4 ms·
" I think humans prefer a fractal number of about 1.5 or so, which is about what nature is." Is it the Golden ratio you refer to maybe (~1.6)? https://en.wiki
by flakeoil 4y ago
" I think humans prefer a fractal number of about 1.5 or so, which is about what nature is."
Is it the Golden ratio you refer to maybe (~1.6)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
- supernewton 4y agoAbsolutely not. Unless you have a strong mathematical reason to expect it to show up, instances of the golden ratio is largely numerology bullshit.
- aardvarkr 4y ago^citation required
- crazygringo 4y agoHere are some articles on why the golden ratio having supposed aesthetic properties is a myth: https://eusci.org.uk/2020/07/29/myth-busting-the-golden-ratio/ https://eusci.org.uk/2020/07/29/myth-busting-the-golden-rati... https://plus.maths.org/content/myths-maths-golden-ratio https://plus.maths.org/content/myths-maths-golden-ratio https://www.fastcompany.com/3044877/the-golden-ratio-designs-biggest-myth https://www.fastcompany.com/3044877/the-golden-ratio-designs... So it's more like, citation required for any scientific evidence it does have unique aesthetic properties. At the end of the day, it's just a myth that keeps getting repeated, not much different from anything else in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions (Which also mentions the golden ratio in one of its bullet points.)
- finnh 4y agoThis reminds me of film "analysis" that shows how the director keeps creating wonderful triangles between three points of tension, and our eye naturally finds such triangles pleasing. Neglecting that any three points make a triangle, so this is basically just saying "a frame with three things in it".
- bee_rider 4y agoOn one level there’s some intellectual wanking about triangles, then as you point out any shot with thee things will have a triangle. I wonder, though, ignoring any attempts to over-analyze, if three is a nice number of things to have in a shot. The viewer can only focus on so many things after all. Three is also a sort of especially unspecial number. Zero things is sort of special in the sense that there’s no concentration of focus (shot of a landscape that just establishes the environment). If the focus is on one thing, then that’s really drawing a ton of attention to that thing (camera zooms in on the murder weapon and lingers). Two things can often be focused on the contrast between them (the villain towers over the hero). Three is the lowest number that doesn’t have a ton of baggage.
- alar44 4y agoOdd numbers of things in a shot is a rule of thumb in framing.
- bee_rider 4y agoInteresting! Why’s that?
- alar44 4y agoWell, as with anything related to aesthetics, it looks good.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoEven numbers of things have a tension between the center of the group and the center of one of the things.
- carlob 4y agoEspecially so in an exponent...
- sclarisse 4y agoNo.
- hgsgm 4y agoHumans tend to prever Fractal Dimension 1.3-1.5 (in 2D imagery) https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/2116/1/Pihel_J_110524.pdf https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/2116/1/Pihel_J_110524.pdf
- 4gotunameagain 4y agoSwedish humans tend to do so. Might not extrapolate to the whole world
- roywiggins 4y agoSpecifically, college students from Malmö University...
- skrebbel 4y agoI’m not sure that someone’s Bachelor thesis should be given this much weight.
- robbintt 4y agoCertainly as much as a blog post. I think a better argument would be that it's not peer reviewed, but still weak.