The Golden Ratio is bullsh*t
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 05. 2024
- The Golden Ratio seems to be one of those ideas that, for some reason, lodges itself in the minds of both professionals and the general public and keeps on fascinating them for decades.
Here's my two cents on the topic and why I believe the Gold Ration is actually nothing more than a myth with no scientific or logical backing.
→Links and references:
David Cole's article on the Golden Ratio: www.quora.com/Does-the-Apple-...
Warner Bros. Rebrand: www.pentagram.com/work/warner...
Fast Company's article on The Golden Ratio: www.fastcompany.com/3044877/t...
Side Questing's article on the Nintendo Switch's logo: www.sidequesting.com/2017/03/...
Netflix Clips: Abstract The Art of Design - Season 1 Episode 5 (Paula Scher)
Abstract The Art of Design - Season 2 Episode 6 (Jonathan Hoefler)
this video has more likes than r/goldenratio has members, meaning that thomas has offically ratiod the golden ratio
I’m pinning this.
thus leading to its death
czcams.com/video/WxYH5CXbpYA/video.html
fakeczcams.com/video/WxYH5CXbpYA/video.html
Seems like there are 1.618 times more likes than members of r/goldenration
This video is presented to you by:
President Funny Valentine
Lol
And he still got killed by it.
Damm, the second comment and its jojo. Welp back to looking for more jojo
Golden Rotation sucks:
Brought to you by Diego Brando AU
is this a jojo reference?
jojo fans: you've just made an enemy for life
Not really. Araki can also be wrong sometimes.
@@dodoxan4972 well not really since it's said that the golden rectangles found in art or any mankind made thing are fake, and that the only real golden rectangles are the ones found in nature
@@RudeusFM the golden rectangle have been found in nature too.
@@NotFamousDude69 that's what i said, that the only real golden rectangles in jojo's are the ones found in nature
@@dodoxan4972 No, Araki can never be wrong.
The Golden ratio is not bullsh¡t.
People pretending to "design" logos and overlap it on personal favourite things is bullsh¡t.
well, the golden ratio doesn't necessarily have much of anything to do with art, but the golden ratio is very much a real thing in nature, because it is the most efficient way to evenly distribute things in limited space
actually i should say doesnt have much to do with beauty i think the golden ratio could still have a lot to do with art if you are trying to go for a mathematical or complex look at your art
Yes and this is proven. Very imlortant numbers. This guy needs some milk
same geometry czcams.com/video/WxYH5CXbpYA/video.html
Occupancy ratios
Does NOT have to be this Golden Ratio
There is nothing special about it
@@Mekghmunda The golden ratio stuff is in the realm of religious belief. People will argue it is true because they believe it, but it's just not fact
Gyro Zeppeli did not like this
*sad spin noises*
This video makes me angry
Ok please, someone explain
@@WeAreDraper czcams.com/video/UvSdOadOjYs/video.html So in the series jojos bizarre adventure the character gyro zeppeli uses the golden ratio to make stuff spin but it’s not a regular spin. He puts rotational energy into his steel balls and it does really weird stuff. It can harden skin, contract muscles, and cause painless death.
@@bholt98 I have even more questions after watching this😂
Gyro: *hold my pizza mozzarella*
*And his balls of steel*
Are you Indian?
@@justajobro1266 I am
Title is misleading dude... that's not good...
The thing is that you can take any art piece and just force a golden ratio within it somewhere.
That's exactly right. That's literally 90% of what people consider "evidence" of it actually working.
THIS COMENT, i thought i was the only one that though about this because im in art and design university and literally ive seen this as "examples" of what "good" art is and most of it is just like "oh hey look, the spiral converges on this place that absolutley no one puts their atention on, aint that m a g i c a l?"
Yeah, a lot of these are total bullsh*t but still, in math, the golden ratio is so beautiful.... For example I noticed this while I was playing with this number:
Φ ^1= 1+1/Φ
Φ^2= 1+Φ
Φ^3= 1+2Φ
Φ^4= 2+3Φ
Φ^5= 3+5Φ
Φ^6= 5+8Φ
Φ^7= 8+13Φ
...
It's amazing, you can see the Fibonacci sequence!
@@ENJERUNE I don’t consider the golden ratio an artistic principle. It can absolutely be applied that way, n I guess it is pleasing, but that is completely missing the point. It’s just this seemingly random mathematics constant, that happens to be incredibly represented by the natural world. So many plant and animal anatomies end up fitting into the golden ration. That’s what’s so crazy and cool about it, is that it seems to be an underpinned rule of the universe, for some reason things can’t help but align themselves in this pattern. That’s fascinating. I don’t give a shit if your painting matches up with it or not 🤷♀️
@@shardgunner4815 I can agree that many things follow the golden ratio, all I’m saying is that is not an art principle, it doesn’t make your art better or worse. Pretty much all what you said
The problem is that he's taking into account fractions and their denominators but he's forgetting that the primary variable of a golden ratio is it's frequency.
When used in artifacts its overstated but it's evident in nature so the only thing that's BS is artists claiming their work uses it, so somewhat misleading.
I feel like this video's general assertion that the Golden Ratio is "bullshit" is too vague to really be meaningful at all. Maybe in the sense of whether a certain piece of art is esthetically pleasing, sure that makes sense, after all the appeal of art is subjective. What is interesting and more important about the golden ratio is its mathematic and geometric relationship with the Fibonacci sequence as well as nature, celestial bodies, etc.
