Golden Ratio Pseudoscience in Art Composition

[Anonymous No.12608419]

I'm currently learning about composition, and a lot of this stuff seems pseudoscientific. Is there any proof that the golden ratio being present somewhere in a picture actually has a psychological effect?

There are some old pieces of art that were made long before a lot of these new concepts in composition arose, and it seems like everybody is able to find these newly "discovered" patters in old masterpieces.

[Anonymous No.12608546]

>>12608419
you should check out "The golden ratio" by Mario Livio. He covers this topic pretty well.

[Anonymous No.12608554]

>>12608419
Literally in your face. We find well proportioned faces more attractive and this is true for everything else as well.

[Anonymous No.12608593]

>>12608419
Well, humans tend to make/see a pattern in
something no matter what. From a aesthetic
standpoint, golden rectangles seem like the
"right" rectangles in terms of proportion and area. And one can reasonably build or draw
with it so that it looks good even if they didn't
know about the exact proportions.

And if one carries on seeing more instances of
this "right" figure, it then becomes a thing to
spam with in all sorts of art, even retroactively,
in order to justify that it is a "divine" figure to use.

From a mathematical standpoint, what I'm most
familiar with, it's just a fucking rectangle. And
moreover, the self similar property doesn't have
to use the golden ratio. See the British A-series
paper sizes to see that in action.

In short, the golden ratio may have neat
properties and pleases the eye in a way but any
use of it beyond math and art is practically bunk
and psychologically overblown.

[Anonymous No.12608700]

>>12608593
>See the British A-series
paper sizes to see that in action.
Akchuuaaally the A series utilize the golden ratio

[Anonymous No.12608703]

>>12608593

A4 size ratio: 3 to 2, 4 to 3, 1.618 to 1

[Anonymous No.12608713]

Human minds tend to find patterns and rules where there are none. Patterns and rules are abstractions, and there will always be an infinite set of abstract elements mapped to each and every finite set of non-abstract elements.

[Anonymous No.12608729]

>>12608713
>Patterns and rules are abstractions, and there will always be an infinite set of abstract elements mapped to each and every finite set of non-abstract elements.

[Anonymous No.12608743]

>>12608729
I was hoping somebody would correct me. I don't know how to express things logically. I want to learn how to create formal systems out of everything.

[Anonymous No.12608755]

>>12608743
watch less youtube videos about "the theory of everything" and read more books

[Anonymous No.12608763]

>>12608755
Which books should I read to learn how to express things logically and how to create formal systems out of everything?

[Anonymous No.12608776]

>>12608419
It's not pseudoscience, it's neuroscience...

Our optical cortexes prefer such shapes.

[Anonymous No.12608782]

>>12608755
Which books should I read to learn how to express things logically and how to create formal systems out of everything? I get most of my knowledge out of Wikipedia. (When I fear that something is inevitably going to be biased on Wikipedia, I look for information from other sources.) I watch videos on YouTube as introductions to things I want to learn, since audio-visual explanations oftentimes to work better than text-based explanations with a few images thrown in. I think the book which would help me the most would be the Laws of Thought by George Boole.

[Anonymous No.12608785]

>>12608776
>Our optical cortexes prefer such shapes.
I've heard that there is no psychological evidence to support that.

[Anonymous No.12608812]

>>12608700
>>12608703
>>12608593
How could this be? I had to check to make sure:

A4 paper: 297x210 -->297/210 = 1.414
Also: (297+210)/297 = 1.707

The golden ratio would fall between 1.414 and
1.707, but every subsequent A-size doesn't
converge to it since each are made to have
about 1.414:1 as close as possible.

[Anonymous No.12609690]

>>12608703
A4 is 1: sqrt(2)

[Anonymous No.12610506]

>>12608419
>I'm currently learning about composition, and a lot of this stuff seems pseudoscientific. Is there any proof that the golden ratio being present somewhere in a picture actually has a psychological effect?

No, it's all bullshit pushed by poltard schizo types.

Obviously there's a very general "golden ratio" rule where we probably don't like certain things to be too square or too long. But the fixation on the golden ratio as a specific number or that dumb spiral shit is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.12612401]

>>12609690
>>12608812
>>12608593
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Thanks!

[Anonymous No.12612405]

>>12608419
ahh yes the golden ratio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIZL5qeEKj0

[Anonymous No.12612481]

>>12612405
What in the hell was that!?
It slaps, I do admit.

[Anonymous No.12612493]

>>12608419