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
@@An_odd_X 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
@@WeAreDraper th-cam.com/video/UvSdOadOjYs/w-d-xo.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.
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
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.
Your body doesn't actually have it though. Firstly it's mathematically impossible since the ratio is an irrational number 😅 Secondly, all those statements about the body having the golden ratio are forced and exaggerated. People's bodies come in varieties of shapes and proportions 😂😂. You will never actually get the golden ratio from measuring yourself
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 TH-cam 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 TH-cam 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 TH-camr whatever it takes, I want to have a successful TH-cam 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.
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.
@@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.
Golden-ratio-myth pushers are the same as wine aficionados: when faced with double-blind tests, they can't tell the difference between good, expensive wine and cheap boxed supermarket wines. The labels are more important than anything else. Same with most "gourmands."
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.
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.
@@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, ... ]
It's not bullshit. You can see from numberphile videos that it's seemingly the most irrational number. You can feel it when you see the proper golden ratio sqaures. But I think that's why the normal 11235 squares are so much nicer to look at. You're effectively seeing a sequence tend towards chaos. And see, even that sentence, watching a sequence tend towards chaos is inherently satisfying. And that's why the golden ratio is special. It's relative to order. To just think of a piece of art as doing what you want with as many different sized golden ratios as you want is stupid. Because there are higher levels of thinking. Consider the ratio of space in a logo or something that doesn't follow the golden ratio vs the parts that do. You've got another opportunity for the ratio. And it's this complexity, that allows people to make all kinds of different forms of art. That can be massively different and still beautiful. There are many special ratios. And our feelings relate to the art we see, which can include a lot more than simple spirals. Life isn't simple, so where and what actually makes something complex and beautiful. It's not going to be obvious is it.
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
Finally, that's exactly what I think, as an artist I feel like now a days golden ratio is seem as a magic powder that makes any work turn good, it's always so pretentious and obviously a stretch, as you said: a good design with a reversed engineered radio glued on it for marketing, for God's sake 90% of the time the lines don't even match
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.
@@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 ✌🏻
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Bullshit is in FACT A great representation of the golden ratio as it is a spiral. It is a part of nature and it does, in fact, fit the equation. And if you take the golden ratio out of the title of this video, then the title is perfect.
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👌🏻
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 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.
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
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 th-cam.com/video/c8ccsE_IumM/w-d-xo.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
Interesting... Just because you think the Golden Ratio is nothing special doesn’t mean it is bullshit. That’s an opinion you can have, but you sound like somebody of the flat earth ilk. The Golden Ratio is what it is, can’t be denied, and presents itself in nature. Don’t get me wrong, we humans love a bit of purpose and confirmation bias and so will look for patterns and alignment in things which may be by design or coincidence. But, the Golden Rectangles, Golden Spiral, and Golden Circles are aesthetically pleasing and do generally produce nicely balanced results. It’s also true that if you use enough of them together you can approximate anything, but by then you are missing the point. Their use isn’t mandated, and nothing states that they must be rigidly adhered to when designing a logo or something. They can serve as just a guide. Same when framing a photo. Does a photo look better with a horizon in the middle and a tree centred on the horizon, or does it look better with the horizon a Golden Radio up the screen and a tree a Golden Ratio off to the left or right? I’d argue that the latter would be more aesthetically pleasing, but that is just my opinion because there is otherwise nothing “special”about that photo. But, it’s not a bullshit photo because of it. Take the rectangles you drew. Sure, why is one divine over the others? It’s not, it’s just one example of a rectangle with sides of a specific ratio that just happens to be the Golden Ratio. It’s not pretending to do or be anything else, it just is what it is. The fact is that, that ratio manifests itself all over in nature and because we are creatures that crave patterns and meaning, THAT is why people use the Golden Ratio in areas of design. Not because it’s divine, but because it just is what it is, easy to describe and beautiful in nature. If that’s bullshit to you, fair enough, but then so must be shapes like spheres and circles because those exist in nature too and therefore aren’t anything special either.
