Golden Rectangle

Say i make an end table with a top 26 x 16 (golden). And it's 24" tall. How can the legs outer perimeter come close to golden when their outer width is about 23" and they NEED to be about 23" high. according to the formula, they could only be about 14 inches! I know this need not be EXACT, but that's not in the ballpark. BTW, the legs will be approx 2

1/4" square. What am I missing about conforming to pleasing proportions?

dave

Reply to
Bay Area Dave
Loading thread data ...

There's an article in the most recent Fine Woodworking about the Golden Rectangle. One of the points made in the article was that it's impossilbe to design a piece of furniture in complete conformity with the GR.

Try adding stretchers that leave 14" space between them and the top. Also, remember that the GR doesn't HAVE to be in landmark orientation; it can be in portrait orientation, too. Does that work with your dimensions?

LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

formatting link

Reply to
LRod

David Eisan knows a lot about it. Why not email him?

John

Bay Area Dave wrote:

Reply to
Eddie Munster

Not really. it's closer to square. I guess with the apron, that'll reduce the apparent square to a landscape rectangle.

dave

LRod wrote:

Reply to
Bay Area Dave

It is not math, nor science, but art that this is made of.

"Once you have truly understood - trees are once again trees, streams are once again streams - and, sometimes - a cigar is just a cigar."

Good Luck.

thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) (Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet)

formatting link

Reply to
Tom Watson

It sounds like you are trying to make the Golden Ratio match your image of the table you want to build, rather than matching your table to the Golden Ratio.

Reply to
Geoff Clark

Geoff, in the most simple terms I can use, I'm trying to determine if by using the golden ratio for the table top and given the fact that the height of the table must be 24", how can the legs conform to the rules? I'm missing some basic concept regarding the application of the golden ratio.

dave

Geoff Clark wrote:

Reply to
Bay Area Dave

In this case, the chicken existed before the egg. The golden ratio exists as an ex post facto attempt at quantification regarding the pleasing nature of the form.

You are trying to put the formula prior to the eye. The a priori value is in the look - a posteriori justification is a concept that can exist as a codified check against the existant but can not determine its form prior to its existance.

In a previous post I asked you to look into the drawings of people such as Palladio, so that you might gain an inkling as to that which is pleasing to our enculturated eye. You rejected that approach. Now you are asking for a formulaic understanding of what is pleasing.

I would encourage you to go back to the Orders of Architecture, so that you can absorb that which is best in Western thought about the relationship of forms.

Look up Fibonacci Numbers. Look up The Golden Mean.

Better yet, since it is more visually organic, look at the buildings that please your eye. In my case this would include Classical, Neo-Classical, Federal and Georgian structures. Once you have come to a conclusion as to what you like, research the mathematical design underpinnings of those structures - trust me - they are there.

The values and relationships are not absolute. We are not mathematicians. We are not Aristotelians. We are Platonists in search of an Aristotelian shorthand to further our communication and the prediction of aesthetic acceptance - not excellence, since that is inspired.

A danger of the misapplication of the Golden Mean is that it can work well in two dimensions but not in the X axis. You can draw a nearly perfectly realized design that includes Golden Rectangles within a Golden Rectangle, and still have a beast of gross propertions when it is extruded into the 3D world that we are all forced to live in.

Furniture is sculpture. It must exist in three dimensions. The Golden Mean does not allow for mass - and mass is critical in furniture.

Engage and educate your eye. Find that which pleases you and then try to come to an understanding of what makes that possible.

It doesn't work the other way around.

Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) (Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet)

formatting link

Reply to
Tom Watson

Inhale. Exhale. This is s'posed to be fun. You get to figure out how to make a square shape look like two smaller rectangles that conform to "some predetermined idea of what pleasing ought to be."

Dave, the Golden Rectangle is not the only pleasing proportion. Any proportion in the Fibonacci series is pleasing to the eye.

You're setting your legs in from the top about (?) an inch and a half or so, giving you a visual length of the front-on rectangle of 23 inches. Your over all height is 24 inches. You've basically got a square, yes? Seems to me you've got two options:

Option 1. Throw out the length and go to 36 inches or so. That makes the front-on view of the table an almost perfect "Golden Rectangle" and the top-- 16 by 36-- approximately a 1 to 2 ratio which are the first two numbers in the Fibonacci Series. BUT, I'm getting that you feel you're stuck with the overall height and length, so you need a different solution...

Option 2. Fool the eye.

Stretchers, Dave. If you're stuck with an almost square 24 high by 23 long front-on view, divide the square visually with stretchers-- or maybe an elegant floating shelf?-- placed, (in your case) right around

14-1/2 to 15 inches off the floor. This breaks up the front view into two rectangles. The lower will be 14.5 by 23-- a perfect golden rectangle, and the upper "rectangle" (between the stretchers and the table top), will be around 10 by 23ish which is around 1-to-2, again, the first two numbers in the Fibonacci Series.

