h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In my three years at Goldsmiths doing Fine Art I don't remember the golden ratio being mentioned once.

I vaguely remember it on the foundation course as some sort of quaint curiosity.

I'd love to see an experiment done where identical pieces of art were shown to people that were either based on this ratio or not and which were rated more 'beautiful' or pleasing to the eye or whatever.

Oh right sorry I see you refer to that in the OP.

Golden Ratio is the first thing I learned in sixth form studies art appreciation (and what got me interested in art, albeit at amateur level). It's...not unknown. EH Gombrich covers it extensively. It's absolutely essential to understanding Renaissance art

I'm not sure that the idea of getting people to assess the beauty of rectangles is a goer. Are rectangles ever particularly beautiful? Granted if the Golden Ratio ones popped out of the analysis you'd have a pretty strong case.

It seems far more likely to be that artists used Golden Ratio deliberately and mathematically rather than by aesthetic happenstance.

Io was my rat.
He was a light brown colour - sort of golden.
You would like my golden rat, Io.

> EH Gombrich<

quotes (@40); >>Fair enough; is height also 3 times the diameter, I wonder? <<

No, not in this case. It's a slim one 'cos of the log provided. However, I'm pretty sure it would look better if it were so - though I also think I'd have to be quite careful with the shapes of the curves ( you know what I mean!)

The possibly denotes that he's not highly thought of by hi-falutin' ex-Goldmiths artists?

That's fair enough. I agree. Myself I file him under 'mildly interesting', but the visual perception angle is hardly the most productive way to approach art. I mentioned him simply because he'd someone a lot of people have heard of. And some of them have read him and therefore know that he covers Golden Section.

Another popular work of tosh which majors on Golden Section is, I believe, 'The Da Vinci Code'. I've not read that one. But I am mildly surprised at anyone with a vague interest in art not having come across Golden Section.

Am I really reading this thread.

The subject is "Do you like the Golden Ratio?"

And whenever anyone says something "oh yes, me, I do" someone jumps in and asks for proof, or starts blithering on about art school or whatever.

But the question is like. and the key words are Golden and Ratio. So yes, I like paintings, buildings, plants and seashells that somehow fit into the golden ratio mould. They appeal to me for no reason that I care to go into apart from: I like them.

Just because I am not referenceing my "liking" for that form and using names and studies doesn't mean that I don't like them. I do like them. I know that because I live in my head and nobody else does. There are reasons that paintings, esp religious iconography, conforms to the whole 3 thing. And i'm sure someone will be along shortly with a list of citations as long as my arm to save me the bother.

Back wrote a lot of his cantatas (possibly all, I can't remember) in E flat - because there are 3 flats. Oh, 3 again in religious stuff. Wonder what that means (anyone went to the Royal College of music can shed light on that )

There are other things I like that don't feature a golden ratio or a fibbonaci series but hey, I still like them - but the question wasn't "do you like things that don't confom to the Golden Ratio"

Sometimes i like a bit of chaos, sometimes I like a bit of orrder. Sometimes a painting/building is just a painting/building. Sometimes it is something else.

I also like chocolate peanuts with a cup of so I'm going off for some of that now. Or do I have to prove I like those too?

I don't have much of a sampling, but of the few folks that I have met who style themselves (quite vociferously at times) an ARTIST, ... art is what they choose and say it is at a given time. Which tells me one of two things: there is no useful measure and definition of art, or they are all a load of pretentious twits. I'm a little hard-pressed to decide which ...

Coincindentally, the other day I was showing and Gruesome #1 a building opposite the Dom in Aachen (Aken / Aix-la-chapelle whatever you prefer) which quite clearly demonstrates the 3:1 thing with the windows as you go up the floors. I believe that was very popular at one time.

Eep! I hope I wasn't questioning what one is allowed to like and not like. If It seemed that way - I'm humbled.

But some commentators go too far: we *naturally* like certain things.

Similarly we* like Bach not because of the maths he hid in his music but because...well, it's Bach.








* Not me I have to say. 'I find that listening to Bach is like being hit repeatedly on the forehead with a teaspoon.' Cassandra Mortmain in 'I Capture The Castle' by Dodie Smith. (qv. *highly recommended*).

Well, OK. St Matthew's Passion, I'll admit.

>> there is no useful measure and definition of art, or they are all a load of pretentious twits. I'm a little hard-pressed to decide which ...<<

Surely it's not an either/or question: if there is no useful measure and definition of art then those who are vigorously claiming there is are a load of pretentious twits.

I agree with Sho, I like art with the Golden Ratio in it, it makes me happy and I'm not particularly inclined to delve any deeper into it than that. We all have our little pleasures that are unjustified/unjustifiable and might evaporate under proper scrutiny (Stuff like free will. Or Glee).

I was entirely with you there, until 'Glee' ...

Not my cuppa, ya know? But then, I found Fame pretty tiresome too, much to the annoyance of my bride

>>But the question is like. and the key words are Golden and Ratio. So yes, I like paintings, buildings, plants and seashells that somehow fit into the golden ratio mould. They appeal to me for no reason that I care to go into apart from: I like them.

Actually, the question was:

"Do you find yourself drawn to that particular shape, rather than others?"
(it was a bit long for a thread title)

So when you say:
>>There are other things I like that don't feature a golden ratio or a fibbonaci series but hey, I still like them - /...

...my original question remains unanswered. I'm interested in whether people like the golden section *more* than other ratios.

I ask because a recent architecture programme (channel 4, last Monday 8-9pm) had one modern building which was deliberately designed to conform to the golden section, with the architect claiming it would impart special qualities to please the dweller... which I thought to be an unfounded claim.

Well de gustibus non thingummy wotsit.

My working theory is that there's no fancy neurological stuff going on. Those yo like art which incorporates Golden Ratio (and that often includes me) like that art which tends to incorporate Golden Ratio.

As Abraham Lincoln tactfully put it (when asked to provide a book review):

'For those people who like this sort of thing, then this is precisely the sort of thing they will like.'


One caveat: It can be possible for someone *not* to like Renaissance Art until you tell them about Golden Ratio and the like. Then they get big into it. I've seen that happen. Then you can take them on to, say, Mondriaan and tell them that a painting can be about formalism without representation. Or...there are been a couple off telly/radio things on Pollok recently (Lenny Henry on R4; Marcus de Sautoy with a Pollok-making robot), Then you can tell them how and why even though that kind of stuff is not like Renaissance art, it's still...something.

With the risk of coming over as a winky critic (and no doubt I'll get a ), a bit of analysis *can* add to the fun.

I get your point, elderberry, but what has niggled me in this thread (over and above wanting to post until now, which was a bind because of it coming hot on the heels of my Aachen adventure) was the constant demand for either "proof" or the "I'm an *expert* so the rest of you are wrong* impression I get from other posts*

So, art / music pretty much covered up there in the thread ^^

architecture - without looking at any studies (and I only know one architecht and I'm not sure if she's looking at this) I couldn't say one way or another about special qualities, but it is easier to arrange furniture in a rectangular rather than a square or round (or hexagonal or whatever) shape where there is a greater floor to wall ratio. (unless you live in a massive house, that is, in which case all bets are off). for ceilings - the higher the better as far as I'm concerned up to a point - which may or may not be a 3:1 since I've never measured the ceilings of my favourite flat - but they were irregular and very high and what I really liked was the feeling of space without the room being too enormous.

Looking at a building from the outside - well, that varies. Regular buildings can be interesting (I like symmetry) but so can irregular ones. There Hundertwasser did some interesting things, and there are the weird ones in Düsseldorf that I don't know the name of (you can see them from the television tower) which are all wobbly and strange.

But I do know that I don't like irregular too much and too often, it can get wearing.

* YMMV - I am firmly of the opinion that art is subjective mostly but know perfectly well that artists often hide a message.

ButButBut...

Do we find certain things Pleasing because they're what we're used to?


Architecture, I suspect, is another . Here, we may be influenced by the idea of Form Follows Function. If you look at a building by (say) Frank Gehry it's not so obvious where the door is, the floors, how to get around. Possibly it's not necessarily that the irregular shape that's displeasing as the fact that it looks User Hostile




Apparently Zaha Hadid insisted on a particular shade of pistachio for the newly-opened Glasgow Riverside Museum. It's *horrible*

As it happens, I was, last night, reading up for my course project and came across this (re green woodwork):

Cleaving end grain
the optimum, for a clean split is about 1/3 log diameter [this is quite believable - explanation if required].

The guy goes on to say (oh yes he does) that after experimentation, the golden ratio is the very best of all.
'nuff said?

"I think you'll find that nature came before maths"

And whether the Golden Ratio really, truly works in nature is open to debate.

I remember once being told that Stonehenge must have been built by aliens because doing the appropriate calculations on the circles comes up with pi, but of course the builders of Stonehenge had no knowledge of pi.

What, were their bakeries only good with cakes and muffins?