This argument has nothing to do with the fact that the golden ratio can be found in nature and everything to do with the fact that there is no reliable data to support that the golden ratio leads to results that are somehow more aesthetically pleasing. This was tested btw. The fact that you can find this pattern in nature doesn't make it necessarily more pleasing. I would argue that, most of the times, nature is what people try and stray away from as it is so chaotic and unorganized. I've said this many times in various comments: the fallacy here is that people expect me, or others that agree with me, to prove a negative, to prove that the golden ratio doesn't work as a design tool. But that's not how it works. You can't prove a negative and I haven't found anyone able to come up with sensible reasons as to why the golden ratio is supposed to be a useful tool in my process. Its impact in the history of art is more than questionable, the few researches made around the topic seem to disprove any benefit and logically it makes no sense as it seems that people believe that however you smash golden shapes together the final result will be better. Furthermore, the internet is filled with examples of how the golden ratio was used to create layouts and compositions in a completely random, imprecise and half-assed way. I wanna make clear that I'm not making any comments about its existence, its actual presence in nature and the real world or its mathematical quirks. I'm simply arguing it shouldn't be used as a design tool.
@@WeAreDraper An excellent response, thank you. So to your last argument, that it shouldn’t be used as a design tool...if that’s the crux of it, I’d love to know why it shouldn’t be used. It’s like the rule of thirds in photography. Plenty of people adhere to it, and broadly agree that it draws the eyes into the composition and gives it more interest than something just placed in the centre. Whether this is true or not, it’s as valid as using the golden ratio or any other design technique developed to give meaning and purpose to something. You won’t find “data” confirming things are objectively better/more pleasing when the golden ratio is adhered to because design and art is subjective at best and very personal. Just like people don’t look at flowers or shells or galaxies and think they are more pleasing because of it. In nature they just are what they are. I totally agree with you - its use does not automatically mean something will look more pleasing. But, it comes back to association and humans giving purpose to things. Sure, a bit of randomness and chaos is great, but that’s just a design choice as well. However, when somebody does use the golden ratio for something, they are giving it some purpose and a reason for that “thing” being in a particular proportion. People in the future will see it and make that association with the golden ratio and so that reinforces the cycle and attraction to said ratio. So, whether it makes things look more aesthetically pleasing or not is largely irrelevant, but saying it should not be used in design is absurd to me. Thank you again though, it’s a good debate and that’s a rare thing these days!
I probably shouldn't have phrased it that way. "Shouldn't be used" sounds more like a prescription than anything else. A better way to say it would be: "it doesn't give you any advantage" or "it's not particularly useful." I understand what you mean when you say that by using it you give it some purpose and reinforce the link between that ratio and its aesthetical traits. I see how that can lead to recognizable features that, in years of iteration, might be percieved as "pleasing", but that's an argument you could make about anything. It's pretty much established that with enough time and repetition even things that people hate at first will end up being accepted and maybe praised. You can build a myth around pretty much anything and convince enough people of it, but that's kind of my point: it's just a myth. The golden ratio occurs in nature the same way linear or exponential growth do, the same way randomness and order do. But the argument being made by people who believe in it is that it's better, it's "devine" not that it's just another ratio. And that is supposed to be an inherent feature exclusive to 1.618, not derived by the myth that surrounds it. That is what sounds just ridiculous to me. That being said-- I know it's hard to produce data on "beauty", there's many variables to control for and most of the times it's actually pretty pointless, but I would argue in this case, given the premises of the argument, it would be pretty simple to confirm. And it seems to me that it never was. Which doesn't surprise me cause you clearly can't just throw shapes together form a palette of fixed proportions and end up with something amazing despite all the other variables. Appreciate the talk sir, this is why I make my videos so I have to thank you for the time.
This is an oversimplification of a mathematical concept - as others have pointed out, the golden ratio produces a geometric pattern that can be continued indefinitely, while optimizing the distribution of graphical elements. It's also found in nature, as this property provides a certain degree of geometric stability. To suggest that the golden ratio isn't significant is like saying the fact that all angles in a triangle adding up to 180° isn't significant. It's just a geometric pattern, but it is a beautiful concept.
Cool. Many concepts in mathematics, geometry, economics, physics, chemistry are beautiful. No one is arguing that. I don’t see how that would have anything to do with the golden ratio being readily identified as something pleasing to the eye when it comes after smashing together shapes in that ratio with no rules or patterns. I’m talking from the perspective purely of a graphic designer who’s interested in design. I have no objections about its mathematical or geometrical properties or it being found in nature as I’ve pointed out countless times.