By saying the ratio is simply "bullshit" gives the impression that the ratio is in fact not prevalent in nature or worthy of any real note which is just untrue.
Very true saying it's bullshit makes you sound very stupid when the ratio is literally mathematical. Maybe just maybe Fibonacchi knew more than this guy does about math. This video just sounds like the speech of someone who doesn't understand math at all, the fact that it applies to so much in our universe is the fascinating part. The reason it can be found in so many pieces of art throughout out history is exactly because our eyes naturally find ratios and follow them. It's called the golden ratio because it can be applied to so much
When CZcams creators start to refine their content to try and generate maximum engagement, they often choose titles that are deliberately controversial. ‘Make a bold statement that your viewers might disagree with and they will watch it.’ This video is about psychology and clickbait, not science or art. The creator probably doesn’t mind whether or not his argument makes sense, or if he might easily be proved wrong, his intention was simply to generate maximum views from lovers and skeptics of the golden ratio alike. And he succeeded!
Hi, I’m the creator. This was my first video and I uploaded it after I spent a month at the hospital during which time I could write the script. I uploaded it without expecting any success, or researching which topic was the hottest. That said- I don’t think you have a good idea of what clickbait means but I suggest you look up its definition again. This video, like most of the videos on this channel, are about niche design topics, subcultures and trends that only aim at expressing a point of view and creating discourse around our world. If numbers really were my focus I would upload videos about paying strangers on fiver to redesign logos and critiquing the results. I upload when I have something meaningful to say. If I don’t, I don’t upload. It’s ok if you don’t agree with the video or don’t like it, but please be objective and use your brain if you really feel compelled to write criticism.
Hi! Great answer and I like what you do, despite sounding like an armchair critic! It’s always nice when a creator takes time to reply thoughtfully. Forgive me for the slightly aggravating way in which I expressed myself. Please tell me how you would define clickbait? I speak as someone who is also growing a niche channel, and navigating the balance between attracting an audience, stating true to my own ideas, and accepting the fact that there will always be differing views (in fact differing views make for the most interesting interactions 👍)
It’s ok, I don’t mind harsh criticism or disagreements, I just wanted to let you know my intentions behind the video. Clickbait is a ploy to get someone to click on your video, usually with a controversial title, or an outrageous thumbnail, only to then serve them with either disappointing or outright unrelated content. Clickbait used to be a thing because CZcams used to count views through clicks on a video. This hasn’t been the case for a looong time, and getting someone to click on a video with an alluring thumbnail only to have them leave 20 seconds in because you tricked them is actually going to hurt the performance of your content. The number one metric to aim for now is audience retention, which is the polar opposite of what you used to get with clickbait.
As far as the youtube career: I don’t want to be a CZcamsr whatever it takes, I want to have a successful CZcams channel at my own terms, making content I like. So that’s my only focus along with the dialogue that my videos may provoke. That’s it. I don’t make trendier videos because I’m not interested in that type of content, and I wouldn’t want to have a career that depends on it. It’s not the about the title, it’s what you do every day that’s important.
I don’t think I’m in a position to give any advice, but if I had to I’d just say- make the best content you can every single time you upload. Everything else is noise.
Gyro be like: Someone's going to die tonight
Gyro and Johnny: That's sad, but understandable.
Golden ratio is a part of nature, even your body length proportion have it, at the beginning this concept is beeing used to create the architectural design, painting arts, or even statue looks as natural as possible. That natural perception shaped because we as human see a lot of that kind of proportion since the day we birth.
In modern day, this concept is not that practical anymore, since a good design should be "Form Follow Function." the functionality is improving so much during modern day, hence we need more dynamic design concept rather than a conventional golden ratio.
But that doesn't mean the golden ratio is bullshit, it's like a stairs in a modern hotel, using lift is always more efficient and the easiest way to go, but in case of emergency, you need to get back to basic.
satisfying reply...
Loved ready this, honestly, a calm collected but truthful response
Side note, who else is here because of cowboys?
@Ram Armendariz it pretty much does
Raised on a farm, I know for a fact that bull (or cow, hen, rooster, etc.) shit has nothing to do with mathematics other than the number of wheelbarrow loads it takes to fertilize a garden. The Golden Ratio (or Mean) is based purely on math. So, I'm calling bullshit on this video.
Best comment 😮😅😂
Start with a random rectangle with sides a(0) > b(0) in any ratio, not necessarily golden ratio. Then, continue building smaller rectangles according to the recursion that makes the golden spiral
a(n+1) = b(n), b(n + 1) = a(n) - b(n).
The ratio of sides follows a recursion
r(n+1) = a(n+1)/b(n+1) = 1/(r(n) - 1),
with a fixed points
r*(r - 1) = 1 => r = (1 +/- sqrt(5))/2
The positive ratio is the golden ratio phi and one can show it is a stable fixed point. So, the rectangles you obtain by this procedure quicky converge to the shape of the golden ratio.
You can reverse the procedure and make larger rectangles
a(n + 1) = a(n) + b(n) , b(n + 1) = a(n)
With the ratio satisfying
r(n+1) = 1 + 1/r(n)
and fixed points
r^2 - r - 1 = 0 => r = (1 +/- sqrt(5))/2
Again, the stable fixed point is the golden ratio phi = (1 + sqrt(5))/2.
In this regard, the golden rectangle is a stable shape.
Does the number 1.585 have any meaning in math ?
@@7years6months3days5hours7min
Well, in the context of the math presented in this video, its best rational approximation is
65/41, which has a continued fraction expansion [1; 1, 1, 2, 2, 3].
