I'm just wondering what the dribbble community sincerely thinks of the golden ratio.
I'd love to hear your opinions. Thanks!
about 1 month ago
I've always regarded it as silly. The fibonacci sequence and its golden ratio is an interesting mathematical phenomenon – nothing more. The argument that incorporating the ratio into visuals should somehow make it more appealing is completely unfounded.
And you can talk about nature all you want, but the fact is that most spirals and other visual delights you may come across in life are based on logarithms or fractal dimensions.
I smile every time I see someone here breaking down their logo to argue their choices based on the golden ratio. It's just stupid.
@Martin Sorensen @Rich Baird Haha, I wonder if there is any designer out there that knows how to use this number 1.61803398875 (golden ratio)
As a designer I work with circles all day but I've used pi only 1 time.
It's probably also worth noting that any good designer will already have a strong natural sense of proportion so there's really no need for it.
@Martin Sorensen +1
@Isaac Grant™ I think it's fun to experiment with, especially to see how perfectly all of the proportions fit together so nicely when you also use circles that use the golden ratio. But, it's definitely not something that should be used religiously.
I agree with @Rich Baird. It could be a good thing to get used to proportions and space measurement for starters. Many times, when I'm just sketching and I get to compare proportions with the Fibonacci's ratio, I got surprised about how similar both of them are.
I just go with a rough 3/4 ratio when I don't want things to be too symmetric.
I have a suspicion that most designers who point out the golden ratio in their designs are doing it more for the client, to give the impression that there's more effort in the design than what's on the surface. This way, the client feels better about what they're getting for the money. I think I'm going to try it sometime.
I'd argue this is a silver ratio, not a gold one. Gray even.
But yeah. Its nothing special. Grids and guides in general must be used sparingly and have a point and a place, as all things in design.
@Anton Kudin It looked better hehe.
@Jason Thornton I think that unless you are dealing with very posh/absurdist clients it's better to rely on good old honesty.
@Martin Silly? Unfounded? Stupid? :)
Please do some good research before making such shallow statements.
Leonardo da Vinci (and others as well) made some amazing studies on the golden ratio in nature, human body and aesthetics and he used it throughout his works.
Here's something beautiful to get those gears turning:
By the way, the Apple logo and products always use it for a good reason. ;)
I don't know if it makes a visual more pleasing to the eye, it may very well be so, but I think that using it to make your work look more intellectual than it actually is, is wrong. Also, I have to second what @Rich Baird said.
@Radu Jianu The thing is that many of us struggle to see how it can be applied outside of spirals and fractals.
@Radu Jianu significant research was done about how it occurs in nature. So do voronoi diagrams, fractals, and various polyhedra. These occur primarily due to the principle of minimum energy. This, in and of itself, does not make something beautiful. In math, prime numbers are a marvelous tool -- this doesn't magically give them some aesthetic advantage. In motion, where you have gravity you'll find parabolas, so when we see something move along a parabolic curve it makes sense to our brains. These are useful tools, but the connection between them and aesthetics isn't obvious or inherent.
@Radu Jianu You should be the last one to talk about turning gears. You'd probably argue that the number of cogs is related proportionally by phi to the validity of the video. But as much as I'd love to blow you and your ridiculous quasi-pseudoscientific beliefs into the ground, I'd rather comment on the video, which is essentially nothing but a aesthetically pleasing symphony of catastrophic fallacy.
1. The Nautilus shell portrays a logarithmic spiral. It has nothing to do with fibonacci.
2. The mathematical phenomenon I am well acquainted with. However, it is completely irrelevant, as it is a theoretical approach of irrational values and thus cannot be portrayed precisely in a world of single units.
3. The sunflower does indeed show patterns of the fibonacci sequence, but so would I if I were to arrange slices of pepperoni on a pizza. So, what about the parabolic spiral? The use of any arbitrary constant angle would show results similar to the sunflower's arrangement. It's a one-time compliance.
4. The transition from sunflower to insect wings boggles my mind. I cannot in my wildest dreams come up with a theoretical argument as to why those two should be connected. In this part of the video, they should be talking about Delaunay triangulation and Voronoi diagrams.
What's your point here? That there is a god with mathematical acuity? No, all of these 'observations of the golden mean' are either wishful thinking or simply approximate and rather inaccurate manifestations of natural phenomena such as minimum energy folds. How about you step off the new-age bullcrap train and think for yourself for once, not jumping to conclusions every time some idiot puts together a video which, as it's only raw attribute, happens to look nice.
Nobody uses it for a good reason. They're blinded by their belief in the unverifiable. So yes, it is silly, unfounded and stupid, and it's bordering on pseudoscience. I hope my comment made you realize that.
@Martin Sorensen Wow, so aggressive! You are too offensive and I won't waste my time any further in having a showdown with you and I hope that maybe you will understand someday.
And I find it rather strange that you came up with the new-age card out of nowhere since my arguments didn't have anything to do with that. I think that you just use it to discredit people that don't agree with you and this is low.
Our conversation ends here.
My 2 cents is that despite it showing up in nature all the time, I don't really think 1.618.../1 is any more beautiful than 1.5/1 or 1.75/1
It's just a mathematical curiosity, not a recipe for great design in my eyes.
@Moran Goldstein Great explanation!
@Isaac Grant™ Thanks :)
But @Martin Sorensen really knocked it out of the park. Really thorough and informed.
@Moran Goldstein Too aggressive for my taste.
@Radu Jianu is just stating his opinion which you may like or dislike.
@Isaac Grant™ He called me uninformed, shallow and said my gears needed turning. It was an insult, and I reserved the right to reciprocate.
I consider myself a nice guy, but I don't tolerate being talked down to. If you do it, expect a backfire in accordance with the 'Golden' Rule ;).
@Martin Sorensen Ok, I guess that kindof makes sense :)
keyboard shortcuts: ← previous shot → next shot L or F like
Show and tell for designers
What are you working on? Dribbble is a community of designers sharing screenshots of their work, process, and projects.
Copyright © 2009–2013 Dribbble LLC. All screenshots © their respective owners. Shipped from Salem, Mass. USA.
Follow Dribbble on Twitter