https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOjEXo7Q9LgChange my mind.
that was a pretty nice video. did you make it OP?
you are very silly or very young. Never hear some one so hard whining. Its maybe true that in some instances it has to do with pattern recognition. But try to reverse draw a golden ratio into sth. more complex your self.You young people need to learn the difference between coincidences, and between real patterns.
>>385108I did, thanks a lot sir.
>>385109That's my point. There is no real pattern. You do realize as long as I keep scaling up or down the golden ratio I can fit it into whatever shape I want, right?Also: yes, I'm 22.
>>385111>>385112>>385113A. i have no kids, i am not a boomer. I m not even offended cause you attack artists. Its because you attack with the same strategy, technology. You little math faggs, believe we artists have to be very silly.But what you do at the end of the day? Calculate an linear force witch always pulls towards the center.Actually i enjoy my self being offended ova stupidity so plz go on.
>>385114I'm an Art Director. I have a degree in graphic design, I'm not a mathmatician.
>>385116Ok i never assumed that all artists are smart.
>>385117I have to be honest here brother, I still have no idea what your argument is, but it's ok. Take care alright?
>>385118neither do i --->>>385116
>>385119oh that's easy! Watch my video and actually listen to what I'm saying without assuming I'm a silly kid
>>385120why i need to assume things you want and not assume things i know they are true? the golden ratio is also not my favorite composition i give you this.
>>385122It's got nothing to do with my taste. This is a matter of logic. You can PROVE that the Golden Ratio makes absolutely no sense. People have also tested this with scientific trials and proved that there is no particular preference towards 1.618 as a ratio.
>>385123seems like you are an mathematician after all.
>>385124Using logic and trusting statistics = being a mathematician. You're funny brother, appreciate you. Keep on using the Golden Ratio, take care!
>>385125you assume i use it? i didnt to it ones. (i dislike its form)What will you tell us next? That the Fibonacci sequence didnt accrue naturally in life forms.
>>385126Dude calm down. I don't care if you use it or not. If you believe it's got some value I won't try and persuade you otherwise. That was my take on it.That being said-- The Golden Ratio is sometimes seen in nature, which has nothing to do with design or how pleasing it looks to the eye.
Great video OP. I've been saying this for years now
this is great OP. Nice work!
>>385126Da vinci was a mathematician so my theory would be that he observed fractals that occur in nature and broke them down mathematically, creating the golden ratio. While I don't think its necessary to follow the golden ratio to a t, it is a good example on how to build visual hierarchy. I agree with OPs theory that design teams use it for marketing reasons, one thing i learned from portfolio reviews at school is that employers love to see your work explained through data.
>>385136Appreciate it sir
>>385107Well, that's an opinion.
>>385110Very nice, make more videos.
you are so fucking edgy guys, go on hate the golden ratio he truly earns this
>>385153will do, appreciate you.
>>385154he deserves it.
>>385112perhaps dont scale it up and down and try to fit it into things and use that wackness as evidence.if i take anything in the world and spin it, it makes a circle. So?(by its nature, its an apparatus to produce similar shapes at different scale. i had a prof mention that sensors in ones eyes were arrayed in something of a spiral pattern, his point being that their physical layout corresponded to their function.)relations of areas has been a part of visual design since the beginning.dont 'redpill' yourself out of some interesting potential knowledge.proportion is a real thing. organzation is a real thing. go learn. read a book.
>>385160Well who chooses the scale of the thing I'm making with the golden ratio? Who chooses the scale of my golden ratio palette? I'm taking a set of circles and squares, placing them and intersecting them however I please with absolutely zero rules and something perfectly proportioned is supposed to come out of it. It makes absolutely zero sense from any stand point. Without any rules on how to arrange or intersect the shapes I can produce literally anything.It are you saying there are some rules and people just don't know them?Oh, btw: there has been some scientific research on the topic: they put randomly shapes squares or circles on a canvas and asked people to pick their favourite: turns out people actually don't inherently prefer shapes with 1.618 proportions. So much for reading a book hey?And btw, I have a bachelor's degree in graphic design. I know what the fuck I'm talking about, be less presumptuous my brother.
Very nice video OP, keep it up.
Subscribed. Great vid OP!
>>385107Good one, Tommy. Make more videos exposing impostors in the design world.
