The '32 Grill and the Mona Lisa--What do they have in common??

didnt I see that on a Donald Duck cartoon

 

i don't need any math to tell me that i love both of your cars.

-danny

 

I always thought the "golden ratio" had to do with "if it's more than a handful it's a waste"

 

Now you're talking about shape when this is all about proportion.
Actually the the 34 grill looks a lot more like Nancy Pelosi than the mona lisa:



Whereas the '32 is more like these babes, proportionately that is:

 

Rodster gets it. THe Golden Mean even occurs naturally all around us. Doesn't mean we have to use a strict mathematical formula but that certain asthetics apply.

I knew that graphic design and art history would come in handy! And yes, I have thought about this myself in the past.

 

Sorry to be picky, but I think you'll find that's a '33 grille. Which perhaps explains why I've never thought of the Mona Lisa as, um, attractive?




Perhaps this theory also explains the hate on the Graffiti coupe grille?

 

Very interesting indeed...

 

My head hurts now.

 

Rodster, very interesting. Would that Golden Ratio also apply when you chop a top or section a car? For instance, could it be applied to the front view this car?

 

A 3x5 notecard is the perfect example. If you discount the ws frame on that Merc you get about that ratio.

 

They're both as high as giraffe pussy, and that's way up there.!!!!!!!!

 

What do they have in common?
They're both over priced and I don't like either one.
I'm sick of seeing '32 rad shells stuck on the front of everything.

 

Interesting thread.

 

Heady hot rod talk, I love it. Good proportions on a car have everything to do with ratios. I'm sure that there's probably there's a text book or two out there that discuss the formulas of automotive proportioning... I think finding a couple would be a good project for me when I've got some down-time.

 

Unfortunately this dude's comb-over ruins any chance for aesthetic appeal.

 

how does it not fit? Looks like it fits repeatedly to me.

 

I agree 100% with this , we were talking about perfectly proportioned Hot Rods yesterday in Fresno , I mentioned the ratio. Look up www.goldenmeangauge.co.uk it has all the things in nature ie flowers, bird colors , faces architecture that all fall into the same ratio.It really is fascinating stuff , why is it some cars have the "right wheel / tire combo " & others screw it up real bad . Interesting thread .

 

Don't know the difference as you are trying to explain but 36 24 36 porportions look fantastic and seem to have universal apeal.

 

Thank you sir, I was looking for a nice way to say that, I don't have one, I just want to call bullshit. There are so many things that are perfectly proportional that do not fit. And yes when you start forcing things you can make them sort of fit. But all in all it's not always true.

 

You almost have hit it here with your observation of faces. Yes, the golden rule almost always fits the dimensions of our first love, our mothers face. So it is no real mystery we are hard wired to love our mothers.

 

I am a believer in the golden ratio.. it doesn't mean all designs need to be based on that proportion, but it is a nice shape that works most of the time, just like how some colors look good together to 90% of the population and 90% of the HAMBnation will agree that some certain car is chopped too much, there are reasons why people like what they like.

 

I really enjoy this thread - it has a valid point.

 

My brain hurts.....

 

Rodster...no! Their the same age...pop.

 

;

Not really, but, of course, it doesn't have to be in this proportion to look good. Lots of things look awsome, including '55 Chev. grills, without conforming to the 1:1.618 ratio.

 

cool .

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Lee
Like a lot of artsy aesthetic stuff there are "formulas" of sorts that will work. But get too invested and you start forcing stuff to make it true.

That nautilus shell? It does not fit in the golden section. And that 3W you're trying to cram into the box? Not even close.

But once a myth like this gains momentum it's done. People are just going to believe what they already want to regardless. Flatheads run hot, the Parthenon was built on the golden mean, and the earth is flat.
Thank you sir, I was looking for a nice way to say that, I don't have one, I just want to call bullshit. There are so many things that are perfectly proportional that do not fit. And yes when you start forcing things you can make them sort of fit. But all in all it's not always true.
__________________
"beep beep my ass..."

Sorry to confuse you guys. This isn't a matter of stuffing something in to make it fit. The '32 grill is in perfect golden proportion. Something either fits or it doesn't; the ratio is precise 1:1.618.

You're right about the '32 three-window. It's a tortured example. My including that illustration detracted from the main point about the grill.

As for Nautilus Shells, as found in nature they it always fit precisly. You are confused. it's about the infinate series of squares and rectangles that describe the rate of sprial. Maybe these images will help:



With the golden rectangle, we can remove a square and be left with a new smaller golden rectangle ad infinitum. If we line up the squares correctly and put a quarter circle in each of the squares in the proper orientation, we get a shape known as the Archimedan Spiral, named for the total badass mathematician Archimedes.