some expression of them. Consider for instance the oft proclaimed and much common fame in ‘my best profile’ being a global pride in individual taking and a photogenesis of the scientific unfurling stands up pretty much also to the bright, specifically the light emitting assertion of this happening.
Holding out however one’s more aesthetic side for the camera to capture every single time they find a photographic impression of them processing wouldn’t be practically possible. And thus rules the specifically special allure of the photogenic as being a physical but yet not very perceivable trait that one would be pleasantly surprised to find themselves possessing.
For all its establishing as a ‘skill’ therefore that can pretty much be learnt, photogenetics still manages to play out all by itself through the liberal exploration of the lenses so that there would also be some accompanying influences in delivering that vision of an inexplicable allure. That’s perhaps the zing to being photogenic- striking through the composite construct of their person as attractive even when they might not be really remarkable in their individually appealing quotient.
What can strike as somewhat disappointing a revelation in the aspiration for a photogenetic presence would be an element of the genetics doing the rounds. Hereditary indeed might be the occurring of photogeneticity as a complete ‘ideal’ in picture perfect representation. That however does not weaken the prospect rested in practice for everyone of us to considerably up our own standards in shining through in each of our pictures.
The thing that makes photogenic emerge as an attribute that can be acquired as well is the set of definites that accrue to its definition. Despite the largely unpinpointable character of what appeals to the human senses as a sufficiently striking conjuring of vision, this is still a physical percept that therefore occurs in some easily identifiable dimensions of its accord. And thus there prevails the peculiarity of the photogenic as being a predisposition in some specific standards upon the visual horizon.
Quite simply but very essentially, being photogenic stems as an identity in always managing to look pleasant in photographs irrespective of how much of that assertion in substance one holds in real life. This particular play in picture perfectness would most likely find allusion in the popular human preference for symmetry as a pleasant perspective in viewing. But the specific notion in photogenicity retails also in many a particulars of clearly defined physicality which makes it considerably easier an ideal to strive for than what it is believed to be in some extravagance.
Interestingly much, individual perception of attractiveness might strive to distort therefore the general essence of what being photogenic means as a universal desire personally explored. Equally intriguing is the standards of aestheticness that one adheres to in dramatically different derivations of how they see themselves vs how the world sees them. As real and obvious as it might be, our own perception of our physical self happens to be rather ‘distorted’ a view availed out of the extent to which we are incapacitated in seeing ourselves. That is to say, all our lives we are confined to relying on reversed mirror images of our body as opposed to the world who encounters us in greater realness. And thus there might prevail a general disagreement as to whether or not we are photogenic indeed in our exclusive terms against the opinion harboured about us by others.
None of these realisations though negate the attractiveness inherent in some physical features that which strive to project us as more ‘agreeable’ in our looks than what we are rather. Symmetry apart, these would be attributes that are pretty clear cut in their requirements. And pretty obvious as well. Sharp cheekbones for instance as a standard in beauty have forever been relevant and so have other such facial features occurring as somewhat exaggerated assertions beyond the ordinary. The impression of one’s jaw line is another prominent marker upon this route.
Brow shape and lip shape would also count in most cases while the bone and body structure of composition too holds great potential in making photogenic emerge as a natural marker of some people. What emerges then out of such uniformity in prevalence is an innate affinity for the features that present as sharp/ and or strong over perhaps even the more promising sights of surreality that leads some among us to thump their assertion as essentially ethereal in their evocation through the at once technical and artistic mode of photography.
It wouldn’t be entirely around physicality though that this whole photogenetic phenomenon occurs as. A crucial element in making people standout indeed in their photos is the response they harbour when in front of the camera. That might make for quite an evident something intricately linked with the human personality but it isn’t always the case really. This fore then of photogeneticness might be a privilege indeed that one would be lucky enough in possessing.
So what it is about some aspects of the human body naturally being more gratifying in the translating of them as images? Turns out the answer lies in them being the ‘custom settings’ for cameras to dwell upon. As shapes and forms of appearance that capture light well and bring therefore all focus upon them to make way for the three dimensional appeal finding expression through what is otherwise a 2D take on reality, the specific some assertions of the body’s features affords one the ‘tag’ of being photogenic by allowing them a more interesting interpretation even in their stills.
It isn’t only such general profusion of many a photo worthy specifics upon which the camera focusses to exalt and elaborate for enhanced effect of the original. The deliverance though in distinction of the same angular faces tends to be distinct as well for what assumes the physically gendered identities of the male and the female. Feminine, even childlike traits of larger eyes and narrower jaws and smaller chins or an overall ‘delicate’ depiction supposedly leads women to reside in that coveted space of the camera friendly understanding. Men for their part would do well indeed with a less defined and hence more tricky harbouring of the masculine look in finding acceptance within the photogenic elite.
Of course the nuances would be occurring in a much wider consideration when accounted for factors like lighting and angle or even makeup and posing that can do wonders in creating the most stunning pictures. But that would be a skill in photographic rather than photogenic prominence to prompt upon. That they can still make way for the photogenic narrative to unfold would accord them therefore also a portion of the regard otherwise reserved for the ‘naturals’.
The premise therefore is quite expansive and the necessities much specific but not entirely exclusive when it comes to being the photogenic person that the world desires to further its standard identity in. Basking in this dimension of popularity might strike as attractive a rendition of one’s physical worth but it of course isn’t the truest representation in this regard for all we might know. For despite the commonality in perceiving shows of a beautiful body as a shallow stance in the human character, we do find ourselves still coveting some awareness of even the narrowest of beauty ideals to personally decipher. It is in such a scouting in vulnerability that we also tend to take the photogenic premise as a dwelling of greater desire. What however is heartening is that photogeneticity isn’t the accurate representation of physical beauty.
The revelation itself might be gratifying in the obvious assertion attributable to it. But what it also parallelly affords is a greater glide into the alleys of beauty itself. The not true to the T nature of photogenesis as pursued by people in it being not the exact definer of real life appearance perhaps emphasise even further the fact that beauty is not subjective and therefore not an ideal to strive for in its visibility. Confine yourselves to terms strictly photographic and the contrast presented within the photogenic exploration more often than not still would point to skill and mindset and the strength of character being more viable propositions to be inspired to achieve. It might be a win for photography that something as dramatic as the photogenic description could be availed out of its skilled practice. It though would be no less muted a win in the human residing for photogeneticness to not assume yet the holistic definition of the highly volatile ’emotion’ of beauty.
