Still a load of bunk no matter the thought or education behind it. There is
no doubt that mathematics and physics were around long before we ever even
thought of the terminology. Proof of this is everywhere you look.
Relation to photography? Nothing and everything.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
> Don,
> Some very interesting and thoughtful posts. Thanks.
>
> I agree with those who say there is no "golden mean" in nature. Finding a
> few examples as "proof" is like that famous list of coincidences between
> Lincoln and Kennedy, or the way fortune tellers work ("I see the color
> red...the color red has some importance for you..." "Hey, I used to have a
> red car! How did you know that?").
>
> I can honestly say I have *never* paid the slightest attention to any of
the
> so-called "rules" of composition. Looking at pictures, the "rule of
thirds"
> is no more valid than the "rule of fourths" or the "rule of fifths" or any
> other fraction. For that matter, there are thousands of interesting
pictures
> with the subject smack dab in the middle of the frame. And if pressed, I
> could probably come up with several new "rules" which could be found to be
> applicable to a number of successful and well-known photographs.
>
> If anything, oversimplified deconstruction of "composition" (strictly
> speaking, photographers don't compose) keeps people from seeing. And if
> anyone is beset by any of these "rules" floating about in their heads, I
> would probably counsel them to get out and try their hardest to violate
> them.
>
> --Mike
>
>
>
> >> Cause and Effect
> >>
> >> There is something about the 'Golden Section', the 'Golden Triangle',
the
> >> 'Golden Proportions' or 'Rule of Thirds' or any other name one cares to
> >> choose for these elusive photographic or pictorial qualities, that is
> >> unconducive to clear thinking. Pentax users, amongst the most
intelligent of
> >> photographers, if only for their choice of lenses, are no better at
sorting
> >> it out than anyone else. Why? Because Nature does not obey any
mathematical
> >> rules.
> >>
> >> Numbers mean nothing to a virus particle (virion) or a crystal of gold,
or
> >> the amorphous aggregation of crystals found in steel, or the bones of
my
> >> leg. The arrangement of the capsomers that form the envelope of an
> >> icosahedral virion for example, is not such because of numbers, but
because
> >> of the nature of the different capsomers themselves. Some are
pentagonal
> >> others hexagonal. They fit together neatly. The shape is determined by
their
> >> own sub-units and how they tend to join and the shape of these are in
turn
> >> determined by genetic information. They are built upon genetic
templates
> >> and their structure is determined by either RNA or DNA which carries
the
> >> 'blueprint' for construction. We can now draw beautiful diagrams of how
> >> these all fit together and write mathematical formulae that predict how
this
> >> comes about. Geodesic domes and Virus particles are similar in
construction.
> >> Forgive me for being simplistic here.
> >>
> >> Now along comes a nutty Creationist who say's, "See how even the humble
> >> viruses obey God's Mathematical Laws of Nature?" He sits down and
starts to
> >> calculate. This is how it usually starts. Numbers can ~only~ be used to
> >> describe what happens in nature, not to determine it: But even then
only up
> >> to a point. In some cases with great accuracy, in others only
approximately,
> >> most times not at all.
> >>
> >> To say that there is a mathematical rule for beautiful composition is
like
> >> making a rule for my behaviour from the information (usually erroneous)
that
> >> when I was born the planets were arranged in a particular way. Because
of
> >> this fortunate, or unfortunate coincidence, I must needs do, or not,
this or
> >> that, on certain days of the week, month or year because my existence
and
> >> the course of my life will forever be determined by this load of crap.
> >>
> >> Make your pictures look good and forget about 'Golden' anything. You
could
> >> spend a lifetime measuring masterpieces in museums and galleries around
the
> >> world and constructing diagrams from them ... but it will only lead you
back
> >> to square one.
>
