Golden Ratio & Design Elements

[Jeff]

Thanks to FrogLips for improving our precision measurements (Off Topic forum).

Has anyone used the Golden Ratio in their designs for aesthetics and balance, etc.? Does it really matter? The math defines the angles at 58.3 degrees and 31.7 degrees and it doesn't matter what size that piece is, but the linear dimensions are funky for shop use. This panel could be made 45.5" w x 73.75" l to approximate the ratio.

Just curious because I'm curious. :dontknow:

 

[Larry Rose]

I use it to help with the proportions but I just round it off to 1.6. Even using it sometimes I'll do some adjusting. I think it helps to keep the piece from looking "clunky"

 

[Asheville Hardware]

George Walker took issue with the use of the golden ratio for furniture design on his Design Matters blog. I thought it was an interesting perspective. http://georgewalkerdesign.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/golden-rectangle-a-different-viewpoint/

Scott

 

[eyekode]

Thanks for the pointer it was an interesting read. But it didn't really change my perspective. The golden rectangle is a starting point for proportion. 3:5 or 5:8 are close enough. You can definitely get carried away but I do find ~1.6 pleasing to the eye.
Salem

 

[Bill Clemmons]

I've tried to use it, but my projects are usually made to fit a specific spot, so I end up tweaking the dimensions to fit.

Bill

 

[SteveHall]

Design is a highly personal art, there is no perfect proportion or analytical measure to ensure beauty. Artists and artisans have the freedom to adjust, tweak, and "feel" about their work. As a result, some work may feel light while another feels sturdy. Another individual may interpret the same two as fragile and bulky.

Best thing you can do is practice and study others whose work you like. There are many means of establishing visual order, but it takes a lot of years to learn to synthesize them. Klingspor in Raleigh has a few good books on pure furniture design. There's probably a lot more books from the field of architecture that would be easier to find in a local library, for example the Frank Ching one called Architecture: Form, Space, and Order.

 

[MikeH]

I've read some articles and I'm reading a book right now about furniture and proportions and I think they are very important. The book has pics of disproportionate furniture and it just doesn't look good.

 

[tryingtokeepmyfingers]

I've read some articles and I'm reading a book right now about furniture and proportions and I think they are very important. The book has pics of disproportionate furniture and it just doesn't look good.

what book are you reading

 

[ehpoole]

George Walker took issue with the use of the golden ratio for furniture design on his Design Matters blog. I thought it was an interesting perspective. http://georgewalkerdesign.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/golden-rectangle-a-different-viewpoint/

Scott

Well, it was an interesting read, but I'm not sure that the author really understands the Golden Ratio (Phi). While he argues against the Golden Ratio in design he simultaneously suggests the use of 'pleasant' ratios (3:5, 5:8, etc.) all of which come from the Fibonocci Sequence (0,1,1,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,...) which just happens to be the same thing as the Golden Ratio (essentially the Fibonocci Sequence is a rational approximation of an irrational ratio). Pick any two neighboring values (aside from 0,1,1 which are seed values) and divide them and, depending upon which you divide into which (the order) you will either get the approximate inverse of Phi (Golden Ratio) OR a close approximation of Phi. This is where the author's ratios come from. So while arguing against the influence of the Golden Ratio he is simultaneously arguing for its influence?!?!

In point of fact:
3:5 (gives you 0.60, the inverse of Phi)
5:3 (gives you 1.67, very nearly Phi)
5:8 (gives you 0.625, the inverse of Phi)
8:5 (gives you 1.60, very nearly Phi)

By the time you get to 89:55 you get 1.61818, and the further up the sequence you progress the closer you get to the absolute Golden Ratio. At 832040:514229 (the 31st and 30th values of the Fibonocci Sequence) the ratio has really closed the gap at 1.618034 which looks suspiciously like the Golden Ratio.

Phi (Golden Ratio) rounded off: 1.618034, it's inverse (1/Phi) is 0.618034

There are plenty of beautiful creations that defy the Golden Ratio, so there is no absolute reason to be beholden to it, but it can be a useful guide in the design process. We tend to have a natural selection for the Golden Ratio in our aesthetics because in nature violations of this rule frequently coincide with negative mutations hence we have a biological preference towards that which is consistent with good genes.

Thanks for posting the article, however. I always enjoy good philosophical debates!