>>385174The trial is flawed, how can you test the preference for a ratio by asking to like rectangles? Show them a composition. You need to test in proportion to the whole. Let me give you an example what I mean: I will put some bowls of salty water and ask people which concentration they like best. The results will tell you nothing. Then I will give them soup with different amount of salt in it, and the results will become more telling. Ultimately however, you are testing for preference, there will be a bell curve and no real conclusion to scientific fact in relation to subjective preference
>>385107>>385107based and well evidenced. *tips fedora*i particularly like the point about how design teams ability to sell the concept is a major proponent of why it's perpetuated. I worked in a team where precisely this happened; to justify a design the model was tweaked to more closely resemble the GR even tho evry1 agreed it looked better before LMFAO
>>385201>>385201You really couldn't give them a composition, could you? Because you could easily make stunning compositions without following any pattern at all, and you could make crappy compositions following the golden ratio to the T. If you gave them visual compositions the test would never be unbiased. So they gave people rectangles to choose from: if people really did have a tendency to prefer 1.618 as a proportion it's reasonable to believe it would show-- In a golden ratio rectangle its sides have a ratio of 1.618I totally get your point about the soup, and it makes a lot of sense in that context, but I really don't see how you could test for such a preference in a better way than the most basic you could come up with: a simple shape, isolated.That being said, the point still stands: there are no "rules" on how to combine and intersect shapes with a 1.618 ratio to achieve a "perfectly proportioned composition". People literally throw them together however they feel like and think it makes a difference. As an example: look at the way they achieve leaf shapes or fin shapes (the Apple logo or the whale I showed in my video). The shape you get from intersecting those two circles has literally nothing to do with the ratio of any other shape in the composition.
>>385205This happens all the time: if you've worked in a studio you know how crucial selling your concept is, how everything hinges on the presentation you're going to give. In those situations, anything goes as long as the client agrees and you can move forward.
>>385200Appreciate you sir, I'll do my best
>>385107Does this apply to sacred geometry too?
>>385221I haven't done any research on sacred geometry so I wouldn't feel comfortable saying it does. That being said, they look roughly like the same idea, so I would assume. But I haven't looked into it, so it's just an uninformed opinion. Thanks for the cue tho, I'll look into it
>>385210In the studio I used to work in, in cases where the client wasn't paying a lot of money for the services, we used to reverse engineer any sort of meaning and symbolisms into our logos to sell it to the client. Most of the times it worked like a charm lol
>>385174howdythats mea. im not interested in your video so, aint gonna watchb.i have no clue what you think your questions demonstratec.im not even sure what point youre trying to make in your second sentenced.are there rules? rules for what?e.i am aware of that one study where people didnt pick the ratio'd rectangle. its pretty much one of the first things people bump into they start to ask (newb science). my reaction to that is first - dont ask scientists to settle an aesthetic debate. my second is lol how many non-artists want to look a rectangles? id guess zero. so whatever science. perhaps read more than one book and better books.f. im not surprised to hear you have a degree in graphic design. lots of people have degrees. not a lot of people really explore proportion.g. im not sure you know fuck about fuck.
>>385239That made a lot of sense my friend. You really did change my mind. What you said about scientists and the way you presented your argument was so compelling I almost feel ashamed. I think I'll actually take the video down now... Do you maybe offer any courses or classes on proportions aesthetics and design? You seem to be so knowledgeable in the field that I'd be honored to be your student. Let me know if you do, I really can't wait.Thanks for enlightening me my friend. I'll spread the word. In the meantime I hope I'll be able to see you soon and take in some of the amazingly proportioned work I'm sure you must have created. Love, your soon-to-be student.
>>385240if you can have a sensible dialgoue, im all ears.i told you what doesnt make any sense in your post and i told you that one study which everyone has heard of isnt really relevant as far as im concerned. i could give a fuck about your video.
This was a great video! You make a surprisingly articulate and well constructed argument. Great work man.
>>385243Appreciate it sir! Glad you liked it!
>>385241Oh, I could never compete... I'm here to learn from your extensive knowledge on debates and especially your kind attitude, sir. I wouldn't want to waste any more of your precious time as you've already evidently spent quite a few minutes listening to the points I made in my video on the topic we're discussing. I'm really thankful for that. You've shown such a remarkable ability to focus on the topic being discussed and especially precisely understanding the English language.Please keep in touch. I would especially be interested in those sharp arguments I've seen you make in the past, such as: "a study everyone has heard of isn't really relevant as far as I'm concerned". I'd love to be able to replicate those in the near future.Thanks again for all the time you've invested in your replies.Love, your number 1 fan.
