Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Toke:
That's how I understand it too. But I thought that your argument
was that the golden mean only worked for rectangles?

The 'golden mean' is a ratio. Period. It has nothing to do with
shapes.

Yes, that's why I wondered about you saying "Photographs CANNOT be
composed according to the golden mean, which is a ratio. Only
rectangles, etc., can have ratios, of their sides.".

It didn't make sense, as pentagons, triangles and other shapes can
indeed have ratios of their sides, so I suppose you meant something
else. http://cage.rug.ac.be/~hs/polyhedra/dodeca.html

Rectangles whose sides are in the ratio of the golden mean
are often thought to be pleasing in proportion. The Parthenon,
etc.

Yes, but since a stick divided to these proportions are often thought
to have been divided the most pleasing way, my question is where these
golden proportions can be applied. "Only to rectangles" is a fair
answer, but I was hoping for a little elaboration as to why.
Mathematically there's no such restriction.


Toke:
Is that a trick question? My answer is "An infinite number of
other places". Did I win anything?

Yes, in principle, but if you take a vertical picture and place
the head in the dead center that won't work too well, if you place
the eyes at the top of the frame that won't do either. What else
is left? Somewhere in between will result in an approximation of
thirds.

Err... No, it will result in an approximation of fourths. It's even
easier to hit than thirds, as we just divide the frame two times. We're
good at dividing in twos.