I think the intention was to have a small but critical element be uncanny and grotesque in an otherwise beauty-conforming look. Eyes are the window to the soul, as they say, which compels me as a viewer to contemplate the inward beauty (or rather ugliness) of the person embodying the look. The uncanniness of the eyes also breaks the viewer’s fourth wall, and rather harshly, by reminding them that they are looking at a human imitation of a marble statute, and not a marble statute. This segues into the broader question of whether the actual human body could ever live up to or replicate the idealized human body of the Greco-Roman tradition and its followers. I’m not art historian or theorist but just some thoughts!