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
That half site is Wicked. Went to buy ONE book (ok, maybe two) and
$300 later...
Renata
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:34:23 GMT, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message ...
>
>I keep getting ideas here and buying from half.com, so books are $4-7
>with shipping. I also get monthly newspapers from edwardrhamilton.com
>and often buy 3 or more at a time so the ghastly total shipping cost
>(a brutal $3.50 per shipment) is less painful.
>
>
>-
>They who know the truth are not equal to those who love it. -Confucius
> ---
> http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Programming Services
smart, not dumb for email
David Eisan knows a lot about it. Why not email him?
John
Bay Area Dave wrote:
> 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
>
Mike Hide wrote:
>
> 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
>
In defense of Graham Blackburn, the author of the article in question,
he's fairly well credentialed - a prolific author
(www.blackburnbooks.com),
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)
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:03:21 -0500, Renata <[email protected]> brought
forth from the murky depths:
>That half site is Wicked. Went to buy ONE book (ok, maybe two) and
>$300 later...
Don't go to Hamilton. They had a dozen TauntMe books there and
I ended up with one of each. (Taunton DOES make good books, wot?)
I only wish I'd picked up that copy of "Making and Modifying
Machines" when I had a chance. The one on *b*y is only $99.99!
-
They who know the truth are not equal to those who love it. -Confucius
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Programming Services
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:00:22 GMT, "Groggy" <[email protected]>
brought forth from the murky depths:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message ...
>>
>> (Yes, I have too much time on my hands this morning whilst
>> waiting for a client to call back.)
>
>Thanks Larry, I usually do my book shopping on foot, I wind up with *lotsa*
>books that way...
I keep getting ideas here and buying from half.com, so books are $4-7
with shipping. I also get monthly newspapers from edwardrhamilton.com
and often buy 3 or more at a time so the ghastly total shipping cost
(a brutal $3.50 per shipment) is less painful.
-
They who know the truth are not equal to those who love it. -Confucius
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Programming Services
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 05:48:50 GMT, "Groggy" <[email protected]>
brought forth from the murky depths:
Poor Grogs cain't foind no copy o':
>Joyce, Ernest Encyclopedia of Furniture Making
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.
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/offering/list/-/0806983027/all/ref=dp_pb_a/104-3363865-7014333>
http://www.biblioz.com/main.php can get them from here in the
States for $29-90. (out of print, seekbooks.com.au
http://www.collinsbooks.com.au/ and http://www.angusrobertson.com.au/
both have it for $47.41AU
Try some other sources:
http://www.nla.gov.au/libraries/resource/bookpub.html
Dymocks 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.
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design
======================================================
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:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>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
>>
>
>
>
For those of us with only an elementary education, I will try and elucidate
and educate what Tom is talking about and note long or foreign words to be
committed to memory for use confounding and impressing enemies and friends
alike .
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:05:06 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
>
> 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.
In other words which came first.....note "Ex post facto" [after the fact]
> 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.
Again the formula fits the form not vica versa ....several good words priori
[preexisting], posteriori [not sure of this one], codified [rule]
> 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.
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 ]
> 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.
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
> Look up Fibonacci Numbers. Look up The Golden Mean.
I know one has to do with rabbits, the golden mean, not quite sure but
possibly about $400 an ounce.
> 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.
Basically, check out home depot.
Note "visually organic" [looking at unfertilized plants]
> 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.
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
>
> 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.
Up is ok ,flat a no no .
> 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.
In other words watch the playboy channel as much as possible.
> It doesn't work the other way around.
>
>
>
>
> Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
> (Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
thanks! there's a new library opening up on the 17th. I'll put that on
my list of things to look for.
dave
McQualude wrote:
> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> said:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> I recommend, How to design and construct period furniture by Franklin H.
> Gottshall. Gottshall reviews the rules of design and demonstrates how they
> were formed from specific examples of period furniture. The book is
> invaluable just for the design rules, many of which are common sense, that
> are outlayed in the beginning chapters. He also reviews pieces that
> violate the rules of design and yet are very visibly appealing. The book
> is out of print but available at many libraries and of course at
> amazon.com.
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.
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
>
there's that word again! "codified" Is that what you get from certain
plates of seafood? Is it painful? :)
charlie b wrote:
> Mike Hide wrote:
>
>>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
>>
>
>
> In defense of Graham Blackburn, the author of the article in question,
> he's fairly well credentialed - a prolific author
> (www.blackburnbooks.com),
> 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)
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. ;>)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/02/04
"Mike Hide" wrote in message
> For those of us with only an elementary education, I will try and
elucidate
> and educate what Tom is talking about and note long or foreign words to
be
> committed to memory for use confounding and impressing enemies and
friends
> alike .
> > 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.
>
> Again the formula fits the form not vica versa ....several good words
priori
> [preexisting], posteriori [not sure of this one], codified [rule]
The key to good design is in the eye of the beholder. If you look at enough
pieces of whatever you are designing either in the flesh or pictures of
superbe pieces then the brain will decide what pleases it. Another example
is the common bow front chest, produced for the last couple of centuries
and still to this day just as popular as the first day it was built, why
,because it is not only a functional, but a pleasing design to most of us.
A simple example in my case is a table with a tapered leg ,legs tapered on
the inside and outside look clumsey whereas legs tapered on the inside only
have a much more light and airy look .....after a while you look at pieces
and some uplift the sensibilities whereas others jarr them .