I know you don't do "plans," but if you'll do a quickie sketch of this idea to scale on paper, you'll see why those of us who do, do. ;>

Michael ...Or you could just build it squarish, call it studio furniture, put a sign on it that says "Fibonacci's Nightmare - $5,000" and call it a good day's work. :)

Reply to
Michael Baglio

In your inimitable style, I can say that you've answered the question, Tom. The key is the x-axis issue and 3d. To paraphrase your post: using the golden ratio for a table top precludes using the same rule for placement and size of the legs when the height cannot for practical purposes be changed. If that's not what you intended feel free to correct me. (You used a couple of words that flummoxed me, but I got the gist of your ideas. Thanks!)

dave

Tom Wats> >

Reply to
Bay Area Dave

Hi Tom,

I couldn't agree more with your post (the bits I understood anyway!). I had a discussion with Paully Rad on this topic and he started me off on the search for the holy grail ^H^H^H^H^H Golden Mean and Fibonacci Numbers. Whilst I found some good sources, and enjoyed the journey through a few hundred websites, I did not come across what *I* would call a 'definitive' reference.

Probably the most valuable research I did was into columns (amazing where these things pop up). Do you know of any comprehensive books on the subject?

I have not yet been able to obtain Joyce's work:

Joyce, Ernest. The Encyclopedia of Furniture Making ISBN 0806964413

Regards,

Greg

"Tom Wats> I would encourage you to go back to the Orders of Architecture, so

Reply to
Groggy

In other words which came first.....note "Ex post facto" [after the fact]

Again the formula fits the form not vica versa ....several good words priori [preexisting], posteriori [not sure of this one], codified [rule]

Personally I have heard of the fellow but sadly never seen a picture of him . enculturated eye, similar to uncultured eye, meaning bubba and them. Formulaic...[mathermeratical ]

Orders of Architecture [Architecture, ancient Greek leader,5th century BC]

the best in western thought about the relationship of forms ....mainly concerns nude wimmin as we are all aware

I know one has to do with rabbits, the golden mean, not quite sure but possibly about $400 an ounce.

Basically, check out home depot.

Note "visually organic" [looking at unfertilized plants]

I missed this one ,for sure we are not mathematicians, or leaders as mentioned before or even his secretary who has lost her shorthand book

Up is ok ,flat a no no .

In other words watch the playboy channel as much as possible.

Reply to
Mike Hide

The article in FWW is a total stretch by some Limey to try and get everything in life to fit some preconceived set of matematical rules [well at least furniture]....mjh

Reply to
Mike Hide

There we go again, coffee all over the damn monitor from your post ... at least that's what an a posteriori examination suggests.

It's two words, used together, not one. ;>)

Reply to
Swingman

And to beat Lawrence or Larry to the punch, NO, I didn't blow coffee out my

*ss.
Reply to
Swingman

Michael,

Thanks for your ideas. As I was reading, it suddenly hit me that there is going to be a lower shelf about 6" off the floor that will break up the "rectangle" formed by the legs. Also, I can't change the depth or the height of the table. The shelf would be the "stretcher".

:) I don't "do" plans, but I did crib much of the style from a picture I got off Google Images. For me, pictures are just another form of a plan; just no step by step directions. There will be a drawer which pretty much requires that the aprons be at least as high as the drawer. The aprons will enclose the drawer so I guess another rectangle is described by the space between the lower edge of the apron and the bottom shelf. Make sense?

dave

Michael Baglio

Reply to
Bay Area Dave

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 05:48:50 GMT, "Groggy" brought forth from the murky depths:

Poor Grogs cain't foind no copy o':

Wail, we's help him.

It's available from Amazon.com who charges $6.99USD to ship all the way Down Unda.

Used for $4.00, maybe he'll ship to AU.

formatting link
can get them from here in the States for $29-90. (out of print, seekbooks.com.au

formatting link
and
formatting link
have it for $47.41AU

Try some other sources:

formatting link
doesn't have it.

(Yes, I have too much time on my hands this morning whilst waiting for a client to call back.)

-------------------------------------------- Proud (occasional) maker of Hungarian Paper Towels.

formatting link
Comprehensive Website Design ======================================================

Reply to
Larry Jaques

In defense of Graham Blackburn, the author of the article in question, he's fairly well credentialed - a prolific author

formatting link
an extremely proficient neander, a pretty good teacher, engrossed in solid wood furniture making and fascinated by form and function - be it furniture, architecture or, I suspect, the female form, which includes many golden ratios BTW. And he draws most of the illustrations in his books.

To be a little sexist, Mother Nature has had a lot of time to come up with forms and proportions that work, and work well.(also stated as God don't make junk - but Ikea on the other hand...). Understanding the underlying principles of Her/His "designs" seems to be why we're here (see Bucky Fuller's Operation Manual, Space Ship Earth) - to figure out how and why things work and then use that knowledge to make the place a little nicer, or at least no worse, than we found it. The Golden Ratio, Fibonacci Series and Fractals are just some of the insights humans have come up with for much of what forms occur in our universe. They're elegantly simple - a forte of "nature" and, to me, fascinating. When you can boil something that appears to be random and chaotic down to something clean and concise - E = mc^2, you've got a handle on understanding and using "nature's" approach to things.

Given the infinite range of height/width/depth relationships, why not use some relationships that have been codified as at least a starting point when you have no constraints in a design?

charlie b Extant Human (for the vocabulary builders - extant means old but still around as opposed to extinct - old and gone)

Reply to
charlie b

Reply to
Bay Area Dave

Thanks Larry, I usually do my book shopping on foot, I wind up with *lotsa* books that way...

MC&HNY,

Grogs

Reply to
Groggy

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.