> we never find monotonously repeating forms in traditional cultures.
Illustrated on the left by the Parthenon, with a row of eight identical pillars. This has a golden spiral overlaid to show that it's mathsy and natural. Halfway down the article there's a section "levels of scale" which asserts that the spacing of columns on temples is somehow magical and makes them alright, while modern columns are spaced differently and are all wrong.
But no, it's just a monotonous row of pillars. If it had no ancient history it would look kind of oppressive (the same way any charming old castle was originally a military installation built to exert control and spew out steel-clad troopers).
Meaning matters more than neurology, usually. We like stuff we've been made to feel attached to, culturally. But the article also mentions honeycombs. If we are going to talk about neurology, honeycombs will make some people (with trypophobia) very uncomfortable indeed, and the magical minor imperfections and irregularities of nature won't counteract that at all.
Perhaps he shouldn't have used the word 'never' (never say never again), but you've unfairly represented the article. The Parthenon-and-golden-ratio image is not used as a reference; it is related reading. And if you visit that article, you see it's about how the Parthenon is NOT designed after the Golden Ratio!
The main article's point about nested levels of repetition is interesting, and it introduced me to Christopher Alexander's The Nature of Order books.
> if you visit that article, you see it's about how the Parthenon is NOT designed after the Golden Ratio!
Oh, so it is! That's refreshing. I didn't expect the link to lead to an article at all, I expected to be invited to buy the book on Amazon.
I don't know, though. He comprehensively demolishes myths about the golden ratio except when promoting his own one. Those rectangular proportions won't lead to good architecture, but "The Golden Mean does apply to architectural composition in the context of scaling hierarchy that organizes complexity" because "Design is linked mathematically with natural growth through hierarchical subdivisions at distinct scales, which is found in a majority of natural structures." Ignore their woo-woo, try mine!
Illustrated on the left by the Parthenon, with a row of eight identical pillars. This has a golden spiral overlaid to show that it's mathsy and natural. Halfway down the article there's a section "levels of scale" which asserts that the spacing of columns on temples is somehow magical and makes them alright, while modern columns are spaced differently and are all wrong.
But no, it's just a monotonous row of pillars. If it had no ancient history it would look kind of oppressive (the same way any charming old castle was originally a military installation built to exert control and spew out steel-clad troopers).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio#The_Parthenon for more skepticism.
Meaning matters more than neurology, usually. We like stuff we've been made to feel attached to, culturally. But the article also mentions honeycombs. If we are going to talk about neurology, honeycombs will make some people (with trypophobia) very uncomfortable indeed, and the magical minor imperfections and irregularities of nature won't counteract that at all.