In the case of furniture, design is one aspect .to end up with something
good the design has to be good and be functional, the construction must be
good and the finish also. mjh
Good design in my opinion
"Eric Lund" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:R2ALb.6292$na.5818@attbi_s04...
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> I didn't read this article too closely, because I already got the
> presentation live. I don't know if he covered this in the article, but in
> his presentation, he clearly made the point that it's not the golden
> rectangle or any other specific rule that makes a design good. The real
key
> to a good design is having a reason for each and every dimension (stomp,
> stomp, stomp). Applying the golden rectangle, where it's appropriate, has
> been demonstrated to result in well proportioned designs that are pleasing
> to the eye. But the idea is not to slavishly follow this rule.
>
> Now... the quiz: What is the key to a good design?
>
> Cheers,
> Eric
>
>
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
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:58:29 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> 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
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
As far as design goes then the primary concern should be the functional
aspects, asthetics are basically a secondary consideration, if it is
possible to combine the two well and good.
The artical in FWW does show some examples of design in the authors view
that complies to the golden ratio. In the example of the chest on cupboard
shown as an instance of the golden ratios use, the proportions in my view
are quite poor, at least not pleasing to my laymans eye. mjh
--
"McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> said:
>
> > 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.
>
> I recommend, How to design and construct period furniture by Franklin H.
> Gottshall. Gottshall reviews the rules of design and demonstrates how they
> were formed from specific examples of period furniture. The book is
> invaluable just for the design rules, many of which are common sense, that
> are outlayed in the beginning chapters. He also reviews pieces that
> violate the rules of design and yet are very visibly appealing. The book
> is out of print but available at many libraries and of course at
> amazon.com.
> --
> McQualude
"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:R2ALb.6292$na.5818@attbi_s04...
> 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
>
>
>
I didn't read this article too closely, because I already got the
presentation live. I don't know if he covered this in the article, but in
his presentation, he clearly made the point that it's not the golden
rectangle or any other specific rule that makes a design good. The real key
to a good design is having a reason for each and every dimension (stomp,
stomp, stomp). Applying the golden rectangle, where it's appropriate, has
been demonstrated to result in well proportioned designs that are pleasing
to the eye. But the idea is not to slavishly follow this rule.
Now... the quiz: What is the key to a good design?
Cheers,
Eric
Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> said:
> 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.
I recommend, How to design and construct period furniture by Franklin H.
Gottshall. Gottshall reviews the rules of design and demonstrates how they
were formed from specific examples of period furniture. The book is
invaluable just for the design rules, many of which are common sense, that
are outlayed in the beginning chapters. He also reviews pieces that
violate the rules of design and yet are very visibly appealing. The book
is out of print but available at many libraries and of course at
amazon.com.
--
McQualude
"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> said:
> As far as design goes then the primary concern should be the
> functional aspects, asthetics are basically a secondary
> consideration, if it is possible to combine the two well and good.
Successful designers do combine the two. The functional aspect of most
furniture is fairly straitforward, leaving a lot of latitude for design.
> The artical in FWW does show some examples of design in the authors
> view that complies to the golden ratio. In the example of the chest
> on cupboard shown as an instance of the golden ratios use, the
> proportions in my view are quite poor, at least not pleasing to my
> laymans eye. mjh
I missed the article in FWW, but I've read "Furniture By Design" by
Blackburn which I found to be of little practical value in designing
furniture. Blackburn's writing style was very dry, to the extent that it
was laborious to finish each chapter. Probably only 5% of the book
discusses design. Clearly to me, many of the projects he passes off as
contracted work were actually personal projects. There is a glut of his
book available on Amazon at a fraction of the cover price.
--
McQualude
You can also use the square and the double square along with the golden
rectangle. Very common in the Renaissance.
Your base is close to a square.
-Jack
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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 Watson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:05:06 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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)
> > http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
>
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:58:29 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>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?
>
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)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
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 Watson" wrote...
<snip>
> 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.
>
<snip>
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:05:06 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.
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)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:58:29 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>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?
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. :)
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:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:58:29 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>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?
>
>
> 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
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:48:01 GMT, "Mike Hide" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>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
That was a joke response, wasn't it? Hmmm.
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
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:58:29 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>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?
>
>
> 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. :)
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:58:29 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>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?
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
http://www.woodbutcher.net
"Mike Hide" wrote in message
> A simple example in my case is a table with a tapered leg ,legs tapered on
> the inside and outside look clumsey whereas legs tapered on the inside
only
> have a much more light and airy look .....after a while you look at pieces
> and some uplift the sensibilities whereas others jarr them .
Well said ... I have one table, out of the dozens that I have built, that
pleases me whenever I look at it.
It is simply a "table", as simple in its design as to be just past a board
placed on top of legs, but it has a graceful inside taper on the legs from
the bottom of the apron to the floor.
The best word to describe it is "elegant" ... as if a thousand lines of
computer code were distilled into three, still performing the same function.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/02/04
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:12:01 -0800, charlie b <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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.
e = mc^2 is far from clean - it's simply the expression of
proportionality between our arbitrary human units for mass and a
universe that really considers energy to be the important quantity.
e^( i * pi ) = -1
Now _that's_ pretty.
--
Smert' spamionam
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 Watson wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:05:06 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
>
> 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)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/