It's a fantastic description of how all things grow; from themselves and then upon themselves. Some things are lost on the squares, pun intended. Fun fact; we wouldn't have nearly the amount of computing power without the fibbonaci sequence as compression utilizes the same algorithms. Mendlebrot who worked at IBM proves this.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.😂
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.
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.
Rather be upset about the weakness of people to beg to be told what's right than about a healthy observation about natural harmony. If anything, we strive to bend and even break harmony in art in order to express ourselves artistically and it's helpful to know the "mean" from which to bend from. That's all it is. It's not "bullshit". that's just a childish tantrum, thinking you had to throw one in order to break free. You are free and you need not fight against something useful for the sake of detaching yourself from "a law". Be free, be creative and get wiser! ;)
Resistance is needed in order to strengthen concepts as the other side resists by finding stronger/more convincing proofs. Cognitive bias is also a concept. It's all good. Concepts are just concepts when there are two teams fighting like that. The message is often lost or maybe delivered to who was supposed to receive it. If you don't get it, you don't get it.
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.
Thanks for your effort, You are right in most of the video, but just to clear up the point at 1:57 : If you want to have the right proportions of the square, you have to divide on 1.6180339887... and more you take numbers after the dot more you will get closer to the right square. So the real golden ratio value is not 1.618, the real one is where you take as many numbers after the dot as possible. Hope this will benefit someone. Peace.
Absolutely. I stopped at 3 decimals because there’s a real chance the software itself probably disregards such small quantities. Also: the density of the pixels on your screen is the bottleneck for the level of detail you can resolve. I’m pretty sure after the 3rd or 4th decimal whatever difference there might be wouldn’t even show up on your monitor, let alone be distinguished by your naked eye. But yeah, absolutely, technically speaking you’re 100% right.
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".
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 👍
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.
‘Man ignores centuries of wisdom and observable natural law to generate clicks’. The significance of the golden ratio is how it creates unity between the parts and the whole. I defy anyone not marvel at it after reading Scott Olsen’s little book ‘The Golden Section - Nature’s Greatest Secret’ - and learning how this mathematically beautiful ratio can be found not just in 2D design but also in the rotational positioning of leaves on a stem and the most efficient packing of seeds in the head of a sunflower, not to mention also music and 3D forms. Anyway, this was a stylishly edited video so for that at least I applaud you.
Why would being present in nature be a synonym for beautiful or pleasing to the eye? There’s many many things present in nature that I can assure you are not pleasing nor beautiful. I don’t understand the reasoning behind: “well it’s a pattern found in leaves so it MUST be beautiful”
In my opinion, those elements of nature that are widely considered to be pleasing or beautiful do often exhibit Fibonacci numbers or golden section proportions or - to me the most fascinating - the golden angle. And the cool thing about the Fibonacci sequence is that it starts as an approximation to the golden ratio but steadily and definitively tends towards ‘phi’ like a diminishing sinewave eventually flattening out to the mid point. And while there is always room for arguing that beauty is in the eye of the beholder (which I believe is effectively what you are saying when you question that my perception of natural beauty in the golden section is objectively beautiful) my response would be this: the golden section is mathematically beautiful because it builds an inherent unity into the parts that make up the whole. And - in my opinion - unity of intent is a key tenet of good design. My training is in architecture not graphic design so I accept this may not all translate to a different medium. But buildings tend to look ugly when a window or gable or column is randomly placed, with little sense of context or connection to the whole composition. Arbitrary choices are not (usually) consistent with good design. But when the continuous ratio of the golden section is applied, it creates a relation between - for example - the short side of a window to the long side of the window, which in turn relates to the whole, and which in turn may relate to the proportion of the whole storey, and so on. And while many of the general population may not know the mathematics behind this, it has for centuries held true that many people simply ‘appreciate’ classical architecture, and other arts that draw heavily on these principles.
This isn't that impressive on its own. Until you realise that this ratio is the key to everything from encrypting computer data, to the numbers of spirals on a sunflower head, our own limbs and why the Mona Lisa is so pleasing to the eye. Some have argued that because the sequence seems to grow in an 'organic' way, the golden ratio may play a part in nature. The ratio of 1.618 has already been found externally all over the human body. It usually marks the proportion of your hand to your forearm as well as the distance between your three knuckles on each finger. The spiral numbers in a sunflower will always total a Fibonacci number, while dividing those pointing right and left will give you two consecutive Fibonacci numbers linked by the ratio 1.68. These spiral patterns are also found in pineapples, cauliflowers and pine cones.
