The Golden Rectangle and other eye pleasing formulas.
 

I would love to see a discussion of this.
When designing things like garden gates and arbors, even fence panels and window
placement I often create stuff that doesn't look quite right, other times it
looks great.

I understand to concept sorta, of the golden rectangle but what about other
shapes like rounded top gates, ovals, etc.

Examples.
I make one gate it looks great another looks a little off, but I really can't
see why.
I make a lattice frame arbor and it looks terrific, change the size and shape of
the 'holes' or the boards and it looks awkward, clunky.

The Golden Ratio (1 plus root 5 / 2 =3D PI) is, for the sake of =
argument, 1.618.
It is the relationship of:=20
1. the side of a rectangle to the width
2. the height of the Great Pyramid of Giza to 1/2 its base
3. the first 5 planets in the Solar System to one another (almost)
4. the height of the columns in the Parthenon to the width of the =
edifice
5. the height of the Parthenon roof to the width of the edifice
6. the height of a Pompadour Highboy to the height of the base
7. our eyes divide our head ant the Golden Ratio
8. our navel divides our body at the Golden Ratio

There are a lot of others, but these should suffice for a start.

Think of your gate as a rectangle. The walkway is the width and the =
passageway the height. If these are not in agreement the overall look =
will be, somehow, amiss.
We are genetically (?) predisposed to observe things in this manner.

The same is true for your lattice

--=20

PDQ
--
=20
"Gino" wrote in message =
...
|=20
| I would love to see a discussion of this.
| When designing things like garden gates and arbors, even fence panels =
and window
| placement I often create stuff that doesn't look quite right, other =
times it
| looks great.
|=20
| I understand to concept sorta, of the golden rectangle but what about =
other
| shapes like rounded top gates, ovals, etc.
|=20
| Examples.
| I make one gate it looks great another looks a little off, but I =
really can't
| see why.
| I make a lattice frame arbor and it looks terrific, change the size =
and shape of
| the 'holes' or the boards and it looks awkward, clunky.
|=20
|

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:27:16 -0500, "PDQ" wrote:

The Golden Ratio (1 plus root 5 / 2 = PI) is, for the sake of argument, 1.618.
It is the relationship of:

One small correction:

It's PHI, pronounced "fi", rhyming with "fly", PI is something else.

In Dan Brown's "DaVinci Code" they stated that it's pronounced "fee",
but dictionaries disagree.

Barry

Ba r r y wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:27:16 -0500, "PDQ" wrote:

The Golden Ratio (1 plus root 5 / 2 = PI) is, for the sake of argument, 1.618.
It is the relationship of:

One small correction:

It's PHI, pronounced "fi", rhyming with "fly", PI is something else.

In Dan Brown's "DaVinci Code" they stated that it's pronounced "fee",
but dictionaries disagree.

One more (even smaller?) correction/amplification... :)

phi = (1 + sqrt(5))/2

Gino wrote:


I would love to see a discussion of this.
When designing things like garden gates and arbors, even fence panels
and window placement I often create stuff that doesn't look quite
right, other times it looks great.

I understand to concept sorta, of the golden rectangle but what about
other shapes like rounded top gates, ovals, etc.

Examples.
I make one gate it looks great another looks a little off, but I
really can't see why.
I make a lattice frame arbor and it looks terrific, change the size
and shape of the 'holes' or the boards and it looks awkward, clunky.




Look for this book: The Geometry of Design. It's available on amazon.com.
Everything you want to know and more. It gets mixed reviews, but I like it.

I read a book this summer by a mathematician that
blew the Golden Ratio off it's pedestal. It's not clear
that the GR is all that "Golden". People point to
various buildings, flowers, the shell of the nautilas, etc,
but when you try to really figure this out, it doesn't
hold true for many things. However there ratio of
1.6 to 1 has been proven to be pleasing to the eye
and since the GR is close enough, then you can't
go wrong in using it.

I just wouldn't try to design something that is to
a specific ratio, but perhaps to a scale of the
things around it. A garden gate that is out of
scale of the fence will feel uncomfortable, etc.

I love Frank Lloyd Wright's work and what I take
from him is to design based on function and
the surroundings. Look to nature for your models.
Good luck!

MJ Wallace

I stand corrected. I wonder where the H the "H" went?

--=20

PDQ
--
=20
"Ba r r y" wrote in message =
...
| On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:27:16 -0500, "PDQ" wrote:
|=20
| The Golden Ratio (1 plus root 5 / 2 =3D PI) is, for the sake of =
argument, 1.618.
| It is the relationship of:=20
|=20
| One small correction:
|=20
| It's PHI, pronounced "fi", rhyming with "fly", PI is something else.
|=20
| In Dan Brown's "DaVinci Code" they stated that it's pronounced "fee",
| but dictionaries disagree.
|=20
| Barry

"Ba r r y" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:27:16 -0500, "PDQ" wrote:

The Golden Ratio (1 plus root 5 / 2 = PI) is, for the sake of argument,
1.618.
It is the relationship of:

One small correction:

It's PHI, pronounced "fi", rhyming with "fly", PI is something else.

In Dan Brown's "DaVinci Code" they stated that it's pronounced "fee",
but dictionaries disagree.

It's a Greek letter, and the Greeks pronounce it "fee". Who would know
better?

B.

You might borrow some ideas from photography as well. See 'rule of
thirds'.

Dave


"Gino" wrote in message
...

I would love to see a discussion of this.
When designing things like garden gates and arbors, even fence panels and
window
placement I often create stuff that doesn't look quite right, other times
it
looks great.

I understand to concept sorta, of the golden rectangle but what about
other
shapes like rounded top gates, ovals, etc.

Examples.
I make one gate it looks great another looks a little off, but I really
can't
see why.
I make a lattice frame arbor and it looks terrific, change the size and
shape of
the 'holes' or the boards and it looks awkward, clunky.

"The Golden Mean" is the name we were taught by professors from Pratt
and Cooper Union back in the 60's and while he didn't invent the
ratio, the master matmetician Leonardo Pisano (aka. Fibonacci)
calculated and recorded the formula. In the 70's I worked with an
artist named Richard Botto on a corporate design team... Dick's true
love was oil painting and the integration of the Golden Mean in his
work. He has since become well known in the art field as perhaps one
of the best equine artists in the country, and many refer to him as
the painter of champions. Not all, but many of his works follow the
golden mean, and he used to actually analyze many elements within his
paintings to utilize the formula. Dick re-introduced the Golden Mean
to me and I can't tell you how many times I've used it in designing
graphics projects. The ratio makes for a very "comfortable" shape and
this has been proven over and over by various institutions and
organizations.

It may be inadvertent or intentional, but have you noticed that
today's new HDTVs are _almost_ dead-on with the Golden Mean? Old TVs
are 4:3 ratio and the HDTVs are 16:9... change that to 1618:1 and
you'd have the "perfect" picture.

Mike



On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:33:40 -0800, Gino wrote:


I would love to see a discussion of this.
When designing things like garden gates and arbors, even fence panels and window
placement I often create stuff that doesn't look quite right, other times it
looks great.

I understand to concept sorta, of the golden rectangle but what about other
shapes like rounded top gates, ovals, etc.

Examples.
I make one gate it looks great another looks a little off, but I really can't
see why.
I make a lattice frame arbor and it looks terrific, change the size and shape of
the 'holes' or the boards and it looks awkward, clunky.