The 13 whatever degrees is to make it EASY to derive rectangles of the
same proportion without screwing around with numbers and calculators or
memorizing anything.
Please site your source for the Golden Section?
-jc
On Feb 1, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Bruce Marcham wrote:
> As I work it out according to the drawing by John it works out to
> 1:1.618 or 2:3.236 (roughly). However if I take the tangent of the
> angle provided by John (13.88 degrees) I get 0.247. If I take the
> ratio described above I get a tangent ("y/x" or "opposite over
> adjacent") of 0.618 and an angle of about 32 degrees.
>
> If I do what Eric suggests I end up with a ratio of 1:1.414, an angle
> with a tangent of 0.707, and an angle (looking at John's diagram) of
> 35.26 degrees.
>
> A Google on the subject indicates that the ratio is 0.618 as described
> by John but I don't know where the 13.88 degrees figures in:
>
> http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emt669/Student.Folders/Frietag.Mark/
> Homepage/Goldenratio/goldenratio.html
>
> Bruce
>
> P.S. My graphics book also indicates that the eyes are about 1/2 the
> way from the top of the head to the chin (within 0.02") but they don't
> make it easy to get that number. They list mean dimensions for a wide
> variety of features but they don't actually give the height of the
> face (I had to work from a dimension from the chin to the top of the
> nose). The head is 8.80" high, the eyes are 4.42" down from the top,
> and the center of the lips (under the nose) is 1.54" up from the
> bottom of the chin. This according to Introduction To Engineering
> Graphics; George C. Beakley; Pub. 1975; MacMillan Pub. Co.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pre-patinated plastic gumby block w/ coin slot
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> Hammarberg, Eric
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 1:50 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BP] Golden Ratio
>
>
> Actually, the eyes are half way down on most human faces
>
> Also, I always thought the golden mean was the rectangle developed by
> the
> radius drawn from the diagonal of a square (AKA square root of 2).
> Close but
> not the same as a 2:3 ratio.
>
> Eric Hammarberg
> Director of Preservation
> Senior Associate
> Thornton-Tomasetti Group
> LZA Technology Division
> 641 Avenue of the Americas
> New York, NY 10011
> Telephone: 917.661.8160
> Fax: 917.661.8161
> Mobile: 917.439.3537
> email: [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ruth Barton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 1:32 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BP] Golden Ratio
>
> I guess it's like when drawing a picture of a human face you start
> with an
> oval and divide into thirds, put the eyes one third of the way down
> and the
> mouth two thirds of the way down and fill in from there. Not that I
> can
> draw a credible picture of a human face but I know the rule of thumb
> of how
> to go about it. Ruth
>
>
>
>
>
> At 7:08 AM -0600 2/1/05, John Callan wrote:
>> Ruth,
>>
>> Golden section, ration, mean, etc.
>>
>> Draw square. Draw second square beside it. Draw square with one side
>> using the two earlier squares. The whole of the four squares is a
>> rectangle, a golden rectangle. From this point on, add squares and
>> rectangles until your heart's content. All will make a kind of visual
>> sense.
>>
>> You can also describe this as a proportion. But the most efficient
>> thing is to take out your protractor, measure the angle and use that
>> angle to produce your golden rectangles. That way you don't have to
>> go
>> constructing shapes you may not have use for.
>>
>> I place great value on proportion in design. But since I work
>> primarily with existing buildings of some one else's design, I tend to
>> look for the existing proportions and work within them. Sometimes
>> they
>> are golden, sometimes they are not.
>>
>> I have a very strong prejudice about roofs that leak. Its similar to
>> my prejudices about walls that fall down. I don't care for them.
>> Leaking and falling down are faults that are elemental to good design.
>> I stop here. To go further may be viewed as slander.
>>
>> -jc
>>
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2005, at 12:42 AM, Ruth Barton wrote:
>>
>>> I guess it's one of those things, "I can't explain it but I know it
>>> when I
>>> see it." Well, sounds to me like the "Golden Fleece."
>>>
>>> We got us this fancy X-clusive pri-vate skule up heah in the boonies.
>>> They
>>> just built themselfs a new buildin', probly designed by one O' them
>>> fancy
>>> city arc-i-tecs. It's got them roofs goin' ever which a way. Any
>>> dern
>>> fool whats lived in this climate for a winter or two would know that
>>> design
>>> is just askin' fer trouble. Well, now mister, they got the troubles.
>>> I
>>> heered tell they got the leaks in them roofs real bad, yess sir!!
>>> Serves
>>> 'em right, bring in them thar city fellers to put this abomination on
>>> our
>>> landscape. And that's all I gotta say. Ruth
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 8:36 PM -0600 1/30/05, John Callan wrote:
>>>> Ruth,
>>>>
>>>> It is a very convenient way to lay out a design into patterns of
>>>> rectangles and squares that all have the same proportions. I don't
>>>> believe for a second that the resulting shapes are individually any
>>>> more beautiful than any other individual shape. However, as a
>>>> "system"
>>>> they tend to produce designs that hang together without the jarring
>>>> surprises that are found in arbitrary shape and size selection. Its
>>>> also convenient because a lot of plate glass and spandrel glass is
>>>> produced in these proportions. Its been in use for a long time.
>>>> The
>>>> Modernists and others who confuse architecture with religion really
>>>> get
>>>> off on it.
>>>>
>>>> As a practical matter for us preservationeers, its good to be able
>>>> to
>>>> recognize it and work with it when you are analyzing a building's
>>>> design. It helps make the building predictable. Predictability
>>>> helps
>>>> us be persuasive.
>>>>
>>>> I can not reply directly to Ralph. I note that he said it was a
>>>> load
>>>> of shit. He is of course mostly right and very brief. Now if we
>>>> could
>>>> only get him to take his briefs off his head.
>>>>
>>>> Golden Ration, Golden Mean, Golden Rectangle...all pretty much the
>>>> same
>>>> thing. BUT! Golden Mullion was a very special class I once
>>>> survived.
>>>>
>>>> -jc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 30, 2005, at 9:13 PM, Ruth Barton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What is this Golden Ratio? Is it anything like the rainbow with a
>>>>> pot
>>>>> of
>>>>> gold at the end? Ruth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At 11:26 AM -0800 1/30/05, Cuyler Page wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I once saw a lecture about the Golden Ratio in which famous works
>>>>> of
>>>>> art
>>>>> were analysized to see if they contained Golden Ratio proportions.
>>>>> The
>>>>> point of the lecture was that we humans are hard-wired to
>>>>> appreciate
>>>>> Golden
>>>>> Ratio proportions, whether created consciously or not. A famous
>>>>> Jackson
>>>>> Pollack painting, made by dripping paint from the top of a ladder,
>>>>> had
>>>>> recently been sold at auction (the painting) for the most money of
>>>>> any
>>>>> of
>>>>> his works, and featured a big black spot on a yellow background
>>>>> with
>>>>> the
>>>>> spot centred procisely at a Golden Ratio division point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some said he was a weasel, but not all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> cp in bc
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ruth Barton
>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Dummerston, VT
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>>>>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>>>>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>>>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>>>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ruth Barton
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> Dummerston, VT
>>>
>>> --
>>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>
> --
> Ruth Barton
> [log in to unmask]
> Dummerston, VT
>
> --
> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> The information in this email and any attachments may contain
> confidential information that is intended solely for the
> attention and use of the named addressee(s). This message or
> any part thereof must not be disclosed, copied, distributed or
> retained by any person without authorization from the addressee.
> If you are not the intended addressee, please notify the sender
> immediately, and delete this message.
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
> --
> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>
> --
> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>
--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
|