If your 3-decimal was mearly a truncation of some irrational number, then, this continued fraction could be continued in all sorts of infinite ways. Two that I can think of are
[1; 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, ... ]
or
[1; 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, ... ]
Edit: When plugging the first suggestion in Wolfram alpha, it gave me a related search
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farey_sequence
@@DK-fn6xr Thank you !
Valentine agree's with this one
You can impose the golden ratio on any design, photo, painting, or naturally occurring object. It's just a design concept that covers almost all the bases when it comes to proportions. That being said, it's not bullsh*t but it's just not UNIQUE since you can impose it on any and every design ever.
the whole point is that it isnt unique
@@boa9557 So the golden ratio is not unique??
First to clear that up, you would need to know what it is. You dont.
Actually it is a "one of a kind" ratio. You cannot locate any other ratio which does what it does.
honestly, I find the golden ratio to be beautiful in math more than nature, but that’s probably because I’m not really into nature (I spend more time trying to do maths than touching grass lmao). And the math applications are sometimes just really surprising. I remember seeing an integral which was something like:
The integral of 1/(1+x^φ)^φ.
I forgot the actual limits of integration, (I’m pretty sure it was 0 to 1), but the answer was one. One. It blew my mind five times.
Also, the golden ratio’s properties are just satisfying. φ² = φ + 1, φ − 1 = 1/φ, and some others that I can’t remember precisely (like the Fibonacci numbers being in the powers of phi (I think)).
Ps: don’t misinterpret my moment; I agree with you. I personally don’t believe that the golden ratio suddenly makes a design “better” either. Some proportions MAY be better for the eyes, but I’m not a scientific expert so I’m not going to try to make any concrete claims. However, I doubt that everything would look better with the golden ratio.
You dare say bullsh*t to Gyro's teachings?
-crippled jockey
How do you explain it getting through Lovetrain
Smiths constant is a good reference when deciding the width of two objects that have the same Material. But in the end it's sometimes better to eyeball it, as you said.
The golden ratio is overrated and it's prolly popular by name alone. No one would give two fucks if it was called "smith's constant" or something like that lmao.
this killed me.
Golden ratio = 2*cosine36 36 degrees = 1/10 of a full circle. it's connected with our connection with the decimal counting system which is somehow in our DNA
@Raj Funny you say that, because even if it really was called as _"Smith's Constant"_ or _"'s Constant"_ instead of Golden Ratio, it would still be as important and widely known as it is. Just like _Euler's_ Constant and _Fibonacci_ Sequences.
Why? Because it's special. And it's special because well... it just simply is a special irrational ratio (Fun fact: Phi squared is equal to Phi + 1, and Phi inversed is equal to Phi - 1). So much so that it became overated, just like what you think, and ended up getting super famous in arts. To the point of having some people worshipping it in superstition and whatnot pseudoscience - which is just silly ofc... -> @Eddo Rats
Extra tagging: @@WeAreDraper
@@WeAreDraper You pinning him mostly because he supports your opinion also killed me.
So funny right? I’m so meta
You know that even your golden rectangle isn't exactly the golden rectangle, right? As well as golden ratio isn't exactly 1.618
I do, however your processor/ graphics card can't render anything past a certain level of detail. Your screen is made out of pixels which are the smallest unit under which you really can't go (you can't light half a pixel or a quarter of a pixel.)
When you're dealing with measurements with three decimal what's past that is simply useless: it won't make any difference when looking at it and the software itself will probably discard that information after a certain threshold.
Plus there's really no way of representing an irrational number (that has an infinite number of decimals) with a finite length without approximation. That's simply a fact of geometry and algebra. That being said, even if you did render it with even more precision I really don't see how the difference between 1.618 and 1.618033 could be appreciable by the naked eye.
@@WeAreDraper more like the discrete nature of the universe but you are still exactly right.
@@WeAreDraper the ratio of the length of the entire line (A)
to the length of larger line segment (B)
is the same as
the ratio of the length of the larger line segment (B)
to the length of the smaller line segment (C).
This happens only at the point where:
A is 1.618 … times B and B is 1.618 … times C.
Alternatively, C is 0.618… of B and B is 0.618… of A.
Phi with an upper case “P” is 1.618 0339 887 …, while phi with a lower case “p” is 0.6180339887, the reciprocal of Phi and also Phi minus 1.
What makes phi even more unusual is that it can be derived in many ways and shows up in relationships throughout the universe.
There’s no coincidence
-master oogway
"there are no accidents!"*
Awesome video ! What video editing software do you use ?
Thanks a lot! I use both Adobe after effects and Adobe premiere.
Without asserting whether or not it's actually true, here are the rationale behind the Golden Ratio being more pleasing:
1. The golden ratio and Fibonacci sequence both do show up in nature, for the perfectly mundane reason that things build up progressively when growing. The size of the nautilus shell naturally increases in proportion to its existing size, as does the accumulation of actual flowers inside a sunflower (which is not a flower, but a bank of tiny flowers with yellow leaves surrounding it).
2. Therefore the ratio/sequence will show up a lot in nature, and it can be advantageous to perceive it. This can help differentiate between something beneficial and something similar-looking that is not. To tell whether the thing a fish is about to attack is an actual nautilus, or some debris.
3. Therefore recognizing it, albeit a small benefit, may have enough to build up over the course of three billion years.
Bonus factor: Accumulating factors occur even in our own brains. So aside from evolutionary advantage, we may have a recognition of the ratio/sequence in our own minds, just incidentally.
