I was not a genius like Ralph, so my architectural education was delayed until
the 80's.  I had the combined misfortune of thinking that I was not an empty
pitcher and signing up for a class that several of us more challenging students
will forever remember as "the golden mullion studio".  The guys who bought the
concept that one shape was inherenlty more beautiful than another and that a
pattern of rectangles and squares was proof that a design had achieved its
purpose, well they got A's.  They were patted on the head and sent off to be
proper architects.  The others?  One writes specifications, one's in
preservation...I think the others were disappeared.

Oh, I do think it has value as an organizing tool.  I just don't think its a
sufficient foundation for a religeon...after all, its not a computer.

-jc

Ralph Walter wrote:

> No, DEb,
>
> They didn't teach the golden mean in architorture school when I was thereAriz
> State) in the early-mid 70's.  It certainly wasn't mentioned in design
> studio, and I don't remember it having been discussed in arch'l history.  In
> fact, the classical approach was so out of fashion that one of the studio
> critics used to say "Symmetry is dead," and nobody objected.  Genius that I
> was,  I somehow knew he was full of shit about that, but since that
> particular teacher was a particular doofus, it wasn't as if anybody I
> respected said anything so distressing.
>
> Then again, one would have a hard time looking at Queen Anne or Eastlake
> buildings and finding symmetry..  Personally, I've always considered the
> golden mean and similar design rules as more than a little suspect, and been
> very dubious when people claim to have found it in existing buildings (other
> than the Parthenon, et al).
>
> Contributing less than my 2 cents worth once again, I remain,
>
> Ralph