Dude, you're not listening. I'm NOT arguing that the golden ratio doesn't exist or isn't found in nature, that's beyond my understanding and doesn't concern me. I'm simply saying, AND I CLEARLY STATED THAT IN THE VIDEO TOO, that there's no evidence it is a useful tool in the world of ART and DESIGN. That's it.
@@WeAreDraper I find it fascinating how people get so worked up and defensive about the golden ratio, like you are insulting them or something!! Your video is clearly about design, I got that without issues. Some other commentators here seem to have a harder time grasping that though!
A fibonacci spiral is an approximation of a golden spiral - but close enough to be pleasing to the eye. If you want to know the truth, test a load of people and see what ratios of rectangles they prefer. It's not bullshit, just people don't use the correct terms.
Very well put, I've seen videos of people putting golden spirals over works of art, and it always just looks and seems so subjective and silly (to put it nicely). I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so😁
Man, I thought I was the only one thinking this exactly. As a teacher it's difficult not to cringe every time I have students trying to write essays on how this ratio is used in art and how it is the "quintessence of beauty and proportion" and blablabla. Pure kumbaya bs.
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
@@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
"Good taste" as defined by whom? Is subjectivity really the objective standard? Kinda like "the only absolute is that everything (else) is relative. It falls on its own sword.
The example of the golden rectangle used shows a basic misunderstanding of what the golden ratio is. The Golden Ratio (Phi) is a limit defined by the Fibonacci sequence. The higher any two consecutive numbers you choose in the sequence, the clsoer you will come to the golden ratio, but it will never actually reach the actual irrational value. So saying the squares making up the golden rectangle aren't accurate is a pointless exercise, because it's actually impossible to produce exact measurements on paper. Anything we try to put on paper will be an approximation to some degree.
That’s true, I probably wasn’t very clear on what the Fibonacci sequence is. However in my example I’m simply trying to show how the most popular way of building a golden ratio “palette” is wildly inaccurate if 1.618 is the ratio you’re aiming for. Like you said, since it’s a limit the gap will tend to close and by the end you’ll have shapes that are quite close to 1.618 in relationships with each other, but if you stick to that method you’ll probably build something off by quite a margin.
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
th-cam.com/video/WxYH5CXbpYA/w-d-xo.html
faketh-cam.com/video/WxYH5CXbpYA/w-d-xo.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?
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 th-cam.com/video/WxYH5CXbpYA/w-d-xo.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
jojo fans: you've just made an enemy for life
Not really. Araki can also be wrong sometimes.
@@An_odd_X 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.
@@s21102 that's what i said, that the only real golden rectangles in jojo's are the ones found in nature
@@An_odd_X 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.
Bingo. This guy try to unjustify a reality by using a human naiveness. That's stupid and ironic.
You dare say bullsh*t to Gyro's teachings?
-crippled jockey
Gyro Zeppeli did not like this
*sad spin noises*
This video makes me angry
Ok please, someone explain
@@WeAreDraper th-cam.com/video/UvSdOadOjYs/w-d-xo.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
Zeppeli family wants to know your location
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
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...
@Ram Armendariz it pretty much does
Your body doesn't actually have it though. Firstly it's mathematically impossible since the ratio is an irrational number 😅
Secondly, all those statements about the body having the golden ratio are forced and exaggerated. People's bodies come in varieties of shapes and proportions 😂😂. You will never actually get the golden ratio from measuring yourself
Clueless superstitious comment; you have no idea what pattern recognition is or how it works
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.
Gyro Zeppeli had never seen such bullshit before
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 TH-cam 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 TH-cam 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 TH-camr whatever it takes, I want to have a successful TH-cam 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 and Johnny: That's sad, but understandable.
Title is misleading dude... that's not good...
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.
Yeah tell that to Gyro 😒
Golden-ratio-myth pushers are the same as wine aficionados: when faced with double-blind tests, they can't tell the difference between good, expensive wine and cheap boxed supermarket wines. The labels are more important than anything else. Same with most "gourmands."
Gyro be like: Someone's going to die tonight
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.
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 !
