What do you think?
The Face: A Cultural History
A pioneering study into how we interpret faces and what they reveal about us, from a world-renowned cultural historian
What’s in a face?
The face is one of our quintessential features and is the only part of the body where all the senses come smell, taste, sight, touch, hearing. Though your face might change over the course of your life – whether through ageing, accident, illness or lifestyle – it remains a foundational marker of your identity.
In The Face, cultural historian Fay Bound Alberti explores the ways humans have interpreted faces and correlated their features with ideas of morality, social hierarchy, psychology and so much more, revealing some of the cultural biases that inform the interactions of our everyday lives. Bound Alberti charts how new technologies that reflect or alter our face’s appearance have transformed our conception of selfhood over time – from the growth of portraiture in the Renaissance and the mass production of mirrors and photography in the nineteenth century, to twenty-first century innovations, such as digital avatars and face transplants.
Bringing together a wealth of fascinating research, interviews and illuminating personal narratives, Bound Alberti probes beneath the surface to ask what our faces really say about us.
What’s in a face?
The face is one of our quintessential features and is the only part of the body where all the senses come smell, taste, sight, touch, hearing. Though your face might change over the course of your life – whether through ageing, accident, illness or lifestyle – it remains a foundational marker of your identity.
In The Face, cultural historian Fay Bound Alberti explores the ways humans have interpreted faces and correlated their features with ideas of morality, social hierarchy, psychology and so much more, revealing some of the cultural biases that inform the interactions of our everyday lives. Bound Alberti charts how new technologies that reflect or alter our face’s appearance have transformed our conception of selfhood over time – from the growth of portraiture in the Renaissance and the mass production of mirrors and photography in the nineteenth century, to twenty-first century innovations, such as digital avatars and face transplants.
Bringing together a wealth of fascinating research, interviews and illuminating personal narratives, Bound Alberti probes beneath the surface to ask what our faces really say about us.
288 pages, Hardcover
Published June 9, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 11, 2026
Fascinating!
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
This is a NetGalley ARC
3.5 but rounding down.
I had difficulty picking a star amount, as portions of this book are definitely four star. There are just a few things that bothered me, but they were rather substantial.
So let's start with the basics. This is a cultural history about the face, *mostly from a western civilization perspective. The introduction is interesting, but it feels a bit rambling at times. Each chapter has a 'theme', but the underlying theme is one thing that bothered me most.
I got excited about this book. I love cultural history about 'things'. I love learning about how other cultures, and my own, percieved something throughout history. However, the more I read, the more I realized the book, while largely objective, occasionally shifts into interpretive or ideologically framed language held by the author. A few 'interpretations' throughout are acceptable, but I noticed a very heavy pattern from the very first chapter.
While this is a cultural history, I wasn't expecting a book that essentially took the author's philosophical/political positions and treated them as objective facts. The first example is this:
"Explicit in the work of Francis Galton, and implicit in right-wing propaganda, is the idea that you can judge a book by its cover..."
Now, I'm not any wing politically, but this bothered me. Propaganda is a loaded word, and it puts different ideologies that may have some similarities into one barrel (as in, it's a blanket statement). Francis Galton was indeed associated with eugenics. But the author has essentially lumped Galton's views, and the views of (seemingly all right-wing ideology) as the same. So the two might merge in some minds to become an even bigger blanket statement, implying that all right-wing people believe in eugenics. This is not objective.
Next is a subjective bit about gender. Yes, it is very clear that beauty standards for both men and women change significantly depending on era, class, and ethnicity. I don't dispute that. But several of the gender-heavy passages put philosophical ideas as objective facts, which they are not.
"We tend not to think about the ways in which masculinity is as artificial as femininity in relation to faces and bodies..."
"...and you can't be a historian of the body without knowing how conditional sexed identity has always been..."
Are these statements true? It depends on the person you ask. Therefore, they are not objective facts. Why not frame it something like.... This suggests that masculinity, like femininity, may be shaped by cultural practices and ideology?
The author frequently critiques the white male patriarchy. While I understand the reasoning behind this, and her ideas aren't unfound, the book is constantly, aggressively at times, reminding us. I find this off-putting, as again, I didn't want to read this book for political/personal views of the author.
One more example regarding gender. The story of Mary Toft is well known - the woman in the 18th century who claimed she gave birth to rabbits. The author has interpreted this story to suit her own ideology. She writes,
"Mary’s tale reached the courts because of male anxiety about female rebellion at a time when midwifery was becoming a male profession. There had long been patriarchal distrust about the birth process—including the appearance of monstrous and misshapen offspring."
