Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-20-2017, 01:05 AM
Contemplation Contemplation is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 142
The Golden Ratio and Beauty/Attractiveness. Is it true?

Does the golden ratio actually prefect facial attractiveness? If it does, is it true for both genders?

The golden ratio also known as Phi is 1.618 and it is assumed that any thing with proportions of this golden ratio is visually pleasing. However, I can't find any sources why this true. Most articles on the internet are like, " this has a width to length ratio of Phi, therefore it is aesthetic." Why is the "golden" ratio even considered beautiful or aesthetic?
__________________
The best ability of the mortal mind is its inability to correlate all of its contents.
  #2  
Old 11-20-2017, 04:05 AM
standingwave standingwave is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Contemplation View Post
Does the golden ratio actually prefect facial attractiveness? If it does, is it true for both genders?

The golden ratio also known as Phi is 1.618 and it is assumed that any thing with proportions of this golden ratio is visually pleasing. However, I can't find any sources why this true. Most articles on the internet are like, " this has a width to length ratio of Phi, therefore it is aesthetic." Why is the "golden" ratio even considered beautiful or aesthetic?
IMHO, its aesthetic qualities are 99.618% woo. However, along with its companion, the Fibonacci sequence, φ is interesting from a mathematical POV but that's about it.

Fantastic series by Vi Hart on nature and φ:
https://youtu.be/ahXIMUkSXX0
https://youtu.be/lOIP_Z_-0Hs
https://youtu.be/14-NdQwKz9w
Skip to the third video to find out if plants do math.
  #3  
Old 11-20-2017, 06:08 AM
Francis Vaughan Francis Vaughan is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 4,607
A long time ago there was a bit of a fashion to try to find the golden ratios in classical paintings and other artworks. 100% woo. It isn't hard to force almost any function onto a paining with enough handwaving.

Is the ratio pleasing? Well it is clear that a rectangle of about the golden ratio is a generally pleasing balanced proportion. But tying that back to the mathematical proportions is a big stretch. There are enough amusing mathematical results that you are guaranteed to find one close enough to some nice looking proportion or another.

Purely for the geeky fun of it I made my letterbox façade the golden ration. I turned out that the lumber I used when cut was very close when cut to lengths from the original piece I had chosen, so I went the whole way and cut it to within a mm. Sure it looks nice. But there isn't exactly a grab your attention fabulousness of proportion that some other design would be missing.
  #4  
Old 11-20-2017, 07:00 AM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: ___\o/___(\___
Posts: 11,587
It is considered pleasing because it produces spirals similar to those found in nature.
  #5  
Old 11-20-2017, 08:12 AM
CalMeacham CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 41,665
Despite what expert sources (like Donald in MatheMagicLand*) may tell you, there isn't a lot of evidence that the Golden Ratio really is "the most pleasing ratio". Claims about testing with rectangles ("Which of these is the most attractive?") that supposedly show a Golden Rectangle as the ideal appear to have been oversold. In particular, it's always bothered me that if a Golden Rectangle is the most pleasing, why is it that none of our rectangular shapes actually have that aspect ratio? Postcards, paperback books, hardcover books, television screens, monitor screens, motion picture images, postage stamps, notepaper pads, etc. etc. ad nauseam don't have that ratio. Some come close , but not really all that close (3:5 ain't phi). If this really was the Magic Number, it ought to be ubiquitous, and really close.



*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_ZHsk0-eF0
__________________
After he finished his work on conditioning dogs, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov ambitiously tried his theories on angels, eventually training a flock of them to go and get their wings from a rack when signaled with a bell.
  #6  
Old 11-20-2017, 09:08 AM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: ___\o/___(\___
Posts: 11,587
You're missing an important point, Cal. It's not the shape of a single rectangle that matters. It's when you divide a space into smaller spaces. Think, for instance, of a window divided into three panes, or a floor space divided into a large room and two smaller rooms. Using the golden ratio gives you two squares and a rectangle. It just looks and feels right. It doesn't have to be an exact measurement, just more or less that proportion.
  #7  
Old 11-20-2017, 09:16 AM
CalMeacham CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 41,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
You're missing an important point, Cal. It's not the shape of a single rectangle that matters. It's when you divide a space into smaller spaces. Think, for instance, of a window divided into three panes, or a floor space divided into a large room and two smaller rooms. Using the golden ratio gives you two squares and a rectangle. It just looks and feels right. It doesn't have to be an exact measurement, just more or less that proportion.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here, and I suspect you don't understand The Golden Ratio -- it has nothing to do with dividing things up into smaller parts -- it's the ratio itself. If it's not an exact measurement, it's not The Golden Ratio, so why bring it up?

