Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:09 pm**

That's the kind of answer expected from an ignorant person who knows nothing about a subject and cares less.

Posted: **Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:03 am**

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Never studied art and I already know about the Golden Ratio's supposed connection with aesthetics.

This article compares two rules, saying one is better than the other. To me, I think this article's approach to art may be too rigid.

Tell me what you think:

http://petapixel.com/2016/10/24/golden- ... le-thirds/

PhilX

These are merely helpful guides to composition. The key is to avoid 'simple balance'. See:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/

Posted: **Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:13 pm**

bobevenson wrote:That's the kind of answer expected from an ignorant person who knows nothing about a subject and cares less.

Would this answer be from an agnostic or an absolute fool bob?

bobevenson wrote:Theist, agnostic, atheist. As Bob the Baptist, I can tell you that the first and third are fools, and absolute fools at that.

bobevenson wrote:Anybody who isn't an agnostic is a fool.

Philosophy Now Forum

The Golden Ratio vs the Rule of Thirds

Re: The Golden Ratio vs the Rule of Thirds

Re: The Golden Ratio vs the Rule of Thirds

Re: The Golden Ratio vs the Rule of Thirds