>>385247like i said, not interested in your video.open to dialogue.see ya
>>385248And I'm deeply uninterested in writing down all of the arguments I already made in that video. Either listen to what my arguments are or don't I could give a fcuk big boy. cya.
>>385249but i dont need to.you posted a big picture - which i have responded to.proportion is a fact. how you misunderstand it is not my problem.
>>385250because if you were knowledgable and your video worth watching - you probably wouldnt have posted that clikcbait.
>>385251I totally agree with you.
>>385252whatever clickbait youtube shill poster
>>385254And you know what's even better? You keep bumping this post up. I actually owe you a beer kiddo
>>385255im happy to bump your thread dudei am unhappy that good dialogue does not resultperhaps take your 4chan points hat off and just be a person talking about their experiences with art and practice?
>>385256im off to bedhappy to engage later
>>385256I'm trying really hard. It doesn't sound like you're very interested in talking. I believe in proportions, I believe in a system, in guidelines and grids. I've been a graphic designer for 6 years now. I have a bachelor's degree in graphic design and art direction, my final thesis was a project made in collaboration with Airbnb. I work as a freelancer.I know what I'm talking about if you don't believe I have done my research or I'm not skilled enough to talk about the golden ratio with any sense I can send you some of my work and you can judge by yourself.This has NOTHING to do with me not believing in proportions or "rules" in my design process. I'll give you an example: The Swiss way of making things makes a lot of sense to me, it works and I totally understand it. BUT there are clear rules on how to apply all the tools it gives you. The problem with the Golden Ratio and how people normally use it is that people just combine shapes with no criteria at all: sometimes they intersect, sometimes they overlap... Look at these examples of "Golden Ratio Logos": what's the point of using circles with set proportions if you're just gonna merge them together? The resulting shape has absolutely zero relationship with the golden ratio. And why would you ever build an organic shape from the inside out using a set palette of basic shapes?If you dig into the past you can easily find out that there's absolutely no proven link between the Golden Ratio and art or design. It wasn't born TO design things, it was never used as a guideline by "masters of the fine art", there's no reason why people should prefer an irrational infinite number as a ratio when it comes to proportions.People don't understand they need to PROVE the Golden Ratio actually works as a tool, and not the reverse. As far as I can see it doesn't contribute to virtually ANY quality in your design process, especially because people usually seem to confuse it with Fibonacci's sequence
>>385260thank you.im gonna crash and ill respondfor now: good proportion is real. but it isnt math.
>>385261Thank you my brother, I'm glad we can talk. I'll wait for your complete reply.
>>385107Not sure if you had seen this clip as well but I find that it's relevant to your video. Good Work and am awaiting more videos.https://youtu.be/4h4RNmemzB0?t=3495
I don't know anything about anything, but yeah, nice video.
>>385274First of all-- thanks for the feedback sir. Appreciate you. New video coming soon.I actually hadn't seen this clip. I saw the video in my recommended and thought I'd check it out but this is actually on point! Thanks a lot, I always wondered about his position on the topic!
>>385276You know something about honesty though. Appreciate you.
>>385260Yo ho, argument bro, how's it goin?!?!?!?!I'll probably watch your video later, but for now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoc91Y5bOW0This is Robert Slutsky, painter, did some record covers, and hung out with a lot of architects. At some point in the video he makes a joke about 'finding goldies' - about people digging and digging and always managing to dig up some golden ratio ridiculousness. Thats pretty much my position too. Proportion is a poorly passed on aspect of design - probably as most designers and architects have never really interrogated their own designs, dont necessarily understand their own work and thus dont pass it on well to their students. So, yeah, I think what the majority of people say about the golden ratio is whack, and that the majority of what people do with this kind of thing is whack - so in that I'd guess we agree - however - when i see a phrase like "this ratio is bullshit" its my first reaction really to disagree - not because I'm some Fibonacci bro - because I'm not - but because I found spending time studying the history of proportion valuable to my own work. Ratio (not the golden ratio) is a valuable and broad topic.As to history, most renaissance masters probably did a great deal of study on geometry and solids. Leonardo, Luca Paciolo, Durer. They needed a sense of architectural composition for their paintings, a sense of proportion for making figures not from a model, they had aesthetic debates about what made a figure beautiful, and geometry and proportion connected them to history (Euclid) and to their understanding (faulty as it might be) as to how the divine was in the world - because regular, perfect things were like proof that their ideas were right. Pic related is from Serlio's 16th century book on architecture. Like it or not, there's a 'goldie'. Mastering perspective also made people explore issue of geometry and ratio.Comment reaching character limit
>>385292I think most discussions about proportion are dead ends. But its still very interesting to think about why a Michelangelo looks like a Michelangelo and not a Bernini nor a Borromini. As to your logo pic there - its not that controversial. Twitter pic just says that it appears that the designer might have used a set of circles and grabbed them from such a diagram in order that the circles themselves already had a relationship between them: it adds and underlying coherence and rhythm to things. Seems a bit of lazy design to me and i dont know if its true.Same for Pepsi. For all I know Pepsi is just a some dope doing 'rule of thirds' - just as bad as 'golden ratio' when turned into some sort of rule to follow. The myths behind these are pretty strong and compelling - often because people never take the time to move beyond the myths.Now what pepsi hints at (but im not sure it gets right) is the basic structure of the idea of the golden ratio: divide a line such that the relationship of the smaller part to the larger part is the same as the larger part to the whole. Now thats pretty cool. With one move you have made three things that all have a relationship to one another, one that is the same, that is scaled and harmonic. thats pretty cool. putting a spiral over something is just naive. Making a modular system that can cover a surface properly is dope.pic related is Terragni's Danteum. its pretty dope too.
