Reddit mentions of Power of Limits: Proportional Harmonies in Nature, Art, and Architecture

> What I meant to point out was that having "many super famous" users of some method doesn't mean it has any merit.

When we're talking about aesthetics, and the method in question is using a very specific ratio very explicitly in their work, then yes that does show that it can have merit, if the work becomes widely admired.

>Think about how many pro athletes and actors have crazy rituals like wearing the same socks, carrying around a lucky charms, etc.

I don't think this analogy makes any sense. If we were talking about Le Corbusier's hatred of mechanical pencils, and I was saying that his refusal to use mechanical pencils aided his work, then we could draw an analogy to sports superstition. But we're talking about architects and artists using a very specific geometric ratio in their work. A better sports analogy might be the specific way a certain pitcher ices his arm after every outing, but that wouldn't really be spot on either because, again, aesthetics are far more murky and difficult to define or judge than pitching is.

>Why are you bringing up that it's "ludicrous to imagine that you know more about architecture"?

>Do you actually think that Le Corbusier is infallible unless somebody that knows more about architecture tells you that he's wrong? I don't think you actually believe that. This is your worst argument yet.

What I think is ludicrous is writing off his interest in the golden ratio and his use of it in his work, since he's considered a great master and he explicitly used the ratio in many of his building designs. You've basically suggested that, sure anybody can use it, but it has no more merit than 1 : 1.984 or 1 : 2.366 or any other made up ratio. Okay, but the Fibonacci sequence isn't just some random ratio. It's one of the simplest and most innate mathematical patterns there is, so I don't see why we should be so incredibly skeptical that its pattern may be of innate interest and aesthetic value.

You suggested that it's ridiculous to imagine that Leonardo may have incorporated it into things like the Vitruvian Man or the Mona Lisa, but Leonardo in fact illustrated a book specifically about the golden section and used anatomical drawings overlaid with the geometric pattern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_divina_proportione

Did he intentionally incorporate it into Vitruvian Man? I don't know, but it's not exactly ridiculous to think that he was intrigued by it, since, pretty objectively, he was.


>You said there are many "respected scholars and architects" that are proponents of the golden things. Who are they? And much more importantly, what did they say?

Here's a somewhat extensive list.


And here's a pretty good book on the subject. To be honest, I haven't read the book yet. A friend recently recommended it to me though, after my discussion with him sparked my interest in the subject. That friend, for what it's worth, is a practicing architect who graduated undergrad from Harvard and who is extremely skeptical in general. Probably the biggest skeptic I know. But he thinks the golden section has merit, and he got me interested in it. That probably sounds like the soldier copypasta (I have 38 confirmed kills and I graduated magna cum laude from Harvard in 3 years!) so you can choose to believe me or not. Does he think it's everywhere, in all things, and that it's the only aesthetic design tool we should care about? Obviously not.

I'm no expert on it - far from it. I just think that, if we want to know about it, we should default to people who are experts. It's silly to write it off because some random blogger made a post about it and he's clearly reaching for connections that aren't there. You didn't give any solid argument that it's bullshit. The post way up above where the guy shot it down in every form and application was also extremely biased against it and insisted that it doesn't exist even in places where we can plainly measure that it does. And he's not exactly Le Corbusier or Dali, nor did he particularly source or give measurements on his assertions.