Basically the takeaway is, do whatever you want, however you want without adhering too much to industry standards or guidelines. It's risky to be honest, that or I missed the point entirely by making things too simple.
Hard to call the golden ratio an "industry standard" when something like 90% of the logos you see around are made without following that method. A lot of people "use" the golden ratio in their designs, but it's safe to say it's a small minority in the end. The point of the video is simply that there's no evidence whatsoever the golden ratio is actually preferred by anyone as a set proportion, and that most people using it just mix and match its shapes until they built what they could have made by simply trusting their own taste and judgement, like you do for virtually everything in graphic design.
Pay no mind to me stating that the golden ratio is one of the industry's standards friend, that's just me talking out of my butt. I've been doing graphics for who knows how long and I don't even recall a single time where I followed a certain standard at all when it came to whatever work I was doing.
@@ImperialThirdWorldReich yeah there's not many "industry standards" in graphic design that come to mind. There's mostly general rules it's good practice to follow (scalable logos, legible fonts for body text... stuff like that).
@@WeAreDraper Apologies internet got cut off but I agree, the only big problem I usually have is mixing and matching colors. For some reason I guess my mind hasn't been completely conditioned to see what's a good mix at first sight so I always have to have a colorwheel closeby when I'm just starting out. Nearly the same issue with fonts as well but I try my best.
@@ImperialThirdWorldReich yeah i always have color palettes, tons of references and stuff like that to inform my color choices. And I have type designer friends to ask for advice👌🏻
You have ONE example (making a logotype) for dismantling the Golden Ratio's usefulness as BS?
This makes me smile. GL&HF
See that's the point: i don't need to dismantle it. It needs to be proven. And it hasn't so far...
@@josephpchajek2685 yeah, and my video says literally zero about all the things you listed. If you had listened to even half of what I said you’d know I’m only talking about its application in arts and design. Which btw has been studied and proven to be non existent. I didn’t say a word about the golden ratio in nature or its existence nor was it ever the topic of this video. Next time I’d suggest actually watching what you wanna criticize ✌🏻
@@josephpchajek2685 oh yeah. Totally. Also: my parents hit me when I was little.
@@WeAreDraper hi Thomas, mind sharing that source (the study)? Cool vid :)
Ooooooo another pissy pedantic artists
Zeppeli family wants to know your location
Gyro: *_What the fuck did you say about my golden ratio?_*
I mean, I picked 4 because it seemed the most correctly proportioned rectangle
Creates some sort of balance in design, it's naturally pleasing in composition. Other things are involved too in design...but the golden ratio isn't complete bull. But nevertheless your opinion is respected
When he pulled up the 4 rectangles I actually chose the 1st one
Me too lol. I thought I was the only one.
Based pfp
this is called the perfect rotation. the energy that it makes saved johnny joestar. this is the energy of the golden rectangle
This dude:golden ratio bullshit
Me: LESSON 5 WA KONO TAMENI
This always seemed so obvious to me even as a child looking at spirals superimposed on random shit that didnt even match up. How some professionals with years of industry experience are incapable of noticing what 10 year old me noticed, is baffling to me
Thank you.
The golden ratio is definitely real. Also the size, shape, and material of a box with change the way sound and air passes threw it. What your explaining means no matter what size or shape box you have wont change the depth or quality of sound. I think anyone with experience and or knowledge would disagree with what your saying in SOME things.
Ok, good video, I see your point but I think you missed a few other things. Your focus is on mathematics, things/objects and motivation for money. Very materialistic, mundane and empty of meaning. You also mentioned "good taste", probably the most subjective phrase anyone could ever use. What is good "good taste" when one man's meat is another man's poison? The Golden Ratio is not BS because the parallel is that the pattern/sequence emerges in nature too. It's everywhere in life but you just haven't noticed it. Some things look more appealing to others because the frequency of such recurring patterns are familiar, recognizable and pleasing. But everyone's different. If you see only BS, you tend to project that onto others. The emergent patterns of nature in a sequence like the Fibonacci and Golden Ratio, help me to identify reasons why life is so magical and not BS.
One last thing, the beginning of every sequence is always a bit awkward, sensitive, difficult, new. Ever seen an albatross take off? Therefore, the imperfection or inaccuracy of the sequence somehow suggests this in its representation only furthering the idea that it's more closely aligned to nature than you're willing to see. The Golden Ratio is not bullshit in my opinion for the reasons above.
Yeah the video has nothing to do with most of what you said. I haven't focused on mathematics, i don't care about the golden ratio in that field and all of its properties and the fact that it appears in nature is close to meaningless. What's the connection between something being spontaneously generated in nature and something being appealing? This false equation "natural" = "good" is beyond simplistic. Disease is natural, chaos is natural, catastrophes are natural and none of those are particularly appealing to people. Nature is filled with millions of patterns, some much more fundamental and common than the golden ratio (think of exponential growth, Pareto distribution...), and yet no one claims they hold the keys to the perfect beauty.
The little evidence we do have about the golden ratio actually disproves the idea that people find its shapes more appealing. It just takes a second to see past the myth: Designers claim some shapes are in a special proportion and then go on and bash them together in a design where they overlap and mix them together with no coherence of rules. As if the final result has anything to do with the starting shapes or the mathematical equation that generated them. It's the laziest most casual pseudoscientific approach you could take.