What Mary did doesn't necessarily reflect what the author implies. Mary's tale likely reached the court because it was a disturbing event (her method was rather horrifying). There is little clear historical evidence that her case reached the courts specifically due to concerns about female rebellion. Is it possible? Yes. Is it documented? No. Therefore, it should at least be written as 'Mary's tale possibly reached the courts...".
Now we move to race. Western civilization has not always been kind to those of 'other' ethnicities that didn't belong to their group. Everyone knows this (though I'm sure there are some that might argue otherwise). Again, I am not against anything the author is saying, only that she is saying it in a subjective, 'this is fact' manner. As an example:
"He documented the journey of the parents, too, in A Child is Born; like every image of a fetus photographed by Nilsson, those parents were white. This was in keeping with the racially homogeneous nature of Sweden in the 1960s, in which more than 99 percent of the population was Caucasian, but also with the ingrained traditions of Western medicine...."
In 1960's Sweden, yes, the overwhelming majority was Caucasian. Does this mean that Nilsson, who likely photographed those in his vicinity, purposefully exluded non-Caucasians? It feels as if that's exactly what's being said here. While not inaccurate, it feels overinterpreted given the historical setting. The observations occasionally seem to impose significance where the context itself already provides a straightforward explanation.
Once again, we place significance out of context in this example:
"Notice, though, that Le Brun does not mention the anatomy of the face, and his description is a caricature—like his sketches. They show generically white and mostly male figures, especially when strong and intense emotions like rage or terror are depicted."
Charles Le Brun lived in 17th century Paris for most of his life. The mention of 'generically white and mostly male figures' is, like with Nilsson (though more subtly), implying some degree of racism. But it implies a lack of diversity representation, which is a more modern concept, not a 17th century European one.
This review is becoming long-winded, so I will give one last example that really bothered me.
"Americans criticize the emotional reserve of Japanese people as aloofness, or, with all its racist undertones, inscrutability..."
Was this the case in the not so distant past? Yes. But this author has used present tense, making it seem like all Americans are racist towards Japanese people, or at the very least, critical. Perhaps this is the personal bias of the author, as she is from Wales, because she mentions a few more 'blanket statements' about America. But again, and my whole point in this review, is that the book has very obvious, repetitive subjectivity. The blurb about the book, and even the title, mislead me into thinking I would be reading an objective history. If I missed any obvious signs that it wasn't completely objective, that's on me. If I got more irked at these subjectivities in a 'history' book than most people would, that's on me, too.
The author seems to apply the same interpretive lens so consistently that it starts to feel overextended and at times, preachy. It's a shame, because a lot of the book was interesting and I enjoyed it. And again, maybe it's just me - I like my history books objective unless made clear that they aren't. It's possible 'cultural history' implies just that, and I misinterpreted in my own mind.
But reading the repetitious 'interpretiveness' literally induced eye-rolling at times. Would I recommend this to others? Probably. Despite those eye-rolling moments, it's still insightful. I just wish it was a little more forthcoming about presenting subjective as fact, not a neutral cultural history. And that it had more on other cultures and how they viewed the face (for a book that seems to detest the Western white patriarchy, there's a surprising lack of diversity on how other ethnicities percieved things).
Bottom line: I don’t take issue with these topics, but with how consistently and definitively they are framed throughout.
Thank you to NetGalley for this Arc. The opinions are my own.
3.5 but rounding down.
I had difficulty picking a star amount, as portions of this book are definitely four star. There are just a few things that bothered me, but they were rather substantial.
So let's start with the basics. This is a cultural history about the face, *mostly from a western civilization perspective. The introduction is interesting, but it feels a bit rambling at times. Each chapter has a 'theme', but the underlying theme is one thing that bothered me most.
I got excited about this book. I love cultural history about 'things'. I love learning about how other cultures, and my own, percieved something throughout history. However, the more I read, the more I realized the book, while largely objective, occasionally shifts into interpretive or ideologically framed language held by the author. A few 'interpretations' throughout are acceptable, but I noticed a very heavy pattern from the very first chapter.
While this is a cultural history, I wasn't expecting a book that essentially took the author's philosophical/political positions and treated them as objective facts. The first example is this:
"Explicit in the work of Francis Galton, and implicit in right-wing propaganda, is the idea that you can judge a book by its cover..."