You can, of course, successively cut off squares and be left with a "golden rectangle", but the squares are going to be of different sizes, which isn't generally useful for subdiviuding rooms or windows

https://www.bing.com/images/search?v...x=0&ajaxhist=0
__________________
After he finished his work on conditioning dogs, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov ambitiously tried his theories on angels, eventually training a flock of them to go and get their wings from a rack when signaled with a bell.
  #8  
Old 11-20-2017, 09:44 AM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 73,164
Besides which, you can get two squares and a rectangle using any ratio. Start with any rectangle. Cut off one square, and you'll have a rectangle left over from that. Cut off another square, and you'll have a rectangle left over from that one, too, and so on. Now, if you're not starting with the Golden Ratio, then your smaller rectangles won't have the same proportions as the original one, but... well, why should they?
  #9  
Old 11-20-2017, 10:14 AM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 935
Cecil speaks

Quote:
Your height divided by the distance from your belly button to the floor = phi. Get out. Behold the line segment in the drawing. The only people of height AC with their belly buttons at point B are named Igor. On me the ratio is about 1.7, not 1.618+. A huge difference? No, but Brown's hero observes, "Plants, animals, and even human beings all possessed dimensional properties that adhered with eerie exactitude to the ratio of phi to 1." That's just not so. I venture to say there's wide variation among individuals not only for navel placement but also for the other supposed anatomical occurrences of phi Brown cites.
  #10  
Old 11-20-2017, 10:39 AM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 20,765
Clearly the golden ratio is "magical" in that chopping off a square leaves a GR rectangle behind. But that also has the causation backwards. By the nature of plane geometry there must be some ratio where that recursion relationship holds. Once we find that number, we label it "golden".

The idea that that is especially aesthetic is well disproven woo. Next up: Numerology for $200 Alex.
A: "The beautiful Golden ratio"
Q: "What is bunk?"

Last edited by LSLGuy; 11-20-2017 at 10:40 AM.
  #11  
Old 11-20-2017, 10:43 AM
Johanna Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 12,524
The flag of Finland has an 11:18 ratio, which is a fairly close approximation of φ.

Salvador Dalí was fond of it and used it to create art.
  #12  
Old 11-20-2017, 10:49 AM
CalMeacham CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 41,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna View Post
The flag of Finland has an 11:18 ratio, which is a fairly close approximation of φ.

Salvador Dalí was fond of it and used it to create art.
I'm more impressed with that golden dodecahedron in your first example (12 sided figure behind a Last Supper attended by 12 disciples = cool) than I am by any supposed connection with the Golden ratio, which I frankly don't see.


11:18 is 1.63636, vs. 1.618. If they really wanted to get a Golden Ratio, they could've done it.

The US flag has a ratio of 1.9. If there's anything to this "most pleasing shape" thing, there ought to be a lot more Finlands and fewer US's
__________________
After he finished his work on conditioning dogs, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov ambitiously tried his theories on angels, eventually training a flock of them to go and get their wings from a rack when signaled with a bell.

Last edited by CalMeacham; 11-20-2017 at 10:52 AM.
  #13  
Old 11-20-2017, 01:39 PM
Senegoid Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 14,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Contemplation View Post
Does the golden ratio actually prefect facial attractiveness? If it does, is it true for both genders?
Attractiveness = Beauty × Availability2
__________________
=========================================
  #14  
Old 11-20-2017, 01:49 PM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 20,765
... times eNumberOfDrinks

Last edited by LSLGuy; 11-20-2017 at 01:50 PM.
  #15  
Old 11-20-2017, 01:50 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 73,164
Quote:
I'm more impressed with that golden dodecahedron in your first example (12 sided figure behind a Last Supper attended by 12 disciples = cool) than I am by any supposed connection with the Golden ratio, which I frankly don't see.
I get that the lines intersect at a point 0.618 of the way from the top and from the right, but I also don't see why that's significant. You could draw such lines on any painting, or other lines at any other ratio you choose. Is the point where the lines intersect supposed to be particularly significant? It looks like it's just one of the disciples' hands (and why not some other disciple, or some other body part, or Jesus himself?).
  #16  
Old 11-20-2017, 02:37 PM
Contemplation Contemplation is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 142
So far, SB doesn't seem to think that the golden ratio is inherently visually pleasing.
__________________
The best ability of the mortal mind is its inability to correlate all of its contents.
  #17  
Old 11-20-2017, 11:29 PM
Johanna Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 12,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Contemplation View Post
So far, SB doesn't seem to think that the golden ratio is inherently visually pleasing.
No, I guess not! But anyhow, it's nice to look at.

We're not splitting up! We're just gonna go in two different groups.
Coherence
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017