To close I'd say i do believe in good taste and i do believe that there is such a thing as objective beauty. I firmly believe my taste is better than the average person's and that my job is to educate people on that. That's what designers do. That's what my clients pay me to do. The idea that "one man's meat is another man's poison" is the one that allowed corporations to build disgusting hunks of concrete steps away from pristine beaches with no respect for their surroundings or care for how they looked. If beauty and good taste were actually relative concepts models wouldn't exist. Don't buy into that crap.
@@WeAreDraper wow the last part makes you seem like a very arrogant person. With your logic, no composition tool has a purpose as you can not measure it. For example using shapes and values. The most famous painting in the world used the golden ratio and i dont think that is a coincidence.
I hope this gets my point across, english is not my first language so i apologize for any mistakes
@UCTwopnou5Kv_kLL3rUDIWAA good, that’s all I wanted to convey. As far as that first quote is concerned I think it’s pretty much implied that a designer considers himself to be more educated than the average person on what looks nice, otherwise what’s the point of your job? As a designer if you don’t believe your taste is better than average then you really shouldn’t be working...
Fun fact: did you knw that the Fibonacci sequence gets closer and closer to the golden ratio with every new number ? just to answer him drawing 3 rectangles and claiming it has nothing to do with the golden ratio. After 100 rectangles there would be no gap. Also, if you were truly unbiased, you should've mentioned the occurences of the golden ratio everywhere in nature and in our bodies. but it's clear that you're bothered with anything that has to do with Intelligent Design.
Fun Fact: I actually say that in my video. You know how you could have known that? By listening to what I say in it.
To answer your bias point: The idea that since something happens in nature that thing is aesthetically pleasing is pretty ridiculous. It's like the natural fallacy: You can find it in nature therefore it must be good. Yeah, like cancer, right? You can find millions of different recurring proportions and ratios in nature and none are claimed to be "golden".
Why would 1.618, an irrational number, technically impossible to fully represent in geometry, have evolved to be pleasing for humans? Has anyone ever proven that idea?
@@WeAreDraper I listened to your video believe me but the way you
mentioned it was as if it is wrong to represent the Fibonacci sequence using rectangles. "These squares now are in golden ratio, except they're not" WHO SAID THEY ARE ! it's a representation of the Fibonacci sequence that will "ultimately" lead to the golden ratio. You're manipulating the script to make the whole rectangular representation look "wrong" to viewers.
Now coming to your point of since a pattern exist in nature then it must be good. Again who said that ?? NO one ! people who researched the golden ratio noticed that it comes out in many shapes that are aesthetically pleasing not the contrary. Now your point about cancer in nature, it's as if you're saying that because bad things exist in nature then good things cannot exist. It's the same old philosophical problem of evil just formulated in a different context. That's why I said you are biased by your philosophical convictions. In every sentence i understand what you're referring to and in a manipulative way which I hate. the golden mean pattern seem to exist and that's it ! in nature in our bodies everywhere. watch this video if you're modest enough to listen to others
czcams.com/video/c8ccsE_IumM/video.html
@@metaphysic767 my point isn’t that good can’t exist in nature. My point is that the fact that the golden ratio can be found in nature is completely irrelevant towards the question of “is it aesthetically pleasing to people?” The fact that it exists and can be found in nature has no implications on how pleasing it is. That’s all.
To the first thing you said: I’m not manipulating anything, it’s just that you’re not understanding what the point of that segment is. Once again listen to what I say in the video. I say that ONE OF THE POPULAR METHODS of constructing a golden ratio palette is by following Fibonacci’s sequence, which yields a result that’s off by a substantial margin in the first step. The ratio between the first and the second rectangle is 1.5 instead of 1.618
That’s all I said. I clearly say it TENDS towards the golden ratio, but it isn’t the same thing.
@@WeAreDraper Well in this last statement we're not in disagreement. The rectangular representation of the Fibonacci sequence just like the sequence itself does not yield the golden ration until the 7th or 8th ratio (or rectangle). No problem here just the way you mentioned it as if the whole representation was "wrong" it was just a remark. Anyway, for the other point, it's not because the ratio exists in nature. It is because the ratio was observed in many shapes and proportions that WE humans find aesthetically pleasing or attractive. Like face features, length of arms, fingers, body height and its distribution, complex flowers, seeds and plants, storms, etc. The relationship between the ratio and aesthetics did not come from its simple occurrences in nature but rather from its pattern of occurrence in many shapes that we find attractive. It's a qualitative implication not a quantitative one.
@@WeAreDraper It didnt evolve to be pleasing to humans, it evolved to make the most of sunlight and space. We might find that pleasing. We find flowers and other things pleasing, and everything about them pleasing. We find life pleasing.
But you certainly seem very upset about something here. What is going on with you? Life is short, find a girl and get laid, maybe that will help
Hi Thomas, your video is quite interesting, but for a french guy like who is not so confortable with english terms, it can be tough to grasp everything perfectly. Could you replace the generated subtitles ?
Hey! I’m planning on adding subtitles in the upcoming weeks. Unfortunately it’s not that quick to do, so I have to take some time to do it. But rest assured subtitles are coming👍🏻
@@WeAreDraper Thanks pal no rush :)
I only comment as I am very interested to know more about the subject as I am an artist and I have possibly missed learning something interesting.
Hearing it again I am becoming more attuned to your voice.
Arrivederici.
Yeah just crank up the volume a whole lot. I got that in check with my other content. Good to hear you’re interested tho. Enjoy!
A presto!
y=1/x when x=phi and y becomes phi+1 it's pretty amazing to me.
Great video, very interesting!