It's not bullshit. You can see from numberphile videos that it's seemingly the most irrational number. You can feel it when you see the proper golden ratio sqaures. But I think that's why the normal 11235 squares are so much nicer to look at. You're effectively seeing a sequence tend towards chaos. And see, even that sentence, watching a sequence tend towards chaos is inherently satisfying. And that's why the golden ratio is special. It's relative to order. To just think of a piece of art as doing what you want with as many different sized golden ratios as you want is stupid. Because there are higher levels of thinking. Consider the ratio of space in a logo or something that doesn't follow the golden ratio vs the parts that do. You've got another opportunity for the ratio. And it's this complexity, that allows people to make all kinds of different forms of art. That can be massively different and still beautiful. There are many special ratios. And our feelings relate to the art we see, which can include a lot more than simple spirals. Life isn't simple, so where and what actually makes something complex and beautiful. It's not going to be obvious is it.
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
Finally, that's exactly what I think, as an artist I feel like now a days golden ratio is seem as a magic powder that makes any work turn good, it's always so pretentious and obviously a stretch, as you said: a good design with a reversed engineered radio glued on it for marketing, for God's sake 90% of the time the lines don't even match
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 😮😅😂
Gyro: *_What the fuck did you say about my golden ratio?_*
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
It's just a Jojo refrence
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
The golden ratio is the most irrational number of all the irrational numbers.
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
Why not just think of it like a Wilhelm scream of design?
Valentine agree's with this one
bro did 5 minutes of golden ratio research on google and then made this video
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
How do you explain it getting through Lovetrain
Golden spiral is a wave that has no ending its infinite. Love train can't hold back the infinite power and that's how Jhonny defeated Valentine.
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.
Bullshit is in FACT A great representation of the golden ratio as it is a spiral. It is a part of nature and it does, in fact, fit the equation. And if you take the golden ratio out of the title of this video, then the title is perfect.
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👌🏻
Your computer doesn't line up the squares because it's an irrational number and you're using one decimal.
you talk big for a guy who hasn’t felt the infinite rotation
Pov: you just got defeated by Johnny
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 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.
Gyro Zeppeli would like to have a talk with you
this is called the perfect rotation. the energy that it makes saved johnny joestar. this is the energy of the golden rectangle
I came for the JoJo’s comments and was not disappointed
There’s no coincidence
-master oogway
"there are no accidents!"*
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
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
th-cam.com/video/c8ccsE_IumM/w-d-xo.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
This dude:golden ratio bullshit
Me: LESSON 5 WA KONO TAMENI
Interesting...
Just because you think the Golden Ratio is nothing special doesn’t mean it is bullshit. That’s an opinion you can have, but you sound like somebody of the flat earth ilk. The Golden Ratio is what it is, can’t be denied, and presents itself in nature. Don’t get me wrong, we humans love a bit of purpose and confirmation bias and so will look for patterns and alignment in things which may be by design or coincidence. But, the Golden Rectangles, Golden Spiral, and Golden Circles are aesthetically pleasing and do generally produce nicely balanced results. It’s also true that if you use enough of them together you can approximate anything, but by then you are missing the point. Their use isn’t mandated, and nothing states that they must be rigidly adhered to when designing a logo or something. They can serve as just a guide. Same when framing a photo. Does a photo look better with a horizon in the middle and a tree centred on the horizon, or does it look better with the horizon a Golden Radio up the screen and a tree a Golden Ratio off to the left or right? I’d argue that the latter would be more aesthetically pleasing, but that is just my opinion because there is otherwise nothing “special”about that photo. But, it’s not a bullshit photo because of it.
Take the rectangles you drew. Sure, why is one divine over the others? It’s not, it’s just one example of a rectangle with sides of a specific ratio that just happens to be the Golden Ratio. It’s not pretending to do or be anything else, it just is what it is. The fact is that, that ratio manifests itself all over in nature and because we are creatures that crave patterns and meaning, THAT is why people use the Golden Ratio in areas of design. Not because it’s divine, but because it just is what it is, easy to describe and beautiful in nature. If that’s bullshit to you, fair enough, but then so must be shapes like spheres and circles because those exist in nature too and therefore aren’t anything special either.
