The Golden Section Hypothesis

Abstract

Since the very beginning of experimental aesthetics with Fechner's investigation of the Holbein Madonna (1872) and the aesthetic pleasingness of the golden section (1865, 1871a, 1876/1925/1978) there have been reports with widely differing results on this hypothesis (to quote only a few: Benjafield, 1976; Boselie, 1992; Davis, 1933; Godkewitsch, 1974; Haines & Davies, 1904; Lalo, 1908; Piehl, 1976; Plug, 1980; Svensson, 1977; Thompson, 1946; see also the reviews of Green, 1995 and Höge, 1995). Thus, as there are so many results on the golden section hypothesis showing contradictory outcomes it seemed necessary to replicate Fechner's original study as far as possible: giving the same proportions, using white cards on black ground. Other specifics could not be kept constant because Fechner's report on the experiment is not very precise (cf. Fechner, 1876/1925/1997). As a complete replication is not possible, three experiments were carried out, each of them being slightly different in methodology. However, regardless of the conditions under which the choices were made, the golden section did not turn out to be the preferred proportion. The comparison with Fechner's results makes this research only quasi-experimental in character and, hence, inevitably there are some restrictions with respect to the strength of the conclusions to be drawn. But, nevertheless, the nice peak of preference Fechner reported for the golden section seems to be either an artifact or it is an effect of still unknown factors. Two possible hypotheses (change-of-taste and color-of-paper) are discussed. It is concluded that the golden section hypothesis is a myth.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arnheim

(1985). The other Gustav Theodor Fechner. In Koch

& Leary

D. E.

(Eds.).

A century of psychology as science (pp. 856–865). New York etc.: McGraw-Hill.

Baylis

G. C.

, & Driver

(1995). Obligatory edge assignment in vision: The role of figure and part segmentation in symmetry detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1323–1342.

Benjafield

(1976). The “golden” rectangle: Some new data. American Journal of Psychology, 89, 737–743.

Berlyne

D. E.

(1970). The golden section and hedonic judgments of rectangles: A cross-cultural study. Sciences de l'Art—Scientific Aesthetics, 7, 1–6.

Berlyne

D. E.

(1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Boselie

(1992). The golden section has no special aesthetic attractivity! Empirical Studies of the Arts, 10, 1–18.

Croce

(1905). Ästhetik als Wissenschaft des Ausdrucks und allgemeine Linguistik. [Aesthetics as the science of expression and general linguistics]. Leipzig: Seemann.

Davis

F. C.

(1933). Aesthetic proportion. American Journal of Psychology, 45, 298–302.

10.

Davis

S. T.

, & Jahnke

J. C.

(1991). Unity and the golden section: Rules for aesthetic choice? American Journal of Psychology, 104, 257–277.

11.

Dziemidok

(1995, August). Aesthetization of everyday life and de-aesthetization of art: The problem of fulfillment of aesthetic needs in postmodern culture. Paper presented at the XIIIth International Congress of Aesthetics' “Aesthetics in Practice,” Lahti, Finland.

12.

Fechner

G. T.

(1865). Über die Frage des goldenen Schnittes. [On the question of the golden section]. Archiv für die zeichnenden Künste, 11, 100–112.

13.

Fechner

G. T.

(1871a). Zur experimentalen Aesthetik. [On experimental aesthetics]. Abhandlungen der sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, mathematisch-physikalische Klasse, 9, 556–635.

14.

Fechner

G. T.

(1871b). lieber die Aechtheitsfrage der Holbein'schen Madonna. [On the question of the originality of the Holbein Madonna]. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.

15.

Fechner

G. T.

(1872). Bericht über das auf der Dresdener Holbein-Ausstellung ausgelegte Album. [Report on the album laid out at the Holbein exhibition in Dresden]. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.

16.

Fechner

G. T.

(1873). Einige Ideen zur Schöpfungs-und Entwickelungsgeschichte der Organismen. [Some ideas on the history of creation and evolution of the organisms]. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.

17.

Fechner

G. T.

(1876/1925/1978). Vorschule der Ästhetik. [Preschool of aesthetics]. Hildesheim: Olms. (Reprint of the 3rd edition 1925; 1st edition 1876).

18.