HereThis is a random picture from the internet. I just found it. googled palladio and diocletion, curious about some Terragni shit.This is a random Palladian window. the culture has proportions in it. some one else did it, that person gets used as a source, emulated, to make something authentic, valid, beautiful.but its just finding ways to make relations between parts.
>>385292Hey brother! How you doing?First of all thanks for the lengthy response-- that's great.I'm happy we were able to find some common ground, and honestly, I think you'd agree with 90% of what I say in my video.As I've said I have nothing against proportion and ratios per see, nor I have something against systems that set guidelines on how things should be in relation with the others: For example, I believe doubling the size of your paragraph to make a heading when designing a Swiss-inspired layout is a pretty sensible rule of thumb people should learn about.I'm mostly concerned about the obsession with these systems and the lack of critical thinking when it comes to using them. Why on earth would 1.618, an infinite number --therefore inherently impossible to visualize with accuracy-- be the perfect ratio? That statement implies that 1.618 is more visually pleasing for most people than 1/2 or 1/4. That seems rather bizarre to me.>most renaissance masters probably did a great deal of study on geometry and solidsTotally agreed. I studied for 6 years at an Italian liberal arts highschool. Trust me-- I know something about the masters and their research. As a quick aside I wanna say that the excerpt you attached from Serlio's book on architecture is actually showing what he calls a shape with "superbipartiens tertias" proportions-- not precisely a "goldie". That is --and I'm translating from Italian here-- "a perfect square, divided into 3 equal parts to which we add 2 of those." That results in a ratio of 1.5 between the "big square" and the "smaller one." Close enough? Sure, I'm nitpicking, but that's kind of my point: Why the obsession with such a specific and weird number (1.618).I attached an image showing you his process: The red square is the square you'd get if you divided square 1 by 1.618 the green one is what you get when following his "superbipartiens tertias" poportion.I'll get to everything else, character limit is killing my vibe so...
>>385304im referring to the rotated diagonal rectangle. I have the english translation laying about some where. i was just pointing out that these things exist in history as part of our practice and were used. popularizers like jay hambidge probably help create much of the confusion and noise, and the rest is made by the careless. you must also have some experience with the disegno / colore debates. it would be interesting to see how much discussion of proportion if any occurs in the disegno camp. Robin evans is a good source for discussion and references.
>>385304>most renaissance masters probably did a great deal of study on geometry and solidsGoing back to this-- Agreed, but if it can be useful to look at those studies it's also equally as useful to spot the bullshit they were caught up in: Serlio was a mannerist-- the term itself has a pejorative tint in the history of arts and design for their obsession with proportions, balance, and ideal beauty, which often resulted in synthetic and artificial-looking compositions and subjects. "mannerist" or "manierista" in Italian literally means "someone that tries to emulate someone else's manners" that "someone else" in this case being High Reinoussance artists.Here's another example that comes to mind: Neoclassical sculptors obsessing over the purity and elegance of their masterpieces, sourcing the cleanest, most refined materials to further emphasize these aspects and refusing to retouch or denaturalize their essence without realizing classical sculptures (greek and roman ones) were actually painted over with bright, saturated colors that simply faded with time. Cue hundreds of delusional artists writing libraries of books and manuals on "the perfection of the past" without realizing they were completely out of line.My point is: people need to chill about these things. These are AT BEST rough guidelines and AT WORST shackles that will only harm your design process. You know what's the best proportion when designing to me? The one that looks the best. And that will inevitably depend on the context, the shapes, the sizes, the intent, the material, the colors and many many more things.(I know we probably agree on this, I said it just to get my point across)(I'll be glad to watch the video you attached while eating, thanks)
>>385305Ah, I see, sorry.Yeah that's also another proportion that LOOKS pretty close, but it isn't really. I recreated it in the jpeg I attached. First on the left is the "diagonal proportion" you're referring to, The second one is, of course, the golden ratio.The ratio of square 1 and the green square in the Diagonal proportion is 2.419.
