0
   

THOUGHTS FROM CAMP ABOUT THE GOLDEN RATIO,(PHI=1.618)

 
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 05:41 pm
Looking at the neck of my husband's bass. Thinking about the neck of a violin and a cello. Beautiful finials of the golden spiral. I admire Frank Lloyd Wright's rebellion, but I still prefer the architecture of the Greeks.

Ah, well. I live in a rectangular bungalow without many curves, but I love the idea of the Acropolis. Wonder what J.P. Morgan saw in the pyramid?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 05:30 am
The "top" drawers of many Queen Anne to Federal pieces were into classical proportions. You are correct that the top drawers are practically useless. That wasnt the point to them. When you look at many pieces of antique furniture,(with exceptions to the shakers) many pieces were functionally useless. Ablanket chest just lay in the side of a room and you tripped over it.

See, the golden mean was a very important design element until we invented, ta da , THE CLOSET.

Look at the evolution of furniture from William and Mary style to Arts and Crafts. It was mostly basic storage for all kindsof clothing. Since ARt Modern , its been incidental storage (except for that clunky 'revivalist" crap that furniture companies make for decorators market)

I saw a chest of drawers made by a major furniture company and it had all the drawers the same width. It honestly looked shitty, like it was top heavy.
So, theres nothing wrong with aesthetics ruling over utility
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 08:10 am
Well, if you're not concerned about function...

http://deenerbob.com/images/pix/dali.drawers.jpg
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 08:18 am
{cynical, Set; moi?!!!! Shocked }

My best design for a bathroom vanity base cabinet was multifaceted; steping inward down the front, and the left side, with the right side toothing into a lateral set of drawers over a low counter.

[and everything worked!] Cool
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 06:16 pm
sorry to resurrect the dead horse butt ive just finished "The Davinci Code" just to see what the shouting was about. I had to measure the proportions that were mentioned in Davincis anatomy. They are mostly close to the first decimal point but dont accurately describe the 1.618 . I guess Im the only person in this forum whose just read this.
As far as his writing ,ehhh. He telephones his surprises too early. It wasnt waht Id cal a page turner, BUT the Golden ratio (phi) was of passing interest ,
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 06:47 pm
The first book, Angels and Demons, was better and actually had some surprises... well, one or two.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Poo-tee-weet? - Question by boomerang
Let's just rename them "Rapeublicans" - Discussion by DrewDad
Which wood laminate flooring? - Question by Buffalo
Lifesource Water versus a 'salt' system - Discussion by USBound
Rainsoft - Discussion by richb1
Crack in Ceiling - Question by Sam29288349
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 10:19:26