I have seen videos explaining the use of the golden ratio in art and architecture, and they always show photos with the fibonacci spiral overlapping a building or artwork. Sometimes, I find myself thinking "soooo... some of these look like they were just trying to fit their spiral over everything they could find." Like, honestly, take the spiral away and some examples look NOTHING like it.
Oh I see it in design everywhere. People love to put spirals on shit and be like: see? That's the secret.
Honestly you could overlay so many shapes on building facades, artworks, UIs and get the same results. People just force it into designs even when it wasn't even part of the process.
@@WeAreDraper _I posted this in the main comments section but your more likely to see it 1-to-1:_
Mate, you're focusing on humans co-opting the Fibonacci sequence for designs and art. That is just elitists who embedding a math sequence in their craft, to create an illusion of "balance with mother Gaia" or some snobby overbearing crap. (or maybe it was an illuminati symbolism thing who knows).
There is shit in nature that is bound by this rule. It may shock you to know that mathematics is interwoven in space time, and every aspect of the universe (...except quantum which is just fucking bizarre lol).
It has nothing to do with beauty, aethetics, male, female, height or weight. It's a frequent pattern in animal and human tissue and skeleton for starters.
Arm to hand, knuckles to fingertip, collarbone to c*** (insert/del as inappropriate/appropriate), eyes, and although I've never looked at DNA under a microscope, and I trust everything I've ever been taught LESS now than at any point in my life, that too.
I've checked it out myself it shows up in flowers, air/sea vortexes.
Now about the 9. This was a good observation btw:
raw a perfect circle, (or sphere if you wanna do it 3D on a computer). Mark the centre, and choose one of the infinite angles at random on the infinity or draw a line from centre to any 1 of the "infinte"...err..."sides". Then add the numbers together.
Or just look up "Tesla 3, 6, 9" or "the torus".
The supposed merits of the Golden Ratio for photography periodically surface in the many photography vlogs that are on CZcams. I sat down one day in Lightroom, created a cropping frame whose ratio with the golden ratio, and went through a bunch of images of all types to see if I could convince myself that using the Golden Ratio resulted in a more pleasing image. For the most part, they didn't and when they did there was usually a rectangle that was more pleasing but whose aspect ratio was differnt. I dug around and found your video and one entitled Great Mathematical Myths by a mathematician that just pulled the rug out from under this nonsense. Unfortunately, one reason it perpetuates is that the architect Le Corbusier developed a design system around it.
johnny joestar is punching the air rn
@3:23
Correct. Even the Apple logo designer said it was not based on the Golden Ratio and there have been multiple-yet similar-Apple logo designs.
All you need to do is forget or neglect to tell this fact. The initial shape has to have the ratio proportions in order for this to work. This is a repeating pattern. ( fractal ) You can't just through something down and start the golden ratio. By starting with a non ratio shape your claim is flawed.. When viewing old compositions and unfinished paintings the golden ratio is no where to be found. So calling it the end all and do all for art is hype. However this does not excuse your mistake.
Every time I see it applied, It seems an afterthought!
Your computer doesn't line up the squares because it's an irrational number and you're using one decimal.
Thanks for the videos! Whenever I hear about theories behind colors and golden ratio, I wonder if they really make sense and if people took them into account during the design process. I studied Fine Arts and work in graphic design and always suspected these theories, but who am I to disagree ?! lol.
I believe they are a way to show the client during a pitch how much knowledge you have and thus base your final design within a technique that not everyone has access to, that is, to value their own work.
I remember one time at the university that a friend made a sculpture of a cross in styrofoam and on the eve of the delivery decided to use spray paint and ended up melting part of the styrofoam. As he didn't have time to make another one, he changed his speech during the presentation, justifying the melting of the material as a deliberate choice, a way of expressing the decay of that symbol...He got top marks due to an error with a solid speech behind it!
My takeaway is: do whatever looks beautiful and make up a rationale behind it to impress and help convince your clients!
Thank you very much, sir! Loved the story. I remember doing something similar in my first year of university in my Art Direction class: we had this graphic design project we had to make based on traditional tales from our region. It was the final exam and we had to choose a classmate with whom we would work with. The final product turned out pretty solid, especially considering it was my first real extensive project, and I was super excited to present it. We printed the whole thing the day prior to the exam and later that night we realized that one of our patterns had been printed upside down on the last page. My friend panicked for a minute and then I came up with a clever justification for it-- something like "it symbolizes how our expectations as readers have been turned upside down since the beginning of the story."
My professor loved the idea. Got the highest score.
That day I learned two great lessons in our field:
-Never print ONE DAY before an assignment
-If you do and something is fucked find a way to sell it anyways.😂
That's art. Good you realized
Rectangle?
*More like golden ratio.*
Not if you’re a Sunflower and you have to layout your seeds.
Pov: you just got defeated by Johnny
I enjoy that the golden ratio exists, because like it'll be fun to see it in ur environment and know how to turn it into numbers
2:40 Off by a substantial margin? When you consider that the 2nd 3rd term from the fibonacci sequence is 1.5, surely this isn't a lot. The 2nd approximation using the fibonacci sequence is 0.1 Most people will use much larger numbers than just 1 and 2. More like 34 and 55 or larger.
Good point, but still. When designing the difference between 1.618 and 1.5 proportions is really not negligible. But it may very well be in other fields where you can approximate without issues.
@@WeAreDraper I agree there's is a substantial error between 1.5 and 1.618 but that is the first approximation. But overall I do agree with you, its a good video 👍
Yeah, it gets smaller every step so by the 2nd or 3rd the difference would be meaningless. Appreciate the compliment and the talk sir🙏🏻
Jojo fans are pissed
I came for the JoJo’s comments and was not disappointed
Golden ratio has no logic guys!