Now, I'm not any wing politically, but this bothered me. Propaganda is a loaded word, and it puts different ideologies that may have some similarities into one barrel (as in, it's a blanket statement). Francis Galton was indeed associated with eugenics. But the author has essentially lumped Galton's views, and the views of (seemingly all right-wing ideology) as the same. So the two might merge in some minds to become an even bigger blanket statement, implying that all right-wing people believe in eugenics. This is not objective.
Next is a subjective bit about gender. Yes, it is very clear that beauty standards for both men and women change significantly depending on era, class, and ethnicity. I don't dispute that. But several of the gender-heavy passages put philosophical ideas as objective facts, which they are not.
"We tend not to think about the ways in which masculinity is as artificial as femininity in relation to faces and bodies..."
"...and you can't be a historian of the body without knowing how conditional sexed identity has always been..."
Are these statements true? It depends on the person you ask. Therefore, they are not objective facts. Why not frame it something like.... This suggests that masculinity, like femininity, may be shaped by cultural practices and ideology?
The author frequently critiques the white male patriarchy. While I understand the reasoning behind this, and her ideas aren't unfound, the book is constantly, aggressively at times, reminding us. I find this off-putting, as again, I didn't want to read this book for political/personal views of the author.
One more example regarding gender. The story of Mary Toft is well known - the woman in the 18th century who claimed she gave birth to rabbits. The author has interpreted this story to suit her own ideology. She writes,
"Mary’s tale reached the courts because of male anxiety about female rebellion at a time when midwifery was becoming a male profession. There had long been patriarchal distrust about the birth process—including the appearance of monstrous and misshapen offspring."
What Mary did doesn't necessarily reflect what the author implies. Mary's tale likely reached the court because it was a disturbing event (her method was rather horrifying). There is little clear historical evidence that her case reached the courts specifically due to concerns about female rebellion. Is it possible? Yes. Is it documented? No. Therefore, it should at least be written as 'Mary's tale possibly reached the courts...".
Now we move to race. Western civilization has not always been kind to those of 'other' ethnicities that didn't belong to their group. Everyone knows this (though I'm sure there are some that might argue otherwise). Again, I am not against anything the author is saying, only that she is saying it in a subjective, 'this is fact' manner. As an example:
"He documented the journey of the parents, too, in A Child is Born; like every image of a fetus photographed by Nilsson, those parents were white. This was in keeping with the racially homogeneous nature of Sweden in the 1960s, in which more than 99 percent of the population was Caucasian, but also with the ingrained traditions of Western medicine...."
In 1960's Sweden, yes, the overwhelming majority was Caucasian. Does this mean that Nilsson, who likely photographed those in his vicinity, purposefully exluded non-Caucasians? It feels as if that's exactly what's being said here. While not inaccurate, it feels overinterpreted given the historical setting. The observations occasionally seem to impose significance where the context itself already provides a straightforward explanation.
Once again, we place significance out of context in this example:
"Notice, though, that Le Brun does not mention the anatomy of the face, and his description is a caricature—like his sketches. They show generically white and mostly male figures, especially when strong and intense emotions like rage or terror are depicted."
Charles Le Brun lived in 17th century Paris for most of his life. The mention of 'generically white and mostly male figures' is, like with Nilsson (though more subtly), implying some degree of racism. But it implies a lack of diversity representation, which is a more modern concept, not a 17th century European one.
This review is becoming long-winded, so I will give one last example that really bothered me.
"Americans criticize the emotional reserve of Japanese people as aloofness, or, with all its racist undertones, inscrutability..."
Was this the case in the not so distant past? Yes. But this author has used present tense, making it seem like all Americans are racist towards Japanese people, or at the very least, critical. Perhaps this is the personal bias of the author, as she is from Wales, because she mentions a few more 'blanket statements' about America. But again, and my whole point in this review, is that the book has very obvious, repetitive subjectivity. The blurb about the book, and even the title, mislead me into thinking I would be reading an objective history. If I missed any obvious signs that it wasn't completely objective, that's on me. If I got more irked at these subjectivities in a 'history' book than most people would, that's on me, too.
The author seems to apply the same interpretive lens so consistently that it starts to feel overextended and at times, preachy. It's a shame, because a lot of the book was interesting and I enjoyed it. And again, maybe it's just me - I like my history books objective unless made clear that they aren't. It's possible 'cultural history' implies just that, and I misinterpreted in my own mind.
