Since the publication of “Evolution of The Adagio – a therapeutic motion machine” there has been quite a bit of discussion about the importance of the Golden Ratio in the creation of art and music ( see “Truth , and Faith and B. S. in Art and Zen”). The advocates of this approach contend that art based on the proportions called the Golden ratio is somehow more aesthetically perfect or pleasing than others. One of my readers, Charlie from Massachusetts, suggested that we do a little experiment on Art and Zen Today to test that idea. I thought that sounded like fun and so asked Charlie to work on that for this Post. After the experimental quiz, found below, I have added a few comments about how all of this could be seen as related to Zen practice. The “right answers” to the quiz are contained in my comments.
Thanks Charlie for your contribution.
Since the series of post on the Golden Ratio I have consciously looked at objects to see whether or not I found those based on the Ratio to be more asthetically pleasing. For instance, I went through a couple stores with my wife and I started seeing things in the stores through a prism of the golden rectangle. For example there was a sox display in the shape of the golden rectangle, a bench in the entryway to a store. and a couple other things. I kept saying to myself—is that shaped correctly? I think there is something to it. Maybe the Renaissance was a more enlightened time—they were more in tune with a sense of beauty. Today few people care about whether things are shaped correctly to achieve a balance.” I thought it might be interesting for your readers to see whether or not objects based on Golden Ratio were more pleasing to them.
In his article James took a wider view and discussed many applications of the golden mean. Here, I’m only focusing on the appearance of the front view of standing furniture. And now, starting from the very beginning, what is a golden rectangle? It’s a rectangle standing up like a sign whose width is 1.618 times bigger than the side. See below.
Ratio of Height to Width is .61 (Golden Mean)
The next image shows a man looking at a golden rectangle. According to the artists from the past, we should appreciate that the golden rectangle is a more pleasing to the eye than other rectangles.
Looking only at the front of a piece of furniture, let’s say, a bench (see below); someone may be able to convince you that a bench built to the dimensions of the golden ratio looks more pleasing than a wider one or a narrower version of the same bench. To illustrate that, we see below a golden rectangle placed in back of a bench. You can see that the bench matches the golden rectangle—same width, same height off the floor. The front view of the bench is built to the dimensions of the golden rectangle.
The Bench is same proportion as Golden Ratio
Now, test your own preferences of what you think is more pleasing. Below are three pairs of furniture. Without much thought, choose the one you find most pleasing. Then check below to see if you picked those that were built to the dimensions of the golden ratio. Make your choices before checking the answers below.
When I took Charlie’s test, I choose the furniture that conformed to the Golden Ratio in two of the three sets. I could imagine making other choices if the objects had varied in color, decoration or if I had to place the furniture in a spot with unique space requirements. In other words, I am guessing that the “ideal” specified by the mathematics of the Golden Ratio, may have some validity but the “pull” towards this notion of what is aesthetically pleasing is not a strong one. A study by psychologists McManus, Cook and Hunt seems to back up this view ( See “Beyond the Golden Section and Normative Aesthetics: Why Do IndividualsDiffer so Much in Their Aesthetic Preferences for Rectangles?”)
In all three cases, the pieces on the right were proportioned in accord with the Golden Ratio. I’d be very interested in how you did and what your process was like. Any ideas on this topic would be welcomed. Take the time to write a comment.
Speaking of ideals, I just happened to have just finished reading Dale Wright’s The Six Perfections: Buddhism and the Cultivation of Character. Wright sees the six perfections ( generosity, morality, tolerance, energy , mediation and wisdom) as traits which, throughout the evolution of Buddhist thought, have been seen as the most important and useful in defining or describing the “enlightened person”. These ideals are understood to be those towards which practitioners should strive. Although Wright provides the reader with a sense of how and why these “perfections” or ideals evolved over time, he also offers a critique of each and asks how our understanding of each should change to fit with our contemporary lifestyles.
Wright points out that in the West, values are largely based on a Platonic tendency to see ideals as “timeless, fixed forms to which human lives must conform”(pg. 270). I think this is true for many adherents of the “golden ratio” theory of aesthetics, who seem to be looking for an objective unchanging notion of what is beautiful. Wright points out some difficulties with this approach:
What Plato did not see, or was not able to concede, is that human history is the story of the unfolding of visions of “the good, the true, and the beautiful” as they have come to be experienced throughout the variegated history of human cultures. Rather than being fixed in character and given to us in advance of our quest, these ideals stand out ahead of us as the horizons that inspire our striving and that recede into the future as we approach them…….. “Enlightenment” and all of its components, from generosity to wisdom, are moving targets” (pg. 270)
Charlie may have been on to something when he seemed to suggest above that during the Renaissance the allure of the Golden Ratio may have been stronger. In that artists and craftspersons during that time would have been well advised to utilize this ideal in their creations.
In TRUTH AND FAITH AND “B.S.” IN ART AND ZEN, James suggests that without accepting the “truth” of theories that specify aesthetic ideals, they can be used as jumping off points for creative endeavors. I believe that the same may be said for schemes like the “six perfections” in the realm of spiritual transformation. Wright suggest that in practices like Zen, students need some sense of what they are doing (“the idea of enlightenment”), and this requires the same sort of imagination that is essential to the creativity of artists and innovative thinkers. (see “HOW CREATIVITY WORKS”). [ By the way, he differentiates between imagination and fantasy; in the latter we may entertain possibilities for the future but "they are not our possibilities". (pg.211) ] He points out that existing (traditional) theories, whether they deal with aesthetic ideals or ideals of personal traits,should not be blindly followed. But, he also says that we should not throw them out. According to Wright:
We understand only by virtue of standing within and upon traditions of understanding……The role of traditions, therefore…………..is to provide points of departure for advancing into the future. Creative thinking does not overthrow the past so much as stand upon it and use it for purposes of renewal, continually amending, rethinking, and reconstituting ideals suitable for current circumstances. (pg. 211)
Whether creating a new painting, piece of music, a new garden, a new job project or an new life, it makes sense to pay attention to what has come before us and mindfully use this knowledge as we respond to our present circumstances.
Without tradition, art is a flock of sheep without a shepherd. Without innovation, it is a corpse.
To leave a comment, click on the white bubble at the right of the title. To make an anonymous comment, write “anonymous” when prompted for a name. You can also send comments to me directly.