Fechner

G. T.

(1876/1925/1997). Various attempts to establish a basic form of beauty. Experimental aesthetics, golden section and square. Empirical Studies of the Arts, this volume. [Chapter 14 of Fechner 1876/1925/1978, pp. 184–202, translated by Niemann

Monika

Quehl

Julia

, & Höge

Holger

19.

Fechner

G. T.

(1887/1989). My own viewpoint on mental measurement. Psychological Research, 49, 213–219. (Translated by E. Scheerer).

20.

Godkewitsch

(1974). The “golden section”: An artifact of stimulus range and measure of preference. American Journal of Psychology, 87, 269–277.

21.

Green

C. D.

(1995). All that glitters: A review of psychological research on the aesthetics of the golden section. Perception, 24, 937–968.

22.

Gregory

(1996). Editorial. The other life of Heimholte. Perception, 25, 1007–1008.

23.

Haines

T. H.

, & Davies

S. E.

(1904). Psychology of reaction to rectangular forms. Psychological Review, 11, 249–281.

24.

Hekkert

Peper

C. E.

, & van Wieringen

P. C. W.

(1994). The effect of verbal instruction and artistic background on the aesthetic judgment of rectangles. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 12, 185–203.

25.

Hintz

J. M.

, & Nelson

T. M.

(1970). Golden section: Reassessment of the perimetric hypothesis. American Journal of Psychology, 83, 126–129.

26.

Höge

(1995). Fechner's experimental aesthetics and the golden section hypothesis today. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13, 131–148.

27.

Höge

(1996). The golden section hypothesis—A funeral, but not the last one … Visual Arts Research, 22, 79–89.

28.

Höge

(1997). Fechner in context: Aesthetics from below, inner and outer psychophysics—A reply to Pavel Machotka. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 15, 91–97.

29.

Howard

(1985). The steel pen and the modern line of beauty. International Quarterly of the Society for the History of Technology, 26, 785–798.

30.

Lalo

(1908). L'esthetique expérimentale contemporaine. [Experimental aesthetics today]. Paris: Alcan.

31.

Lefebvre

(1992). A rational equation for attractive proportions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 36, 100–128.

32.

Machotka

(1995). Aesthetics: If not from below, whence? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13, 105–118.

33.

Piehl

(1976) The ‘golden section’: An artifact of stimulus range and demand characteristics. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 43, 47–50.

34.

Plug

(1980). The golden section hypothesis. American Journal of Psychology, 93, 467–487.

35.

Scheerer

, & Hildebrandt

(1987). Gustav Theodor Fechner: An eminent psychologist? Extended version of the paper given at the International Symposium on Gustav Theodor Fechner and Psychology, Passau, Germany.

36.

Scheerer

(1987). The unknown Fechner. Psychological Research, 49, 197–202.

37.

Scheerer

(1992). Fechner's inner psychophysics: Its historical fate and present status. In Geissler

H. G.

Link

S. W.

& Townsend

J. T.

(Eds.), Cognition, information processing and psychophysics: Basic issues (pp. 3–21). Hillsdale, N.J. etc.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

38.

Seghers

M. J.

Longacre

J. J.

, & de Stefano

G. A.

(1964). The golden proportion and beauty. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 34, 382–386.

39.

Simmel

(1994): The picture frame: An aesthetic study. Theory, Culture & Society, 11, 11–17. (Translated by Mark Ritter).

40.

Smith

P. F.

(1981). Architektur und Ästhetik. [Architecture and aesthetics]. Stuttgart: Julius Hoffmann.

41.

Stone

L. A.

, & Collins

L. G.

(1965). The golden section revisited: A perimetric explanation. American Journal of Psychology, 78, 503–506.

42.

Svensson

L. T.

(1977). Note on the golden section. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 18, 79–80.

43.

Thompson

G. C.

(1946). The effect of chronological age on aesthetic preference for rectangles of different proportions. Journal of Psychology, 36, 50–58.

44.

Woodworth

R. S.

(1938). Experimental Psychology. London: Methuen.

45.

Zeising

(1855). Aesthetische forschungen. [Aesthetic inquiries]. Frankfurt am Main: Medinger.

The Golden Section Hypothesis—Its Last Funeral

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References