But reading the repetitious 'interpretiveness' literally induced eye-rolling at times. Would I recommend this to others? Probably. Despite those eye-rolling moments, it's still insightful. I just wish it was a little more forthcoming about presenting subjective as fact, not a neutral cultural history. And that it had more on other cultures and how they viewed the face (for a book that seems to detest the Western white patriarchy, there's a surprising lack of diversity on how other ethnicities percieved things).
Bottom line: I don’t take issue with these topics, but with how consistently and definitively they are framed throughout.
Thank you to NetGalley for this Arc. The opinions are my own.
August 31, 2026
3.5
I feel a little torn about how I would rate The Face: A Cultural History. On one hand, I found so much of this book fascinating, particularly the art history and the ways our understanding of the face has changed alongside culture, technology, medicine, and ideas about identity. On the other hand, there were moments when I found myself deeply uncomfortable with some of the concepts being explored. Face blindness, facial reconstruction, facial recognition, and especially facial transplants are subjects that I found genuinely disturbing. And yet, perhaps that is exactly what this book is supposed to do. It made me think about something I normally take completely for granted: what a face actually means.
Fay Bound-Alberti sets out to explore the cultural history of the human face and, more specifically, how we came to associate the face so strongly with identity, personality, morality, beauty, and even worth. The book moves across centuries and disciplines, examining everything from ancient representations of the human face and Renaissance portraiture to mirrors, photography, physiognomy, cosmetic surgery, digital avatars, facial recognition, and transplantation. Rather than treating the face as simply a biological feature, Bound-Alberti argues that it is something we have culturally constructed and continually reinvented.
The art-history sections were easily my favourite. I loved seeing the development of portraiture placed into the larger story of how we came to understand ourselves as individuals. The Renaissance becomes particularly important because portraiture helped establish the idea that a specific face could represent a specific person, preserving their identity beyond their physical presence. The arrival of mirrors and photography then transformed that relationship even further, making the face increasingly accessible, reproducible, and ultimately something we could scrutinize ourselves.
I was also fascinated by the discussion of physiognomy and the ways people have historically attempted to read morality, intelligence, character, race, and social status from someone's physical features. It is an uncomfortable history because it demonstrates how easily the face can become a justification for prejudice. Ideas that now seem absurd or horrifying were once presented as legitimate science, and Bound-Alberti makes the connection between these historical assumptions and some of the biases that continue to influence how we look at one another.
One of the most interesting aspects of the book is Bound-Alberti's own experience with prosopagnosia, or face blindness. She lives with the condition herself, which gives the entire project another dimension. The face is something most of us use almost unconsciously to identify people, yet for someone with prosopagnosia that supposedly fundamental connection between face and identity can be profoundly different.
And then the book moves into territory that I found considerably more difficult: cosmetic surgery, facial reconstruction, facial recognition technology, and ultimately face transplants. I have to confess that I found the idea of face blindness and especially facial transplantation disturbing. There is something deeply uncanny about the possibility of replacing one person's face with another and then asking what happens to our sense of self when the face we see in the mirror is no longer entirely the face we were born with. Bound-Alberti doesn't allow these questions to remain simple medical curiosities; she uses them to interrogate our assumptions about identity itself.
What I appreciate most is that The Face doesn't necessarily tell us what to think. Instead, it keeps presenting increasingly strange and complicated questions. Why do we believe a face reveals something essential about a person? Why do we place so much importance on beauty? Why are certain faces considered trustworthy, attractive, threatening, intelligent, or desirable? And what happens when technology gives us the ability to alter, reproduce, recognize, or completely replace those faces?
I can absolutely understand why this has been described as a pioneering study. I can't say that the concepts and ideas presented here aren't fascinating, because they absolutely are. Even when I was uncomfortable, I was interested. Even when I wasn't entirely convinced by where an idea was going, I wanted to see it through.
Ultimately, I think that is why this was a worthwhile read for me. The Face made me look differently at something I see every single day and rarely think about. The book is strange, unsettling, scholarly, and occasionally wonderfully fascinating. I may still be torn about my overall rating, but perhaps being torn is actually the point. Bound-Alberti has taken something incredibly familiar and made it feel mysterious again, and I can't really ask for more from a book of cultural history than that.
