Do you use the "golden ration" when designing projects?

[MsNomer]

But something approaching a multiple of 3-5-8-13 will do fine.

[Paul K. Murphy]

I can't agree even one bit with regard to the name spelling/mathematics assertion.
I don't mean to hijack, but I don't think there's any truth to that whatsoever.
As to myself, I don't really rely on the GM too much. I do however try to make my work echo the classical orders. The placement of moldings, their profiles, and their facial angles definitely make a difference to my eyes.

[Paul K. Murphy]

https://books.google.com/books?id=TOwQE7...les&f=false
Hopefully the link will begin to explain what I mean by "facial angles."

[Steve N]

Yes we have had this discussion before, and those who are romanticizing the lives of most any apprentice worker in early times keep trying to add attributes to common people that they didn't possess, then I will keep resisting. When you show me information that an apprentice carpenter, bench builder, furniture maker, or any type of worker of wood in times prior to 1900 had any type of RRR education then I will start believing this. Fact is few could spell their names. I am talking about those few in big city shops that may have made specialty items for the very rich. Instead I'm talking about plain old country furniture. Many early makers were born, and grew up within a 2 mile radius, never traveled to anywhere, and couldn't read, and there certainly wasn't any internet. They stood XXX tall, and had a reach YYY so the items they made were an extension of this so they could be useful, and also pleasing to the eye. Your BS ratio is so common that it can be said to apply to these same set of facts, and many of you have consumed the cool aid of romanticism, and are trying to apply facts not in evidence. Each one of you trying to prove to me it's "easy math" are not seeing a person who couldn't spell "math" much less do it.

Instead if you look at it realistically, that some mathematician tried to claim all things sprung from these amazing numbers, and went about "proving this" with a loose principle, that is kinda close to what works out for regular people as usable items, well then you have arrived at reality.

[Admiral]

Being literate is one thing, applying long known principles of geometry and trigonometry as applied to construction and design, key concepts of which were individually taught as part of one's apprenticeship, is quite another; I have no doubt that the former adds little, if anything, to quality of work, but I am quite sure that the latter is essential and incapable of being ignored. Spelling "math" and using math in your daily work are decidedly not mutually exclusive.

The the first known writing specific to the "BS ratio" (Luca Pacioli's Divina Proportione) was in 1509, certainly time enough for 17th century designers to have picked up on the idea.

Believe what you want, but it just looks good when implemented.

[Paul K. Murphy]

I do agree that the golden mean is overly romanticized.
A point does need to be made however. Never has anyone advanced a more romantic notion than yours. Your broad brush depiction of illiteracy is enough to take the cake.
What era are you referring to?
What population?

[dav]

Here is a quite extensive discussion of Aspect Ratios in old and modern paintings.

[AHill]

dav said:

---

Here is a quite extensive discussion of Aspect Ratios in old and modern paintings.

---

Interesting article, which primarily analyzes the mathematical representation of the GR and various distributions of various aspect ratios observed in art. The conclusions about paintings and what is pleasing to humans is also interesting:

"The golden ratio is not an aspect ratio that occurs prominently in paintings (for its occurrence in architecture, see for instance Shekhawat, Huylebrouck and Labarque, Birkett and Jurgenson, and Foutakis)."

"Interestingly, recent studies show that not just humans but other mammals seem to prefer aspect ratios around 1.2 (see the recent research of Winne et al.)."

It would be interesting to take notes on shop drawings of popular furniture styles and see how much (if at all) the Golden Ratio was used. Shaker, Craftsman, Krenov, etc. all come to mind. On the other hand, my computer monitor is close (1.6), but HDTV is higher (1.78). Go figure.

[sonofbluegrass]

No math is necessary. Elementary geometry with a straight edge and a compass readily produces ratios like this. They may not have the "numbers" but they certainly and repeatedly used the same ratios meaning it wasn't something random, it was intentional.

[Bibliophile 13]

Romanticized? Yes.

BS? No.

The proof that some furniture makers knew about it is in the very furniture they built. Sure, a lot of "country furniture" was probably built to the dimensions of the permitted space, the materials at hand, etc. (I'm thinking of six-board chests, for example.) But a whole lot of the fine furniture--the stuff that's nice enough looking to make it into museums--does exhibit evidence of planning that included the GR. After the 17th century, dimensions and proportions took into account some pretty sophisticated geometry. Flip through the plates in Chippendale's The Gentleman and Cabinet-maker's Director, and you'll see a lot of precise measurements--and not a few golden ratios and golden rectangles.

Good design choices don't happen by accident.