This argument has nothing to do with the fact that the golden ratio can be found in nature and everything to do with the fact that there is no reliable data to support that the golden ratio leads to results that are somehow more aesthetically pleasing. This was tested btw. The fact that you can find this pattern in nature doesn't make it necessarily more pleasing. I would argue that, most of the times, nature is what people try and stray away from as it is so chaotic and unorganized. I've said this many times in various comments: the fallacy here is that people expect me, or others that agree with me, to prove a negative, to prove that the golden ratio doesn't work as a design tool. But that's not how it works. You can't prove a negative and I haven't found anyone able to come up with sensible reasons as to why the golden ratio is supposed to be a useful tool in my process. Its impact in the history of art is more than questionable, the few researches made around the topic seem to disprove any benefit and logically it makes no sense as it seems that people believe that however you smash golden shapes together the final result will be better. Furthermore, the internet is filled with examples of how the golden ratio was used to create layouts and compositions in a completely random, imprecise and half-assed way. I wanna make clear that I'm not making any comments about its existence, its actual presence in nature and the real world or its mathematical quirks. I'm simply arguing it shouldn't be used as a design tool.
@@WeAreDraper An excellent response, thank you. So to your last argument, that it shouldn’t be used as a design tool...if that’s the crux of it, I’d love to know why it shouldn’t be used. It’s like the rule of thirds in photography. Plenty of people adhere to it, and broadly agree that it draws the eyes into the composition and gives it more interest than something just placed in the centre. Whether this is true or not, it’s as valid as using the golden ratio or any other design technique developed to give meaning and purpose to something.
You won’t find “data” confirming things are objectively better/more pleasing when the golden ratio is adhered to because design and art is subjective at best and very personal. Just like people don’t look at flowers or shells or galaxies and think they are more pleasing because of it. In nature they just are what they are. I totally agree with you - its use does not automatically mean something will look more pleasing. But, it comes back to association and humans giving purpose to things. Sure, a bit of randomness and chaos is great, but that’s just a design choice as well. However, when somebody does use the golden ratio for something, they are giving it some purpose and a reason for that “thing” being in a particular proportion. People in the future will see it and make that association with the golden ratio and so that reinforces the cycle and attraction to said ratio.
So, whether it makes things look more aesthetically pleasing or not is largely irrelevant, but saying it should not be used in design is absurd to me. Thank you again though, it’s a good debate and that’s a rare thing these days!
I probably shouldn't have phrased it that way. "Shouldn't be used" sounds more like a prescription than anything else. A better way to say it would be: "it doesn't give you any advantage" or "it's not particularly useful."
I understand what you mean when you say that by using it you give it some purpose and reinforce the link between that ratio and its aesthetical traits. I see how that can lead to recognizable features that, in years of iteration, might be percieved as "pleasing", but that's an argument you could make about anything. It's pretty much established that with enough time and repetition even things that people hate at first will end up being accepted and maybe praised. You can build a myth around pretty much anything and convince enough people of it, but that's kind of my point: it's just a myth.
The golden ratio occurs in nature the same way linear or exponential growth do, the same way randomness and order do. But the argument being made by people who believe in it is that it's better, it's "devine" not that it's just another ratio. And that is supposed to be an inherent feature exclusive to 1.618, not derived by the myth that surrounds it. That is what sounds just ridiculous to me.
That being said-- I know it's hard to produce data on "beauty", there's many variables to control for and most of the times it's actually pretty pointless, but I would argue in this case, given the premises of the argument, it would be pretty simple to confirm. And it seems to me that it never was. Which doesn't surprise me cause you clearly can't just throw shapes together form a palette of fixed proportions and end up with something amazing despite all the other variables.
Appreciate the talk sir, this is why I make my videos so I have to thank you for the time.
Maybe he just wants to grab attention with this video
Well I certainly didn’t make it for people to ignore it, what do you think?
Johnny and Gyro would disagree
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.
@@dragonwarriorz1 username checks out lmfao
I mean we did see a guy use this to beat the president
This is an oversimplification of a mathematical concept - as others have pointed out, the golden ratio produces a geometric pattern that can be continued indefinitely, while optimizing the distribution of graphical elements. It's also found in nature, as this property provides a certain degree of geometric stability.
To suggest that the golden ratio isn't significant is like saying the fact that all angles in a triangle adding up to 180° isn't significant. It's just a geometric pattern, but it is a beautiful concept.
Cool. Many concepts in mathematics, geometry, economics, physics, chemistry are beautiful. No one is arguing that.
