Re: explain please the phi ratio

From: Chan-Ho Suh (suh_at_math.ucdavis.nospam.edu)
Date: 09/21/04 

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:15:18 -0700

In article <20040920220851.04433.00001149@mb-m05.aol.com>, Mensanator
<mensanator@aol.compost> wrote:

> >You'd be surprised at ow often phi crops up in art. That's because it's
> >seen ans an ashetically pleasing ratio. Following is an utterly prosaic
> >example.
> >
> >At my job when we used to be Inland Steel, with a diamond shaped logo.
> >Then we changed to Ispat Inland when an Indian businessman bought us
> >out, and the logo became an oval. I noticed that it had the same aspect
> >ratio as the diamond, and then I measured it and yup, it was (nearly)
> >phi.
>
> But isn't that why it crops up so often in art? Because it's _nearly_ phi?
> Although the claim is specious, it sounds cool and therefore gets
> repeated ad nauseum.
>

That's right. There are a lot of myths about phi, and if you use
Google you can find a lot of explanations debunking various ones
(unfortunately the noise to signal ration is pretty high here). Also,
look at _Numerology_ by Underwood Dudley.

Psychologists have even done a great deal of testing on this also.
After they took into account things like preferences for rectangles of
various sizes and in various positions, they found there was no sign of
the golden rectangle being the most pleasing to the eye.

Architecture books seem to thrive on this kind of thing, so I wouldn't
be surprised if some modern architects have incorporated phi into their
work on purpose. I remember one particular book explaining how the
Greeks made the facade of the Parthenon into a golden rectangle. They
gave a very convoluted geometric argument and diagram to show this, but
never explained how they chose the rectangle with which they enclosed
the facade.

My favorite myth about phi is that it is supposed to be the ratio of
height of a person to navel height. Enough said.