The golden ratio is still BS

[Shibboleth]

This is a great example of what people are saying.

For centuries, it was widely believed the Parthenon, with its appearance of balanced, straight lines, was also built according to the golden ratio. Only it wasn't. A reconstruction project that began in the 1980s, designed to save the crumbling marble structure, revealed something else. Each of the thousands of pieces of the Parthenon was different, and there was nary a straight line among them. It actually fit together like a complex puzzle, with each part fitting only in its particular space.

Another ratio, however, does appear throughout most of the Parthenon, and it would also have met the Greek sensibilities for harmonic proportions. For example, the Parthenon is 30.8 meters wide and 69.51 meters long (101 and 228 feet, respectively). This equals a 4:9 ratio. This 4:9 ratio also is found in other parts of the building, including the width of the Parthenon's front columns, and in the height of the façade to its width.

Designing and constructing the Parthenon was the equivalent of orchestrating a symphony, using many different instruments in perfect harmony. Although the majestic Parthenon wasn't built on the golden ratio, the effect wasn't so different: It remains aesthetically pleasing [source: Nova].

[John Albert]

Doesn't it seem rather ethnocentric to declare the Parthenon to be the pinnacle of all aesthetic beauty anyway?

[CarbShark]

Art is largely subjective, so you can't necessarily say whether the Golden Ratio produces more beautiful visual compositions. Good composition is subject to lots of considerations such as form, color, chiaroscuro, use of lines, mass vs. negative space, etc. Some compositions rely upon symmetry, others benefit from the rule of thirds, and others work better with different arrangements.

But you can study it with scientific methods. You can do double blind randomized controlled trials were a large number of individuals are shown various images, and asked which they found more interesting, moving or pleasing; or tested to see from which images they recalled the most details.

The fact that something is subjective does not mean it's beyond understanding.

[John Albert]

You can do double blind randomized controlled trials were a large number of individuals are shown various images, and asked which they found more interesting, moving or pleasing

Appeals to popularity are not necessarily a reliable metric of what constitutes "good" art.

The fact that something is subjective does not mean it's beyond understanding.

I never said it was beyond understanding.

[CarbShark]

No one is making an appeal to popularity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fuzzyMarmot]

Mario Livio has a book on phi, called The Golden Ratio: The Story of Phi, the World's Most Astonishing Number.

It is written for the layperson, with only a little algebra. It won't satisfy people looking for the deep math, but it is great as a general popular survey of the topic. In particular, he does a nice job of separating the science from the woo (and from the unproven but plausible).

[jt512]

I didn't say "The Golden Ratio is bullshit." I didn't say that artists never use it, or that it doesn't figure prominently in the layouts of some iconic works.

But as you said, there are lots of popular techniques for laying out compositions, the GR being just one of them.

Is the GR more prevalent than others? Possibly.

But I surmise that would depend on which specific elements in a given composition that you decide to measure.

For example, measuring the distance between the right edge of the picture plane and the left edge of Clint Eastwood's nose, you get a rough approximation of the GR, but measuring the area of negative space to the right of Clint's face gives you a rough one-third.

Measuring from some arbitrary edge of the frame to Clint's right pupil would give a different ratio, measuring a different edge to the same pupil would give yet a different ratio; the same goes for his left pupil, his cigar, and so on and so forth. Those are all different ratios that reference the primary focal points in that image. Why aren't we paying attention to all those ratios? Perhaps because the GR is a specific thing we've decided to look for? 

Walk through any art museum and you'll find an infinite variety of proportions in the designs of the images and sculptures. You could pick any numerical ratio out of a hat, then take a stroll through the Louvre with a measuring tape and check the distances between arbitrary elements in every painting and you'd find countess examples.

Does that mean every randomly chosen ratio was intentionally utilized by all the artists? Or were they all employed unconsciously on the artist's intuition?

Does every random, arbitrary ratio have the ability to impart some mystical quality of beauty?

It seems that you have either amended or clarified your position to a point where it is nearly indistinguishible from Captain Video's.

[John Albert]

It seems that you have either amended or clarified your position to a point where it is nearly indistinguishible from Captain Video's.

Cool.

[seamas]

I didn't say "The Golden Ratio is bullshit." I didn't say that artists never use it, or that it doesn't figure prominently in the layouts of some iconic works.

To be clear,I wasn't referring to you, but to the thread title.

[John Albert]

I didn't say "The Golden Ratio is bullshit." I didn't say that artists never use it, or that it doesn't figure prominently in the layouts of some iconic works.

To be clear,I wasn't referring to you, but to the thread title.

Cool!

I think I responded that way because you'd quoted me in your post.