When I see videos holding up golden rectangles onto famous art pieces and arcitecture it doesn't even fit very well. Surely if they were using this ratio when designing they would have made it perfect? The proponants of 'golden ratio is everywhere' theory force it onto where it doesn't exist all the time and people just accept it like they are blind, like they can't see that it doesn't actually fit. It's so loose that I can't believe it was used by the designers. And they fudge it by arbitrarily using more golden sections within the original.
My favourite thing is when they show an example of a golden spiral overlaying something like a galaxy or whirlpool and they don't even remotely match up, but in the accompanying text they simply *SAY* that it's a match and *no one seems to even notice!*
Yes, it is astounding. And then they show like 20 of such pictures, and that then is considered proof that *everything* in nature follows the Golden Ratio, and dare you say otherwise.
Believers just want to believe.
Yeah tell that to Gyro 😒
This is the reason you couldn't do any better in designing 😂
I do believe that golden ratio isn't the whole and sole solution to make a logo but it do have its own space in nature. Calling it bull$hit seems childish to me.
Yeah but they always find the golden ration where in reality it's not
Woah thanks for clearing this paradox dude. ❤️
my pleasure 🙏🏻
Interesting take on the golden ratio! I wonder how many designers actually rely on it in their work. What's your opinion?
The honest answer is that most designers probably try to use it in the early stages, then completely forget about it, and then try to reverse-engineer their project to make it somewhat fit
I love that someone in Hollywood of all places made you question this concept. Interesting that this is something that generates interest for so many amazing mathematicians and architects, and is everywhere in nature. I wish you have cracked this riddle earlier so all of those people didn't waste all their time. Good job, your video is not at all made with things you pulled out of your ass.
You’d sound even smarter if only you knew that pentagram is in NYC, not Hollywood.
@@WeAreDraper cute
@@Tom_Baratheon ikr
Based, I am not watching this video
Actually what interests me is how plants use it to have a perfect number of petals and a pineapples spirals not the shapes and shit
I would guess it's because evolution and adaptation takes advantage of the most efficient design. It feels like some people try to force mysticism into the equation that doesn't actually exist.
@@SisterOfFreya or it's God's design.
Now while a sample size of 2 isn’t exactly authoritative, I *did* pick the golden ratio rectangle and whale as my favorites…
Gyro is dissapointed
Gyro Zeppeli had never seen such bullshit before
so... after reading comments and watching its video, you agree its evident in nature--as any known number or constant--but disagree about it's aesthetically masterful use in arts and designs? You're saying art is basically subjective overall? Not "mathematically" objective cos of "uniformity" and likewise?
I’m saying the fact that something happens in nature is not evidence of it being aesthetically pleasing. There’s all sorts of patterns in nature that no one cares about and bothers to mention that would be easily more recognizable than 1.618
@@WeAreDraper so essentially its overhyped? Sry, I'm in calc2 just now learning this and wanted to see opinions about this in the community.
@@zy8753 it’s never been proven to be pleasing. People just say it and do it. But on even at a quick glance it makes no sense. That’s what the video is about
Jojo fans:LETS TRAVEL THE WORLD IN SEARCH FOR THIS MAN
Who needs the golden ratio when we have the Mandelbrot
We need you back Thomas !
One more week my dude. I’m coming back for everything 🙏🏻
This just made the golden ratio that more impressive. Its so godly that the apple logo can be made using it in more then 1 way.
Too bad it wasn't actually used to make the logo...
@@WeAreDraper If you want to say that the human who made the logo wasnt aware of it then ok, i get your point. Im saying that as a mathematician, the golden ratio is still impressive for me.
Nothing to say about the golden ratio mathematically. I'm a designer and all I'm concerned about is its role in design
@@WeAreDraper too bad for you then.... that's like going to a magic show only so you can figure out the tricks instead of enjoying the magic.
The point here is that there's no magic. It's simply a popular myth.
102% agree with this man
I get 95 constantly
Some god I must be
@@wardenali523 ?
If you don’t shut up I’m going to get ballbreaker
Mathematicians refer to the Fibonacci sequence to say that math is the one and only science. Big money.
“Well, I guess that’s just your opinion man.“ J. Lebowski
Gyro Zeppeli has never seen such Bullshit
This video has offended him
Seems you're frustrated or upset with the way people are drawn to it or all the spirit "woo woo" stuff related to it. Maybe you don't know math well enough to see how often this pattern shows up, how it's formed - how the galaxy, a hurricane, a wave cresting, etc etc etc all have this proportion. over rated? Maybe.
The question is this, I suppose - did some creator make the golden ratio and is that why it appears in so many places? or, because it creates adaptability, efficiency, and momentum, is it just a byproduct of being the most efficient way to make something happen. For water molecules to come together as they travel due to force like a wave, or the hot and cold molecules spiraling and forming a storm which gets stronger and picks up momentum like a hurricane - or a plant whose spiral vines allow it to grab on and adapt to its surroundings.
I had done a video where I talk about what it means to me, symbolically. It's like love - in the sense that when you love someone, you do what is good for their nature. You want them to adapt, be efficient, be their best, and to gain momentum and flourish. This particular proportion sometimes does that. From the ways we see it as an elephant's trunk or duck's neck - so that they can bend and be flexible, or the way you close your hand and the bones form a spiral - your fist bump is a spiral bump.