>>385306irc they put Michelangelo in the mannerist camp. i believe it was not for imitation, but for being oddly mannered, idiosyncratic.i think the actual 'bullshit' people get caught up in is when attempting to theorize or explain past a certain point.i agree: so many things impact a situation and create new relations.but i still love playing with proportions.
>>385308i never use math for proportions.
>>385310only relations of shapesand ideas similar to above: dividing a line such that...
>>385293Final things:>For all I know Pepsi is just a some dope doing 'rule of thirds'Probably. Look at their design manual and the symbolism behind the logo. It's so convoluted and scattered that it's almost funny.>The myths behind these are pretty strong and compellingI make the same point in my video, and I think that's why people keep using it. 90% of the times it helps to sell the design.>putting a spiral over something is just naive. Making a modular system that can cover a surface properly is dope.Totally agreed. But I still have to find an example in which someone used that system in such a way that it respected the essence of the system and its rules (if you overlap geometries in a golden ratio to make organic shapes then why the fuck are you even bothering) AND achieved such a compelling result that it would make the whole process worth it compared to just trusting your basic sense of taste and balance.
>>385312see the terragni plan abovebut - i dont think anyone worth a damn would use this a box to fill in and pretend thats how it was supposed to work, so i think your question is a bit flawed.
ok i started to watch you video - great production, but i had to stop because i dont really like the attitude of 'hey im busting all these lies'. Also, pentagram makes a lot of great work so i would be so quick to 'call them out'. and also - like i said above I think saying "dividing a line such that the ratio of the smaller to the larger is the same as the larger to the whole" is in fact quite simple, quite sensible, and much more useful. the turn to a number is what is more confusing and unnecessary.il go and try to sit through some more.the video looks great, but im finding the delivery and content intellectually grating.
>>385315*i wouldnt be so quick
yeah, i got to about three minutes in and then just poked around.im sure this video will do you good and congratulations for your skill, but i still think it's green, naive.go read about corbu's modulor, go read about equal temperament in musical scales. the problem always comes when giving a shit if things are mathematically precise and not just issues of visual relations and spacing / space making.cheers dialogue bro.
>>385107Great line animations. Did you use After Effects for it? I'll wait for your next one.
>>385260noob herewhat's the swiss way of making things?they use grids based on maths no?
>>385353Broadly speaking it's a very strict, rule-based approach to design: extensive use of grids and guidelines, geometric shapes and typefaces. If you wanna look into it I'd suggest picking up Massimo Vignelli's book (The Vignelli Canon) or just researching someone like Paul Rand and his work. It's one of the most popular and solid approaches to design. It is a bit "old fashioned", but there's still a lot of content around it.
>>385360i think massimo and his contemporaries would say it was simple, not strict. and organized, not rule based.
>>385107I like the sound bleed on your voice or the music. Confirm if its on your voice audio
>>385377I agree with "organized" instead of "rule-based"...I'm sure he wouldn't say "simple" though. His process was extremely extensive and time-consuming. Reading his books you get a clear sense of how serious and "logical" his approach is. Look at his nyc subway work. The result may look "clean" or "minimal", but it's hardly simple.
>>385380>Confirm if its on your voice audioI'm not sure what this means sir. Could you explain it better?
>>385396its a lot pf work to get to simple, but once you got your structure, things can fall into place without inventing the wheel repeatedly every page - that kind of simple. a practical and visual value.ciao
>>385399This kind of simple makes perfect sense. I agree.Ciao!
this gay cunt BTFO your vidhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTH5CQ8oVKA&feature=youtu.be&t=255get bent
>>385794except he blows it from the very beginning>>385768if i had a student dropping spirals on shit id probably smack them
>>385126>What will you tell us next? That the Fibonacci sequence didnt accrue naturally in life forms.random spirals, sure. those are just natural patterns that emerge when things order themselves. 100% that you cannot fit a golden spiral or fibonacci sequence to that image though.
