Sylvain, I like your comment about paper but I have to disagree with "most people know that"! Most people see the relationship but do not and/or don't know that little fact it is based on √2!

Crank49 this is so true. You see a beautifully crafted, finished piece and something doesn't "feel right" when you look at it and that is because the proportions are out of kilter. I know since I am guilty and those projects are never mentioned around here!

 

Gary Brumfield, Gunsmith of Williamsburg fame, told us in at a workshop in the 70s the grand masters in the Golden Age of the Kentucky Long-rifle use 3:5 proportion.

 

your right crank, 100 % that was the point I was maken

 

But that's just the point. There is no such thing as "correct" proportions.

Edit for elaboration:

IMHO the bottom line is that in the West many find a rectangle about 1.5/1 to be a pleasing shape in many instances. But the use of Phi as a magic design (or even worse, a stock market predictor) is just not substantiated by facts. Even if you go the GR route, you really only need to get in the neighborhood-1.4-1.7. Moreover, many, many really interesting and innovative designs completely ignore phi. So, it can be helpful, but it is hardly "correct."

 

topamax; Now you funny too. 3:5 is the golden ratio.

 

Oldnovice
I didn't say : "most people know it is √2".

What I mean is
"most people are (visually) familiar with this proportion"
parenthesis added for clarity

8/5< phi < 5/3 or 1.6 < 1.618033988….< 1.6666666…....
as visually shown in the blog design matters

 

jumbojack, just wondered if anyone was paying attention ;-))

 

Sylvain, you said "I didn't say : "most people know it is √2"." and I believe I said the same thing about the √2 but I think that most people see the size relationship; i.e. 8-1/2" x 11", 17" x 11", 17" x 22" ............

If I did not say it, I meant the same!

 

Many times the Mean is rounded off to thirds which is also pleasing. Fibonacci numbers work best in pieces with different elements sized in relation to one another; not necessarily as a shape unto itself. For example people often say a rectangle with a 1:1.618 ratio is most pleasing but it doesn't suit my tastes; however a wardrobe laid out with Fibonacci ratios does look pleasing.

 

It is very hard for me to see the difference between 1:1.618, 3:5 and 5:8 unless they are side by side.

 

The difference Top is that the whole number ratios are very easy to work with compared to 1/1.618. 1/1.618 is pretty specific, it either is or it isn't the golden ratio. If it's not, why not just use the whole number ratios and skip all the mystique and nonsense surrounding the golden ratio?

 

I think the mystique surrounding the golden ratio is more in all the mathematical relationships that have been discovered than the proportional differences of a few decimal points in a design.

 

Bob, it's often pushed as a magic formula-the key to good design. It's not, it's a barrier or a dead end. A woodworker is much better off with a sketch pad than any knowledge of the golden ratio. I think my business partner nailed it when he called it the "golden meaningless."

 

I can't say I disagree with that ;-)) It is not the Holy Grail of design, that is for sure. Have you read Livio's Book?

 

Reading this, all I can hear in my head
is Gilda Radner (as Emily Litella) saying…

"What is all this I keep hearing, about Older Radios?!"

 

Iwllms Using a sketch pad is most certainly the starting point when formulating a design idea. This stage has nothing to do with proportions, size, dimensions etc. Once one graduates to the drafting table or of course the computer using sketch up, then proportions begin to matter. To disregard the golden ratio at this point would result in a disproportionate piece of work as we know it. That being said, now if you are drawing artwork of some sort then design principals know no bounders. Its a free for all, whatever looks good to you. Denis

 

Denis,

I disagree. Every project I've ever done began with a specific space it had to fit in and a specific task that it had to fulfill. Take for example a dining table or a desk. Both have a very narrow range of functional heights so one dimension is set. Building to the golden ration would mean other dimensions are rigid as well. So all desks and dining tables would be the same dimensions or be a "disproportionate piece of work as we know it?" I don't think so, I've seen well proportioned tables and desks in a huge range of sizes.

 

For those of,you who believe in the GR, how does it apply to designs like these? http://www.thegardenerseden.com/?s=david+holzapfel

 

Well when I take my Fibonacci gauge and place start to "measure" things on the Holzapfel tables I find a lot of apparent "GR" aspects. Now I am sure it is a little off but it would appear for example top table: Width of table top to table height, the side shot the far right opening to the left opening, bottom opening to remaining height….

While it isn't dead on and maybe I am willing to accept to much error to make it "fit" I find like most things I encounter they often fall into this range. Is it a must for an eye pleasing design of course not.

 

I used to work in the printing trade. We used "Picas" as a base for measuring. One Pica = 1/6 of an inch.

I always thought this was archaic and just a throw back but it had a purpose. It was used because it makes inches divisible by 3. Good page layout and design is done in thirds. A page looks better if is divided this way instead of by halves or quarters. Newspapers were often 12 column pages. They would then lay out photos or ads over 4 or 8 columns, ( 1/3 or 2/3) and text over the rest. Landscape gardening uses the same principle.

I now pay attention to printed ads and publications. The pleasing ones are designed in thirds. The others are uglier, less pleasing and less likely to be read. Print is 2 dimensional, furniture is 3 dimensions. I'm not sure if it relates to the GR or not.

BJ

 

Like many things, the GR is a guideline that can be used in some circumstances - certainly not all.

If I found that some of my body parts were not related by the GR as some sources claim, I would hesitate to make any modifications to improve the fit!

 

Ok, so what are some examples of fine furniture where proportions are off bc of ignoring GR?

 

Close to GR is eye pleasing, but does not have to be precisely correct dimensions.

Using a sketch pad is most certainly the starting point when formulating a design idea. This stage has nothing to do with proportions, size, dimensions

I certainly disagree with that statement. My minds eye sees a project in proportions before it ever gets on a scratch pad. I doubt if I would bother to sketch or start if it were butt ugly at that point.

For those of,you who believe in the GR, how does it apply to designs like these? http://www.thegardenerseden.com/?s=david+holzapfel

It is close; dimensions are 15×23. GR is 14.215×23

 

There are all kinds of "ratios" on that page. That second table is 36×37. Looks pretty dang good to me.

 

Everything that isn't close to GR doesn't have to look bad. Most round or square tables are are not close to GR ;-))