It's not BS in that it's actually a thing, replicable, and seen everywhere - and mathematical. But it's arguably bs in what people use it to justify and mean spiritually. But even that, we can't be sure. It was once called God's fingerprint. But again - the question is, does it indicate a creator or creative pattern (blueprint) - or is it a product of evolving for adaptability and efficiency?
I happen to think it's the former but if it was proven it was the latter, I'd be fine with that. No way to prove either, though.
All I heard was art and design of MAN MADE designs, and ofcourse it’s bogus because it’s a copy/bootleg of the real thing as in creation so yes it’s BS when men use it, but the ratio itself is NOT
The video is about the claim to its efficacy as an aesthetical choice, to it being "better looking" or "more balanced" than any other ratio or composition or non-rule-based design. Sure you can find the ratio in nature, so what? You can find many disgusting things in nature, it's not like if something occurs spontaneously then it must be better.
@@WeAreDraper Fine, but look at the title: "The Golden Ration Is Bullshit". The golden ratio is in no way bullshit. So perhaps you might name your vids more appropriately, because actually the tiresome clickbait on utube is bullshit
golden ratio based grids can be used as a base grid, even the construction is imperfect the outcome will be pleasing. Albeit there are countless ways to catch a cool form. Are they all related to GR ? Impossible to say cuz you can always construct a grid basically on anything as u show it.
Since you can, why would the GR specifically lead to better results? I’m not sure as to what the evidence is…
That is exactly what I was thinking while trying to make a logo. I realized all my logos are golden ratio at some point.
It's just a Jojo refrence
You couldn't be more wrong my friend. I think there is a reason that some of the greatest minds to have ever existed studied the golden ratio.
There is. The Pythagorean society agrees with you. :)
Appeal to authority, without any other argument. It doesn't matter if the subjective "greatest minds to have ever existed" studied the golden ratio.
@@dragonwarriorz1 EXACTLY.
Like steel ball run lmao
@@dragonwarriorz1 username checks out lmfao
You tried saying that the squares method wasn’t actually the golden ratio because it didn’t divide by 1.618 but that 1.618 isn’t even the golden ratio (it’s an approximation), the golden ratio is irrational. If you used a decimal closer to the golden ratio you would’ve seen the gap get smaller and smaller
No, the problem is the way it’s built: It starts off with two identical squares so the first 2 or 3 shapes you get will be off by a substantial margin in terms of proportions. Like I said in the video: what you’re building with that method is a visual representation of Fibonacci’s sequence. If you check the first 3 or 4 numbers in that sequence you’ll see that they’re pretty far from the golden ratio. That being said if you keep going with that method you’ll get closer and closer to the actual golden ratio. My point is: building the palette that way yields very imprecise results at first. No point in going through all that, just divide a regular square by 1.618 and you’re set. If you want smaller squares just keep doing that.
bro did 5 minutes of golden ratio research on google and then made this video
Johnny and Gyro would disagree
The golden ratio is the most irrational number of all the irrational numbers.
Feeling bad now after this video, you put so much effort in it and what happens is like half the people here are trying to act smart bc of bullshit reasons and completely miss your point, and then try to explain you how phi is not exactly 1.618 or how it's found everywhere in the nature.. oh wow, who would've guessed?
It was a great video, you made no mistake at all in it and I loved it. Definitely gonna watch your other videos and also support you in the future. But mabe your choice of the title was the reason some people got so mad about it, it's probably kinda annoying for a mathematician to read it, even if you're just talking about specific applications of that ratio
Thanks a lot, really appreciate you🙏🏻
It's good to see someone actually gets the message and thinks logically about what I've said. Thanks for the support sir🙏🏻
he asked for this with the title he gave the video. the golden ratio isn't purely a design thing its a math thing and Im sure he was aware of that when designing his clickbait title.
Or maybe there’s just a limit to how long a useful title can be and being too specific is actually less helpful: Calling it clickbait implies that the video is actually talking about something else or isn’t specifically about the theme mentioned in the title. Both are not true. I understand what you’re saying but I really didn’t go into this trying to find an audience of mathematicians or scientists. The first 5 seconds of the video talk about logo design, it’s really hard to miss.
@@WeAreDraper You did great, opinions and different views are what keep things in balance 1 thing the world is badly lacking at this point ✌
there will always be idiots in the world.....no matter how hard you try and shove knowledge down their dry throats.
The rectangles sometimes to a artist the one that fits. So, a illio sketch book can be good,but a half for me of a copy paper is fine 🥴
While there are definitely uses for the Golden Ratio, sometimes other ratios like 1:SQRT2 is more preferable.
forgot you're perfect, git gud
Aesthetically pleasing? Not really.
Mathematically exciting? Hell yeah.
Using it to destroy dimensional barriers with a horse? *NYO HO*
Very nice and well explained. One complaint i have is that your voice have a lot of lisps sound to it, making it very hard to listen to what you're saying at times. I suggest buying a filter of some sort to reduce it. Keep on creating! :)
I guess you could say believing in the Golden Ratio myth is irrational
Haha
Get real :P
I know at least one Italian stand used who would disagree
Brilliant! I suspected as much but couldn't articulate why I felt the GR was BS. You explained it perfectly! Can't wait to share this next time one of my "real smart" design friends tries to impress us uneducated commoners with is superior knowledge.
No. So much stupid in one video. This author does not understand the golden ratio and its history. History is a thing of the past.
@@curvedpapersinc.9586 I'm not following you. What does history say about the GR that sheds different understanding on what this author is saying?
Why not just think of it like a Wilhelm scream of design?