I feel a little torn about how I would rate The Face: A Cultural History. On one hand, I found so much of this book fascinating, particularly the art history and the ways our understanding of the face has changed alongside culture, technology, medicine, and ideas about identity. On the other hand, there were moments when I found myself deeply uncomfortable with some of the concepts being explored. Face blindness, facial reconstruction, facial recognition, and especially facial transplants are subjects that I found genuinely disturbing. And yet, perhaps that is exactly what this book is supposed to do. It made me think about something I normally take completely for granted: what a face actually means.
Fay Bound-Alberti sets out to explore the cultural history of the human face and, more specifically, how we came to associate the face so strongly with identity, personality, morality, beauty, and even worth. The book moves across centuries and disciplines, examining everything from ancient representations of the human face and Renaissance portraiture to mirrors, photography, physiognomy, cosmetic surgery, digital avatars, facial recognition, and transplantation. Rather than treating the face as simply a biological feature, Bound-Alberti argues that it is something we have culturally constructed and continually reinvented.
The art-history sections were easily my favourite. I loved seeing the development of portraiture placed into the larger story of how we came to understand ourselves as individuals. The Renaissance becomes particularly important because portraiture helped establish the idea that a specific face could represent a specific person, preserving their identity beyond their physical presence. The arrival of mirrors and photography then transformed that relationship even further, making the face increasingly accessible, reproducible, and ultimately something we could scrutinize ourselves.
I was also fascinated by the discussion of physiognomy and the ways people have historically attempted to read morality, intelligence, character, race, and social status from someone's physical features. It is an uncomfortable history because it demonstrates how easily the face can become a justification for prejudice. Ideas that now seem absurd or horrifying were once presented as legitimate science, and Bound-Alberti makes the connection between these historical assumptions and some of the biases that continue to influence how we look at one another.
One of the most interesting aspects of the book is Bound-Alberti's own experience with prosopagnosia, or face blindness. She lives with the condition herself, which gives the entire project another dimension. The face is something most of us use almost unconsciously to identify people, yet for someone with prosopagnosia that supposedly fundamental connection between face and identity can be profoundly different.
And then the book moves into territory that I found considerably more difficult: cosmetic surgery, facial reconstruction, facial recognition technology, and ultimately face transplants. I have to confess that I found the idea of face blindness and especially facial transplantation disturbing. There is something deeply uncanny about the possibility of replacing one person's face with another and then asking what happens to our sense of self when the face we see in the mirror is no longer entirely the face we were born with. Bound-Alberti doesn't allow these questions to remain simple medical curiosities; she uses them to interrogate our assumptions about identity itself.
What I appreciate most is that The Face doesn't necessarily tell us what to think. Instead, it keeps presenting increasingly strange and complicated questions. Why do we believe a face reveals something essential about a person? Why do we place so much importance on beauty? Why are certain faces considered trustworthy, attractive, threatening, intelligent, or desirable? And what happens when technology gives us the ability to alter, reproduce, recognize, or completely replace those faces?
I can absolutely understand why this has been described as a pioneering study. I can't say that the concepts and ideas presented here aren't fascinating, because they absolutely are. Even when I was uncomfortable, I was interested. Even when I wasn't entirely convinced by where an idea was going, I wanted to see it through.
Ultimately, I think that is why this was a worthwhile read for me. The Face made me look differently at something I see every single day and rarely think about. The book is strange, unsettling, scholarly, and occasionally wonderfully fascinating. I may still be torn about my overall rating, but perhaps being torn is actually the point. Bound-Alberti has taken something incredibly familiar and made it feel mysterious again, and I can't really ask for more from a book of cultural history than that.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
This is a fascinating look through time, art, science and beliefs - presumptions and prejudices- on what “a face” might convey and its “role in emotion, identity and communication.”
This is a scholarly work by an author who founded the Centre for the Technology and the Body, King’s College, London, leading a project called Interface, the first project “examining the technologies of the face.” What is even more intriguing is that the author has prosopagnosia, face blindness.
The author’s central tenet is the face marks who we are. It carries an extraordinary burden - maybe too much according to the author. In a practice called “face reading,” many look at a face and determine “health, intelligence and trustworthiness.” Looking at one’s face at times has been used to make decisions like hiring, education, or immigration. Before technology like the camera where a face can be imbedded on a driver’s license or passport, the face was not a source of identity. But with the advent of photography, the face now defines identity.
What about the mirror? While this existed before photography it was a more subjective tool for the person who looked in the mirror. While face painted in canvas is fixed in time, in a mirror it can change and be used to assure appearance and maybe the “facial expression.”
