
|
Contra Divinam Proportionem |
Marco Frascari Virginia
Tech, USA |
Livio Volpi
Ghirardini Mantua,
ITALY
|
Are
architectural proportions metric, numeric, geometric or golden?
Which ones among the many in a building are the markers that
should be considered reference points for the proportioning of
its parts? A golden or divine magnifying glass that distorts
rather than clarifies has been applied to everything in the name
of aesthetic and mystical impulses. A proportion called the Golden
Mean has long been the only explanation for a successive
melange of proportions in all the visual arts. This Golden Mean
(also called the Divine Proportion) has been found repeatedly
in the pictures of growth patterns embodied in natural events
or in the pictures of human products. Since the last century
it has so fascinated mathematicians and artists that is is proposed
by many as the absolute aesthetic value.
By tracing lines onto pictures,
this ideal proportion has been found in man-made artifacts and
used to mark human achievements. As the acme of his mystically
scientific process, pictures of the Parthenon with Golden sections
traced on them have been exhibited as demonstrations of the beauty
of its man-made, but nature-inspired, rational design. This graphic
notion of beauty is so alluring and pervasive that it has been
acritically forced upon us as an aesthetic paradigm since grade
school.
The German, Apollonian search
within the combined sciences of mathematics, philosophy and archaeology
lies at the root of the scientific proposal of the Golden Mean
as a panacea for explaining the composition of parts and foretelling
the aesthetic future of man-made designs. German philosopher
Adolf Zeising has made the Golden Mean the only possible principle
of a scientific aesthetic and used the Parthenon with the usual
diagram traced on it to provide the necessary archaeological
authority for his theory of the omnipresence of the aesthetic
guarantor phi. In 1876, in a ponderous article published
in memory of Zeising, mathematician Siegmund Gunter reviewed
Zeising's scientific aesthetics in a critical manner, but even
he admitted that the presence of phi in ancient architecture,
and notably in the Parthenon, was clear evidence of its being
the powerful quintessence of classical aesthetic values. Without
any doubt Zeising and Gunter were very skillful at measuring
pictures, but it is clear that neither of them had ever measured
a building following to tectonic principles.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
The correct citation for
this paper is: Marco
Frascari and Livio Volpi Ghirardini, "Contra Divinam Proportionem", pp. 65-74 in Nexus II: Architecture and
Mathematics, ed. Kim Williams, Fucecchio (Florence): Edizioni
dell'Erba, 1998. http://www.nexusjournal.com/conferences/N1998-FrascariVolpi.html |
 |
NNJ
Homepage
Conference Abstracts Index
Order books!
Research
Articles
The
Geometer's Angle
Didactics
Book Reviews
Conference and Exhibit Reports
Readers'
Queries
The Virtual Library
Submission Guidelines
NNJ
Editorial Board
Top
of Page |