But is it fools' gold?
May 26, 2015 1:56 PM Subscribe
The Golden Ratio or the Golden Mean is touted as universal principle of mathematics, aesthetics, and architecture. Its natural occurrences are often associated with beauty and health. But naysayers think the Golden Ratio is myth or even a scam. Golden ratio previously and previouslier.
I always thought I was a dunce for not "getting" how the golden ratio applied when that stupid spiral was overlaid with various pictures/nature things/buildings. It was this site that started me on my path to the truth.
posted by sparklemotion at 2:00 PM on May 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by sparklemotion at 2:00 PM on May 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Did you know that there's a direct correlation between the decline of Spirograph and the rise in gang activity? Think about it.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:03 PM on May 26, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by Sangermaine at 2:03 PM on May 26, 2015 [17 favorites]
There's this incredible Martin Gardner article from way back called "The Cult of the Golden Ratio." I'm pretty sure it was in Skeptical Inquirer. My google-fu is failing, but if anyone can find it, it's a fantastic takedown of the entire premise.
posted by Hactar at 2:05 PM on May 26, 2015
posted by Hactar at 2:05 PM on May 26, 2015
Did you know that there's a direct correlation between the decline of Spirograph and the rise in gang activity? Think about it.
You could easily pin that on circular reasoning
posted by hal9k at 2:06 PM on May 26, 2015 [22 favorites]
You could easily pin that on circular reasoning
posted by hal9k at 2:06 PM on May 26, 2015 [22 favorites]
But naysayers think the Golden Ratio is myth or even a scam.
The golden ratio is an still important geometric and mathematical concept, regardless of its aesthetic qualities. Its the limit of the ratio of consecutive Fibonacci numbers, for example.
posted by jpdoane at 2:13 PM on May 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
The golden ratio is an still important geometric and mathematical concept, regardless of its aesthetic qualities. Its the limit of the ratio of consecutive Fibonacci numbers, for example.
posted by jpdoane at 2:13 PM on May 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
WIthin the comments in the FastCo article are pretty good take-downs of the take-down. The case is built on a 200 year old misquote of a 500 year old mention. The rest is an illusion of statistical averages.
Also, http://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/2015/jan/13/golden-ratio-beautiful-new-curve-harriss-spiral
posted by 3.2.3 at 2:19 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also, http://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/2015/jan/13/golden-ratio-beautiful-new-curve-harriss-spiral
posted by 3.2.3 at 2:19 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, and it has real-world applications, like golden section search for numerically finding extrema of functions.
Pretty much anywhere Fibonacci numbers come up, the golden ratio is sure to follow.
That rebuttal article argues successfully that people probably do prefer ratios that are around roughly 1.6:1. Which means it's a reasonable shorthand for a designer to use. But there's no reason to get all mystical or assume this is connected to phi in any way or that our brains are somehow made of Fibonacci numbers.
posted by vogon_poet at 2:19 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Pretty much anywhere Fibonacci numbers come up, the golden ratio is sure to follow.
That rebuttal article argues successfully that people probably do prefer ratios that are around roughly 1.6:1. Which means it's a reasonable shorthand for a designer to use. But there's no reason to get all mystical or assume this is connected to phi in any way or that our brains are somehow made of Fibonacci numbers.
posted by vogon_poet at 2:19 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
The golden ratio is a myth but so are justice and happiness and gravitational constants.
posted by mrgroweler at 2:34 PM on May 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by mrgroweler at 2:34 PM on May 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
I love questioning deeply-held beliefs.
posted by rankfreudlite at 2:58 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by rankfreudlite at 2:58 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Did you know that there's a direct correlation between the decline of Spirograph and the rise in gang activity? Think about it.
A penguin juggled three iPods, then baked mince-meat pies.
posted by rankfreudlite at 3:10 PM on May 26, 2015
A penguin juggled three iPods, then baked mince-meat pies.
posted by rankfreudlite at 3:10 PM on May 26, 2015
"Strictly speaking, it's impossible for anything in the real-world to fall into the golden ratio, because it's an irrational number," says Keith Devlin, a professor of mathematics at Stanford University.Whut? That's like saying it's impossible for circles to exist because pi is irrational...
Just as it's impossible to find a perfect circle in the real world, the golden ratio cannot strictly be applied to any real world object. It's always going to be a little off.How is this relevant to aesthetics how is this relevant to aesthetics how is this relevant to aesthetics
I mean, maybe the Golden Ratio hype is bullshit but this stuff about its irrationality being problematic is... irrational.
posted by edheil at 3:26 PM on May 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
From the article:
posted by mhum at 3:32 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
"Strictly speaking, it's impossible for anything in the real-world to fall into the golden ratio, because it's an irrational number," says Keith Devlin, a professor of mathematics at Stanford University.What is this supposed to mean? If you can make lines of unit length and right angles, you can make the square root of two which is also irrational. I'm hoping this is a misquote or something.
posted by mhum at 3:32 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
I get the feeling poor Keith was misquoted, or a side comment he made was misunderstood by the journalist and presented as if it were a meaningful argument.
posted by edheil at 3:35 PM on May 26, 2015
posted by edheil at 3:35 PM on May 26, 2015
"Strictly speaking, it's impossible for anything in the real-world to fall into the golden ratio, because it's an irrational number, ..."
I was struck by that line as well. Is that really true?
I could see it be true in a digital world, but the world is analog.
posted by MtDewd at 3:36 PM on May 26, 2015
I was struck by that line as well. Is that really true?
