The Vase on the Mantelpiece: The Golden Section in Context

Abstract

The golden section (GS) was investigated in three experiments (N = 91, 87, and 73 psychology students, respectively), using both traditional methods (line bi-section, production of rectangles), and novel stimuli (contours and cutouts of vases constructed by the GS and non-GS principles) and tasks (the placement of “vases” on an imaginary and a laboratory, purpose-built, mantelpiece). In five different tasks, which varied considerably in technical details, there was absolutely no evidence for the significance of the GS, nor was there a general preference for the GS vases. Instead, the search for balance seemed to motivate the subjects' mantelpiece placement choices, guided by the area (“weight”), rather than the shape, of the vases. In addition, the results cast serious doubt on the generalizability of conclusions based on the research on rectangles to real-world aesthetic objects and choices. Other substantive and methodological issues, especially with regard to the future research on the GS, and to ecological validity, were discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Angier

R. P.

(1903). The aesthetics of unequal division. Psychological Review Monograph Supplement, 4, 541–561.

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.

Berlyne

D. E.

(1974). The new experimental aesthetics. In Berlyne

D. E.

(Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 1–26). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.

Borissavlievitch

(1958). The golden number and the scientific aesthetics of architecture. London: Alec Tiranti.

Boselie

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

Bouleau

(1963). The painter's secret geometry: A Study of composition in art. London: Thames and Hudson.

Fechner

G. T.

(1876). Vorschule der Aesthetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf u. Haertel.

Godkewitsch

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

10.

Green

C. D.

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

11.

Haines

T. H.

, & Davies

A. E.

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

12.

Höge

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

13.

Huntley

H. E.

(1970). The divine proportion: A study in mathematical beauty. New York: Dover.

14.

Le Corbusier [ Jeanneret-Gris

C. E.

] (1954). Modular. London: Faber & Faber.

15.

Locher

P. J.

(1996). The contribution of eye-movement research to an understanding of the nature of pictorial balance perception: A review of the literature. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 14, 143–164.

16.

Locher

P. J.

, & Nodine

(1989). The perceptual value of symmetry. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 17, 475–484.

17.

McManus

I. C.

(1980). The aesthetics of simple figures. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 505–524.

18.

McManus

I. C.

Edmondson

, & Rodger

(1985). Balance in pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 311–324.

19.

McManus

I. C.

, & Kitson

(1995). Compositional geometry in pictures. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13, 73–94.

20.

Marshall

P. H.

Worthen

Brant

Shrader

Kahlstorf

, & Pickeral

(1995). Fechner redux: A comparison of the Holbein Madonnas. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13, 17–24.

21.

Pierce

(1894). Aesthetics of simple forms. I. Symmetry. Psychological Review, 1, 483–495.

22.

Voloshinov

A. V.

(1996). Symmetry as a superprinciple of science and art. Leonardo, 29, 109–113.