What perhaps is the final most interesting thing from this book is the assertion by the author on a comment by an art critic, John Berger, “men act, women appear.” While men look, women watch how they are looked at by men - contributing to misogyny (my opinion).
This is a really captivating book. It’s for readers who like offbeat topics but seek to appreciate the wisdom and knowledge these can bring.
I’d like to thank NetGalley and Grand Central Publishing for giving me access to this ARC.
This is a scholarly work by an author who founded the Centre for the Technology and the Body, King’s College, London, leading a project called Interface, the first project “examining the technologies of the face.” What is even more intriguing is that the author has prosopagnosia, face blindness.
The author’s central tenet is the face marks who we are. It carries an extraordinary burden - maybe too much according to the author. In a practice called “face reading,” many look at a face and determine “health, intelligence and trustworthiness.” Looking at one’s face at times has been used to make decisions like hiring, education, or immigration. Before technology like the camera where a face can be imbedded on a driver’s license or passport, the face was not a source of identity. But with the advent of photography, the face now defines identity.
What about the mirror? While this existed before photography it was a more subjective tool for the person who looked in the mirror. While face painted in canvas is fixed in time, in a mirror it can change and be used to assure appearance and maybe the “facial expression.”
What perhaps is the final most interesting thing from this book is the assertion by the author on a comment by an art critic, John Berger, “men act, women appear.” While men look, women watch how they are looked at by men - contributing to misogyny (my opinion).
This is a really captivating book. It’s for readers who like offbeat topics but seek to appreciate the wisdom and knowledge these can bring.
I’d like to thank NetGalley and Grand Central Publishing for giving me access to this ARC.
August 31, 2026
The chapters of this book each cover a different verb about the face: Portrayed (the face in portraiture), Captured (the face in photos), Mirrored (the face in mirrors), Perfected (plastic surgery), Grown (embryos and facial development), Expressed (facial expressions and conditions which impede them), Reconstructed (reconstructing faces from historical skulls/remains), Recognized (face blindness), and Transplanted (face transplants).
This book is written for a general audience that may not have read or thought about these issues before. The first thing I do when picking up a non-fiction book like this is flip to the back to see how long it "really" is (i.e., the page count minus index, appendices, references, etc.). This book has no references at the back, despite the fact that it takes the reader on a pretty intellectual romp through how the face has been "seen" and thought about. (The first 5 index items are: Actisanes [Egyptian king], founder of Rhinocorura; Adler, Alfred, and the inferiority complex; Adomakoh-Young, Isabel, actor and drag king; advertising [with 8 subtopics]; Aegean art.) So if you're looking for a semi-scholarly treatment of this topic that might cover some open questions in various fields and send you to related literature, this is not it. If you're looking for a general introduction to this topic, this might be a good choice.
Dr. Bound-Alberti has prosopagnosia, or face blindness. So this book is kind of akin to someone who's colorblind writing a book about color. I don't feel like this changes her observations or conclusions, but it does go a long way toward explaining her interest in this topic. I found her most interesting as an author when she brought in the research she does in this space--i.e., interviewing face transplant surgeons. Some of her more "intellectual history" chapters seemed both uneven and over-general.
This book is written for a general audience that may not have read or thought about these issues before. The first thing I do when picking up a non-fiction book like this is flip to the back to see how long it "really" is (i.e., the page count minus index, appendices, references, etc.). This book has no references at the back, despite the fact that it takes the reader on a pretty intellectual romp through how the face has been "seen" and thought about. (The first 5 index items are: Actisanes [Egyptian king], founder of Rhinocorura; Adler, Alfred, and the inferiority complex; Adomakoh-Young, Isabel, actor and drag king; advertising [with 8 subtopics]; Aegean art.) So if you're looking for a semi-scholarly treatment of this topic that might cover some open questions in various fields and send you to related literature, this is not it. If you're looking for a general introduction to this topic, this might be a good choice.
Dr. Bound-Alberti has prosopagnosia, or face blindness. So this book is kind of akin to someone who's colorblind writing a book about color. I don't feel like this changes her observations or conclusions, but it does go a long way toward explaining her interest in this topic. I found her most interesting as an author when she brought in the research she does in this space--i.e., interviewing face transplant surgeons. Some of her more "intellectual history" chapters seemed both uneven and over-general.
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
4.25/5
This was really really interesting to me! Especially as someone who loves art history and is fascinated with faces and how different they can be.
