The authors talk of determining attractive human faces, and present the startling conclusion that virtual faces far outshine their human counterparts.
In reality, what they've found is that static images of virtual, averaged human faces are perceived as more beautiful than photographs of humans. But images are just that, images. In my experience, faces are defined not so much by their static features, but by their animation. The face of a person is a window into their feelings, and expressions tell so much more about someone's personality that a static, neutral image can convey.
Were it possible, I'd love to see the same study attempt to capture gestures and expressions. One might find very different conclusions.
In reality, what they've found is that static images of virtual, averaged human faces are perceived as more beautiful than photographs of humans. But images are just that, images. In my experience, faces are defined not so much by their static features, but by their animation. The face of a person is a window into their feelings, and expressions tell so much more about someone's personality that a static, neutral image can convey.
Were it possible, I'd love to see the same study attempt to capture gestures and expressions. One might find very different conclusions.