I don’t see how that would have anything to do with the golden ratio being readily identified as something pleasing to the eye when it comes after smashing together shapes in that ratio with no rules or patterns.
I’m talking from the perspective purely of a graphic designer who’s interested in design. I have no objections about its mathematical or geometrical properties or it being found in nature as I’ve pointed out countless times.
It's a fantastic description of how all things grow; from themselves and then upon themselves. Some things are lost on the squares, pun intended. Fun fact; we wouldn't have nearly the amount of computing power without the fibbonaci sequence as compression utilizes the same algorithms. Mendlebrot who worked at IBM proves this.
It makes art look dead ironically
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.
Nah bro it ain't bs, I developed a stand, trust me
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.
I mean, I picked 4 because it seemed the most correctly proportioned rectangle
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
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.
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...
No wonder you have less than 2k subscribers
Hey Aron! We do, how about you?
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
y=1/x when x=phi and y becomes phi+1 it's pretty amazing to me.
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.
I know at least one Italian stand used who would disagree
johnny joestar is punching the air rn
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.
Rather be upset about the weakness of people to beg to be told what's right than about a healthy observation about natural harmony. If anything, we strive to bend and even break harmony in art in order to express ourselves artistically and it's helpful to know the "mean" from which to bend from. That's all it is. It's not "bullshit". that's just a childish tantrum, thinking you had to throw one in order to break free. You are free and you need not fight against something useful for the sake of detaching yourself from "a law". Be free, be creative and get wiser! ;)
Resistance is needed in order to strengthen concepts as the other side resists by finding stronger/more convincing proofs. Cognitive bias is also a concept. It's all good. Concepts are just concepts when there are two teams fighting like that. The message is often lost or maybe delivered to who was supposed to receive it. If you don't get it, you don't get it.
Next you’ll tell me I can’t use a horse to channel the golden ratio into my fingernails
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
Rectangle?
*More like golden ratio.*
Thanks for your effort, You are right in most of the video, but just to clear up the point at 1:57 :
If you want to have the right proportions of the square, you have to divide on 1.6180339887... and more you take numbers after the dot more you will get closer to the right square.
So the real golden ratio value is not 1.618, the real one is where you take as many numbers after the dot as possible.
Hope this will benefit someone.
Peace.
Absolutely. I stopped at 3 decimals because there’s a real chance the software itself probably disregards such small quantities. Also: the density of the pixels on your screen is the bottleneck for the level of detail you can resolve. I’m pretty sure after the 3rd or 4th decimal whatever difference there might be wouldn’t even show up on your monitor, let alone be distinguished by your naked eye. But yeah, absolutely, technically speaking you’re 100% right.
LISTEN HERE YOU PIECE OF...
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".
Jojo fans are pissed
The Golden Ratio is totally irrational. But calling it bullsh*t is just extreme and mean.
???
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🙏🏻
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.
‘Man ignores centuries of wisdom and observable natural law to generate clicks’. The significance of the golden ratio is how it creates unity between the parts and the whole. I defy anyone not marvel at it after reading Scott Olsen’s little book ‘The Golden Section - Nature’s Greatest Secret’ - and learning how this mathematically beautiful ratio can be found not just in 2D design but also in the rotational positioning of leaves on a stem and the most efficient packing of seeds in the head of a sunflower, not to mention also music and 3D forms. Anyway, this was a stylishly edited video so for that at least I applaud you.
Why would being present in nature be a synonym for beautiful or pleasing to the eye? There’s many many things present in nature that I can assure you are not pleasing nor beautiful. I don’t understand the reasoning behind: “well it’s a pattern found in leaves so it MUST be beautiful”
In my opinion, those elements of nature that are widely considered to be pleasing or beautiful do often exhibit Fibonacci numbers or golden section proportions or - to me the most fascinating - the golden angle. And the cool thing about the Fibonacci sequence is that it starts as an approximation to the golden ratio but steadily and definitively tends towards ‘phi’ like a diminishing sinewave eventually flattening out to the mid point. And while there is always room for arguing that beauty is in the eye of the beholder (which I believe is effectively what you are saying when you question that my perception of natural beauty in the golden section is objectively beautiful) my response would be this: the golden section is mathematically beautiful because it builds an inherent unity into the parts that make up the whole. And - in my opinion - unity of intent is a key tenet of good design. My training is in architecture not graphic design so I accept this may not all translate to a different medium. But buildings tend to look ugly when a window or gable or column is randomly placed, with little sense of context or connection to the whole composition. Arbitrary choices are not (usually) consistent with good design. But when the continuous ratio of the golden section is applied, it creates a relation between - for example - the short side of a window to the long side of the window, which in turn relates to the whole, and which in turn may relate to the proportion of the whole storey, and so on. And while many of the general population may not know the mathematics behind this, it has for centuries held true that many people simply ‘appreciate’ classical architecture, and other arts that draw heavily on these principles.