This follows the history of how we as humans interpret the human face.
I didn't find this too dense, but I wouldn't recommend reading it in the middle of the night when you are tired. For a non-fiction book, I really did speed through it. So that should give you a reference as to how not-dense this book is.
I liked that this included lots of example photos and art pieces.
I thought it was interesting how up until the Renaissance, we really didn't care about faces too much. But faces really had a boom with the Victorian era and the development of cameras. Faces being so hyper-analyzed is a rather "modern" thing and that's so fascinating to me. Mainly because we have always clung to them, but not really ever cared to describe them.
Thanks to NetGalley for the e-ARC of this book in exchange for my honest review!
This was really really interesting to me! Especially as someone who loves art history and is fascinated with faces and how different they can be.
This follows the history of how we as humans interpret the human face.
I didn't find this too dense, but I wouldn't recommend reading it in the middle of the night when you are tired. For a non-fiction book, I really did speed through it. So that should give you a reference as to how not-dense this book is.
I liked that this included lots of example photos and art pieces.
I thought it was interesting how up until the Renaissance, we really didn't care about faces too much. But faces really had a boom with the Victorian era and the development of cameras. Faces being so hyper-analyzed is a rather "modern" thing and that's so fascinating to me. Mainly because we have always clung to them, but not really ever cared to describe them.
Thanks to NetGalley for the e-ARC of this book in exchange for my honest review!
July 22, 2026
Captivating. Bound-Alberti's cultural and chronologically themed examination of our fixation on human faces fascinates, delights, and occasionally horrifies. (All pluses for a good read in my opinion.) Our obsession goes beyond ourselves even, as we anthropomorphize our furry friends and spot Jesus in toast.
What I find especially interesting about the author's perspective is that she, admittedly, is bad at remembering faces. As a prosopagnosic, she struggles with assembling facial features into a memorable identity in which to catalog for later, something most of us do without a second thought. The flip-side of this is that she's quite good at characterizing the individual features that make up a face—something I would likely struggle to comprehensively articulate if asked. The result is a unique and curious meandering journey through a history of vanity, identity, and individuality.
**I received my copy from Netgalley.
What I find especially interesting about the author's perspective is that she, admittedly, is bad at remembering faces. As a prosopagnosic, she struggles with assembling facial features into a memorable identity in which to catalog for later, something most of us do without a second thought. The flip-side of this is that she's quite good at characterizing the individual features that make up a face—something I would likely struggle to comprehensively articulate if asked. The result is a unique and curious meandering journey through a history of vanity, identity, and individuality.
**I received my copy from Netgalley.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
Bound-Alberti is a Professor at King's College and wrote this book based on her research on how humans have interacted with their own face and with other people's faces. For much of human history we could see each other's faces, but only had glimpses of our own, like reflections in a pond. Mirrors came much later, and then painting. She covers a lot of interesting aspects of our face and our identities. Not only our faces important for our relationship with others (beauty, familiarity) but also now for verifying our identity. You get the idea here! An interesting twist is that the author has Face Blindness (Prosopagnosia). The book is rather professorial but accessible all the same.
I found it fascinating but a little slow-going.
I found it fascinating but a little slow-going.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
With the rise of social media and cameras at our fingertips, no people in history, have looked at their faces as much as we have. It’s fascinating and disturbing at the same time. I even find myself staring at my face and looking for all the minor issues and thinking constantly about how to fix it. So I was absolutely intrigued by Fay Bound-Alberti’s new book, The Face. It was a very well written and in depth look at the cultural importance of our face and how huge of a role it plays in all of human history. I love a cultural deep dive on hyper specific topics that make me feel smarter after reading. Overall, I really enjoyed this book.
Thank you #netgalley for the ARC in exchange for an honest review.
Thank you #netgalley for the ARC in exchange for an honest review.
August 14, 2026
Audio. I gave up after 10%. Based on a The Week Mag recommendation, I decided to check it out thinking a cultural review of how faces are perceived would be interesting. My eye rolling started very quickly. I quickly realized my error in thinking that an entire book just about the face and cultural impacts would keep me hooked. It got boring and tedious quickly. It all just seemed so obvious. There didn't appear to be anything new or fascinating about her premise. There were digressions. Of course there had to be digressions, how else can one sustain an entire book just about the face?
July 28, 2026
3.5 stars
August 5, 2026
Absolutely riveting; will make you look at images of the face differently, let alone human ones.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews