Talk:Analyzing art/Composition

Golden Ratio

Can this myth please be put to rest?

The only thing that is vaguely true about it is that divisions in approximate thirds often works well for compositions.

There are of course infinitely many equally interesting mathematical constants that are roughly a third, so there's nothing special about phi, except that it arises as the solution of a quadratic with very small integer constants - and that quadratic crops up all over the place because there are not that many small integer constants to provide a different combo for every case!

And indeed, if there were something special or magical about phi, in practice that magic would still work for infinitely many ratios different from phi but only in say the third decimal place (and if you do not accept this, just substitute fourth, fifth, and so on in that statement: if the difference amounts to a micron on your canvas, would you still seriously proclaim it matters?).

But there isn't: go buy 10 books of differing formats, have an unbiased and uninformed helper choose them if you have to, and measure the height:width when you come home. I guarantee that there will not be (even remotely) a phi among them.

The book example is just one of many cases where actual phi is too extreme, too skinny, and not favoured by any professional designer.

The ubiquity of the myth is disheartening. Every day top-level designers and artists across the globe vaguely remember that your composition is superior when suffused with phis, and also the vague recollection of guilt and shame when it did not work (obviously!) that one time they actually tried with a calculator and a ruler to "phi-gure it out" - and quietly toss phi aside. 2A01:CB0C:1704:9A00:6428:F79F:458F:4E38 (discuss) 09:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)