I could see it be true in a digital world, but the world is analog.
posted by MtDewd at 3:36 PM on May 26, 2015
For the irrational number thing - distance is quantized, so sizes of physical objects don't fall on a true continuum. But more importantly, even if they did, human measurements wouldn't detect a true continuum of sizes anyway.
posted by zeptoweasel at 4:01 PM on May 26, 2015
posted by zeptoweasel at 4:01 PM on May 26, 2015
MtDewd: ""Strictly speaking, it's impossible for anything in the real-world to fall into the golden ratio, because it's an irrational number, ..."
I was struck by that line as well. Is that really true?
I could see it be true in a digital world, but the world is analog."
It's digital, it's just that it's sooooooooo far down, that, well... We don't have the energy to probe deep enough where it starts to get all grainy.
posted by symbioid at 4:32 PM on May 26, 2015
I was struck by that line as well. Is that really true?
I could see it be true in a digital world, but the world is analog."
It's digital, it's just that it's sooooooooo far down, that, well... We don't have the energy to probe deep enough where it starts to get all grainy.
posted by symbioid at 4:32 PM on May 26, 2015
I knew the golden ratio had jumped the shark when someone came out with a diet book claiming you'd get skinny if your fat/carbs ratio was golden.
posted by escabeche at 4:39 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by escabeche at 4:39 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
I love questioning deeply-held beliefs.
Do you?
posted by stebulus at 5:09 PM on May 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
Do you?
posted by stebulus at 5:09 PM on May 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
NO! Donald Duck taught me differently! Respect the Donald!
posted by umberto at 5:31 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by umberto at 5:31 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
"I get the feeling poor Keith was misquoted, or a side comment he made was misunderstood by the journalist and presented as if it were a meaningful argument."
Strictly speaking, he was right. Real objects and the universe itself are quantized, so nothing real could actually be perfectly in that ratio. But that's stunningly pedantic and irrelevant because biology or aesthetics or anything else can be operating from sufficient approximations. Most especially so because almost any example I can think of, especially naturally occurring, will be constructivist approximations.
"I could see it be true in a digital world, but the world is analog."
Not so. The universe is quantized, it is essentially "digital" in pretty much exactly the way in which you are contrasting "digital" to "analog".
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:27 PM on May 26, 2015
Strictly speaking, he was right. Real objects and the universe itself are quantized, so nothing real could actually be perfectly in that ratio. But that's stunningly pedantic and irrelevant because biology or aesthetics or anything else can be operating from sufficient approximations. Most especially so because almost any example I can think of, especially naturally occurring, will be constructivist approximations.
"I could see it be true in a digital world, but the world is analog."
Not so. The universe is quantized, it is essentially "digital" in pretty much exactly the way in which you are contrasting "digital" to "analog".
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:27 PM on May 26, 2015
Yeah, the “you can't represent it in reality” thing bugged me a lot. Binary is arguably a “purer” numeric system than counting our ape-hand protrusions... but if I held up two fingers (guess which two!) you couldn't represent that as a fraction of my total fingers in a fixed number of digits.
Integers — and all rational numbers — are the ultimate minority. We'd be wise to form a coalition with moderate irrational numbers like π, e, and φ and regard them as first-class participants in our mathematical world, rather than alienating them with such harsh rhetoric.
posted by Riki tiki at 7:06 PM on May 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Integers — and all rational numbers — are the ultimate minority. We'd be wise to form a coalition with moderate irrational numbers like π, e, and φ and regard them as first-class participants in our mathematical world, rather than alienating them with such harsh rhetoric.
posted by Riki tiki at 7:06 PM on May 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
I should point out 'The Power of Limits', a book full of examples that sound like, "The ratio of this airplane's length to its wingspan is kinda close to the golden mean! These flowers are kinda like the golden mean! Cool, ma-a-a-an!"
posted by Multicellular Exothermic at 7:45 PM on May 26, 2015
posted by Multicellular Exothermic at 7:45 PM on May 26, 2015
I think the aesthetic of the bounding rectangle of that proportion has to do with how we see. Our eyes with a straight ahead stare focus on a rectangular space. Then we look at the intended focus point and move around visually in the piece. Singular portraits tend to be in portrait orientation as we would often interact or see people, formally.
When I see that golden rectangle with the inscribed curve starting on the lower left, then it reminds me of a deliberate design, motion cue, to shift the eyes over to the right side, and right brain image processing. This is supposedly where our visual and pattern recognition is processed.
Square art pieces call for a center vision focus, rather than a look across. I have thought about the golden ratio, all it means to me is a general rectangle for art making, not too truncated, not too long. The rest of what goes on a picture plain is what the artist wants there for many reasons.
In those big, Renaissance shops, and other workplaces, I am sure they had to spell things out for crews who made forms for painting, especially for architectural endeavors.
There is a lot to the science of art making, many subtleties one size does not fit all.
posted by Oyéah at 7:55 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
When I see that golden rectangle with the inscribed curve starting on the lower left, then it reminds me of a deliberate design, motion cue, to shift the eyes over to the right side, and right brain image processing. This is supposedly where our visual and pattern recognition is processed.
Square art pieces call for a center vision focus, rather than a look across. I have thought about the golden ratio, all it means to me is a general rectangle for art making, not too truncated, not too long. The rest of what goes on a picture plain is what the artist wants there for many reasons.
In those big, Renaissance shops, and other workplaces, I am sure they had to spell things out for crews who made forms for painting, especially for architectural endeavors.
There is a lot to the science of art making, many subtleties one size does not fit all.
posted by Oyéah at 7:55 PM on May 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
How Celebrity Faces Would Looks Rearranged With The Golden Ratio
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:13 AM on June 5, 2015
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:13 AM on June 5, 2015
« Older Breaking The Game For Fun And Profit | A great place to visit. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by roll truck roll at 1:58 PM on May 26, 2015 [5 favorites]