This isn't that impressive on its own. Until you realise that this ratio is the key to everything from encrypting computer data, to the numbers of spirals on a sunflower head, our own limbs and why the Mona Lisa is so pleasing to the eye.
Some have argued that because the sequence seems to grow in an 'organic' way, the golden ratio may play a part in nature.
The ratio of 1.618 has already been found externally all over the human body. It usually marks the proportion of your hand to your forearm as well as the distance between your three knuckles on each finger.
The spiral numbers in a sunflower will always total a Fibonacci number, while dividing those pointing right and left will give you two consecutive Fibonacci numbers linked by the ratio 1.68. These spiral patterns are also found in pineapples, cauliflowers and pine cones.
Dude, you're not listening. I'm NOT arguing that the golden ratio doesn't exist or isn't found in nature, that's beyond my understanding and doesn't concern me. I'm simply saying, AND I CLEARLY STATED THAT IN THE VIDEO TOO, that there's no evidence it is a useful tool in the world of ART and DESIGN. That's it.
@@WeAreDraper you applied it formula wrongly and then called it Bullshit
Monalisa painting is shit to be honest
@@WeAreDraper I find it fascinating how people get so worked up and defensive about the golden ratio, like you are insulting them or something!! Your video is clearly about design, I got that without issues. Some other commentators here seem to have a harder time grasping that though!
Finally someone who isn't trying to turn the golden ratio into a religion holy shit
The soul of concept is missing !!! Poor guy.
april fool
A fibonacci spiral is an approximation of a golden spiral - but close enough to be pleasing to the eye. If you want to know the truth, test a load of people and see what ratios of rectangles they prefer. It's not bullshit, just people don't use the correct terms.
They did test that. No significant preference was detected.
Fibonacci sequence and the laws of the universe cannot be B.S.!
Thank you !!!
forgot you're perfect, git gud
Very well put, I've seen videos of people putting golden spirals over works of art, and it always just looks and seems so subjective and silly (to put it nicely).
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so😁
Im glad you found this useful, appreciate you.
@@WeAreDraper Ditto
Man, I thought I was the only one thinking this exactly. As a teacher it's difficult not to cringe every time I have students trying to write essays on how this ratio is used in art and how it is the "quintessence of beauty and proportion" and blablabla. Pure kumbaya bs.
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
@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.
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
1000 out of 1618 people do not like this video.
Loved the video. Nice conclussion over the subject of beauty. "good taste should guide the design process"
"Good taste" as defined by whom? Is subjectivity really the objective standard? Kinda like "the only absolute is that everything (else) is relative. It falls on its own sword.
Mathematicians refer to the Fibonacci sequence to say that math is the one and only science. Big money.
The ratio of the square areas is never mentioned has having a golden ratio... wtf?!
The example of the golden rectangle used shows a basic misunderstanding of what the golden ratio is. The Golden Ratio (Phi) is a limit defined by the Fibonacci sequence. The higher any two consecutive numbers you choose in the sequence, the clsoer you will come to the golden ratio, but it will never actually reach the actual irrational value. So saying the squares making up the golden rectangle aren't accurate is a pointless exercise, because it's actually impossible to produce exact measurements on paper. Anything we try to put on paper will be an approximation to some degree.
That’s true, I probably wasn’t very clear on what the Fibonacci sequence is. However in my example I’m simply trying to show how the most popular way of building a golden ratio “palette” is wildly inaccurate if 1.618 is the ratio you’re aiming for. Like you said, since it’s a limit the gap will tend to close and by the end you’ll have shapes that are quite close to 1.618 in relationships with each other, but if you stick to that method you’ll probably build something off by quite a margin.