>>386316get over the overlay shitgo find a scientific paper about sunflowers or eyes
>>386317ok here you gohttps://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm
NO ITS NOT OKAY
>>385160>dont scale it up and down
>>386318lol weaklink me a myspace page next time
>open video>chill electronic music>film grain>record noise>close video
>>386330>.eduok you come with a counterargument
>>386350See? I knew my intro was too basic! I'll try harder next time brother. I swear. Thanks tho
>>386380give me something to counter
>>386401what do you think the topic of this thread is, are you genuinely illiterate?
>>386395not him but i saw ur video, your voice needs to be louder, like a lot
>>386452Yeah I agree, I'll mix it louder next time. Thanks for your feedback sir.
>>385107I don't know man.It might be bullshit.It might work the same way KETO works: people don't lose weight because of their carb restriction but because the unknowingly restrict their calories.The Golden Ratio might work in a similar way. Use it as a cheat code
>>386709i would smack you if you brought that into my class>>386435i've been in this thread from the start. your myspace 'academics' don really impress.
>>386709So that would mean people unknowingly pay more attention to proportions and make more balanced compositions not because the ratio works, but just because they believe it does, and so they're more mindful about their choices? That doesn't make that much sense to me tho, because what the golden ratio actually does is restrict you to a single set proportion: 1,618 (and multiples of course). How is that going to be better across the board all the time? Even if it made you more conscious about your proportion choices it would probably just push you to disregard the system and use your judgement...
>>386755i see it just as "a tool" among many.you may use it, you may not, it doesn't really mater, because WHEN you use it you'll be fine
>>386764Yeah but if a tool gives you literally no advantage what's the point of the tool? My point is that the golden ratio is completely useless as a tool, not that it can't be used AS a tool.
>>386795but youre wrong and havent addressed some aspects of how you are wrong listed above
>>386798See the problem is that the discussion became "prove the golden ratio doesn't work". That's not how it works-- I think people forgot they're supposed to prove that it works, not viceversa. For what I can tell, rationally speaking, there's absolutely no reason it should work as a tool.
>>386879still wrong and make no case.
>>385107I guess its over hyped quite a bit,like greek architecture does not follow the golden ratio.And there is no mystical/magical appearance of the ratio in nature either. I think the golden rectangle is appealing to the eye, but its not more magical than other rectangles. But there are shitty rectangles, like if you wanted a rectangles but its not wide enough so people confuse it with a square. There is these "bad spots" that you have to avoid. Think thats more important that thinking you have some magical ratio or something.
Bro I think Joe Scott just stole your videohttps://youtu.be/73xCxHv2sXo
>>386905>no appearance in naturehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhyllotaxisThe Golden ration is real and is important in mathematics. Although I could agree that it's useless in graphics design.
>>387179yeah, proportion has no place in art or designt: math boi
>>385107Explain yourself. I am not going to contribute to someone earning monetization money for saying something THAT stupid.
>>387186First of all to monetize your videos you need to have at least more than 10k views on all your videos combined, there's no ads running on my video cause I can't.Second of all-- sure: let me rewrite my whole script for you , so you can read it honey.
>>385107This video misses the crucial point of the Golden Ratio - it was used by the Renaissance painters and their ilk to illustrate divinity - it doesn't have much to do with aesthetics.
>>387216but your script isnt good, as discussed above without any response
>>385137He wasnt a good mathematician he just used Fibonacci numbers.
very convincing, good job.
>>385107It's just a way to make a layoutIt will fix your shitty design? noIt is the best way to make a layout? no
i dont think its so much that the golden ratio is pretty to look at. it's similar to the rule of thirds. it gives balance to an image.also it's in nature.so from what i could understand from the video your theory is that apple used a random application to the golden ratio.but what you didnt do was fit the whale back into the golden ratio. you just used the shapes from apples logo.now make the whale your youtube logo for memes and get rich
Childhood Is When You Worship Batpighttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yc3r87EFugHappiness Is Chuck X's Face On The $1 Billhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezfy9NZh4akAIR/TREES/WATER/ANIMALS>Bob Kane & Abel
>>388171im sorry, ma'am.youve got the corona