Venus-figure about 25000, years old, found in WIlendorf, Austria.

pjz99 wrote: *You know Stahlratte, you ought to package some of your results and put them on the market.

*Before you do that you have to consider the following:
I didn't knew Andrew Loomis (shame on me, but I'm European) so I did some googling: Andrew Loomis was famous for his art books (and illustrations) which he published in the years 40 and 50. His proportion scales of the ideal female were based on the average dimensions and the ideal beauty image of that time (and that part of the world) SInce then the average western women and men have grown 3-4" (really!) and it is still going on. For my work I use ergonomic data which are about 25 years old and they are starting to be a little useless. That is one.
Ergonomics are based on the average measurement of people.  You use a scale based on a gaussian deviation. If a person lenght is below the 5% of that scale he is considered too small, and if he's above the 95% of that scale he is too tall. So if he's between the 5 and the 95% he's "normal". The difference in length between the top and the bottom of the scale is about 8 inch which is rather a lot. That is two.
"Ideal" proportions change with the time. The image of how a beautiful woman or man should look like is dictated by glamour magazines, fashiondesigners, Film and TV -makers etc. You only have to look at pictures of the various decades: women of the 20's would be considered plumb nowadays. These images of idealistic shapes are translated in the proportions of the most appealing bodyparts.That's three.
So my point is: there's is no ideal, eternal, universal woman. It changes with time,place and culture.

-How can you improve things when you don't make mistakes?