1/6 Any Art History buffs here? I'm trying to find out if people
in the Renaissance used the "golden ratio" to compose their
art work? Do they divide pictures in some magical ratios to
make them look the way they do?
\_ The quick answer is yes; the long answer is that they did, though
not all of them may have done it consciously.
\_ can you provide URL that talks about this? A friend of mine
is asserting that people had no idea what golden ratio was
in those era and they just did what looked good visually.
\_ Google for Fibonacci and the Golden Mean (a video).
\_ iirc, "The Golden Ratio" by Mario Livio includes some discussion
about the use of the golden ratio by Renaissance artists. I think
he has some references to additional reading as well.
\_ Did you just read The Da Vinci Code? You know it's fiction, right?
And that most of the "facts" in it are crap?
\_ http://tinyurl.com/9akvvb
\_ Sure, sure, understood. However, some of the facts were accurate,
insofar as they were presented as facts. -!op
\_ Nope, pretty much everything I read in that book purporting to
be facts were actually wrong.
\_ /shrug. There was an Order of Knights called the Templars.
Opus Dei is a Catholic organization. The Louvre is in
Paris. I don't mean to nitpick, but it's a fiction born
out of lots of facts. That the facts don't fit together as
presented should be obvious from the word "fiction."
\- obviously the large scale stuff is made up, but
the da vinci code is "sloppy" on a lot of quotidian
details. like say somebody set something in berkeley
and said somebody was meeting at the corner of college
and university or said they walked from the i-house to
berkeley marina in 5min or had a 15min coversation
driving from evans hall to the GTU library.
\_ Pretty much everything presented as what the Templars
did or what Opus Dei is is wrong. Simple facts about
the golden ratio are wrong, etc.
\_ Point conceded. How about a nice game of chess?
\_ Yeah, it's a joke. Here's what I noted about it a
few years ago:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4801289&postcount=10
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4801289
-emarkp
\_ Hey, emarkp, can you point me to an historical
mention of Jesus that isn't Flavius Josephus?
All sources seem to point back to FJ, and he's
not exactly unbiased. --erikred
\_ Josephus is the only one off the top of my head
who wasn't a Christian. Justin Martyr wrote
about him circa 100, but he was a convert to
Christianity (I thought by Peter, but now I
can't confirm that, so he's probably third
hand). -emarkp
\_ Josephus is not contemporary with the
events he writes about, so it's hard to
trust his account. --erikred
\- i am not especially knowledgeable
or interested in jebus, but if you
are interested in the historical
evidence, you can look into "the
jesus project" and BART EHRMAN ...
i would say josephus's "issue" is not
so much his temporal distance or his
being a jew rather than an xtian, but
the fact that he very much had an
agenda, and it was not a dispassionate
academic inquiry into the historical
"facts" [i have only read The Jewish
War]. EUSEBIUS is an obvious person to
read, but i dont remember what he says
about the early first cent. You may
also look into PHILO OF ALEXANDERIA
aka PHILO THE JEW but i am not really
familiar with him ... again, i am more
interested in what was going on in rome
and the west than in the levant. of the
great western historians, the greatest,
western historians, the greatest,
tacitus, was not that interested and
says little about the first century
goings on in palestine although there
is some discussion of the events of the
60s. seutonious is a hack so i wont go
on about him. dio cassius has a limited
amount of commentary, but that is even
more removed in time.
i know more about intellectual
and church history than the personal
details about jebus ... if you want
pointers to that stuff, let me know
what kinds of Qs you are interested in.
\_ Kudos to psb and emarkp for the
usual good info. Will be in touch.
--erikred
\- factoid of the day: kudos is
singular. do epong and i have
to split a kudos? :-)
\_ Yes. Knife-fight to ensue.
\_ that's a pretty good rebuttal. I refused to read
the book after a co-worker of mine successfully
argued to others that it was the first book that he
had ever read that actually made him dumber...
getting actual facts and history muddled with
fiction. Everyone else at the table who had read
the book and knew anything about history agreed.
\- if the Vinci Code really made you dumber, you
probably started out dumb [yeah, i know it's
probably just a line from your associate, but
you can see my point too, i hope]. on the other
hand a book like ZatAoMM really is pernicious.
\_ I don't think it's so much that he's dumb as
that he forgot all the stuff that he learned
in college 10 years prior (or my other friend
who forgot everything he learned in Catholic
school). He remembered the facts, but they
became hazy with time, and then DBrown got
got inserted into the haze. Kind of like a
virus inserting itself into the code. So I
guess he's dumb in a single-cell sort of way. |