Home › Forums › Explore Media › Oil Painting › Golden Ratio Canvas or 3:4 or 2:3???
- This topic has 140 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by SarahY.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 15, 2014 at 8:54 am #991707
I’m struggling to determine what the most beautiful ratio is for canvases / paintings. I just completed a painting on a golden section canvas measuring 100 X 161.8 cm. Its dimensions definitely have a magnetic quality, but it feels a little claustrophobic and narrow. My eyes are more satisfied with the 3:4 ratio canvases I’ve done.
Having said that, the golden mean canvas pulls you in. I can imagine a spiral in it which can be mesmerizing. Although it is either too short when horizontal or too slim when vertical. It’s a conundrum.
I know the golden ratio is supposed to be the most harmonious, and I accept that it is, but the 3:4 ratio feels much more resolved and peaceful — and therefore perhaps harmonious? 4:5 ratio is too fat either way – it looks chubby. :smug:
Maybe 2:3 is the solution, but is it a compromise?
I know people will respond “just do what you like,” but that’s not what I’m asking here – I’d really like anyone who’s willing to give me their decisive opinion on what is most *beautiful* to them personally.
I’ve uploaded a pic of what I completed yesterday for reference – from my website http://jessewaugh.com
March 15, 2014 at 9:08 am #1201992Anonymous16×20 is the best, most balanced, natural sized canvas in my opinion. Like goldilocks would say, it is just right. Although I often paint smaller than 8×10, in no particular size, I have a stash of larger oil primed canvases and by far, most of them are that size.
The 16×20 size takes into account the size that I find most appropriate, or pleasing for hanging in a average size house wall. But there are places that a double square (like a 12×24, or 24×48) will be a better fit, say along a narrow wall space, or over a long sofa. Really big houses need bigger paintings.
But for just pure ratio aesthetics, I like the 16×20.March 15, 2014 at 9:20 am #1202065Thanks – that’s a great answer. I like strong opinions and am sick of diplomacy lol
16 X 20 is 4:5 – that’s the ratio that looks chubby to me, but I see your point. It also seems robust, solid, and very attractive. Actually sort of masculine if I may interject some political incorrectness.
March 15, 2014 at 9:30 am #1201981Like Sid, I paint mostly on the 4:5 canvases but let me ask you a question. When you look at your painting above, where on the painting do your eyes land or linger?
If you're asking me for advice, I'm going to assume that you've run out of rational options.
My work on FacebookMarch 15, 2014 at 9:33 am #1202066Like Sid, I paint mostly on the 4:5 canvases but let me ask you a question. When you look at your painting above, where on the painting do your eyes land or linger?
They hover over the centre formation of daffodils, but are pulled to the single daffodil bottom left (with the reflection).
March 15, 2014 at 9:38 am #1201982If I force myself to look at the cluster of daffodils, the V shape of their composition takes me down to the bottom center flower but just looking at the painting, I am immediately drawn to the single flower on the left, not exactly in the golden mean but close enough to take you there, so it works. You could do the same painting on a 4:5 ratio canvas but you would just have to move the composition a bit and possibly move the cluster back a notch.
If you're asking me for advice, I'm going to assume that you've run out of rational options.
My work on FacebookMarch 15, 2014 at 10:29 am #1202046The idea that there is some sort of absolute “best” ratio seems very strange to me. Doesn’t the best ratio depend on what you want to paint and what you want to convey?
James Gurney says it like this in his series about the golden mean:
“[I]Perhaps there’s a deeper aesthetic truth to be gleaned from all of this. A masterpiece, it turns out, does not issue from fixed mathematical rules. It comes from a happy mixture of all the elements of composition cohering with messy particularity. For one painting, a 3×4 rectangle might be the ideal choice; for another, a square might yield divine results. The picture’s central idea must drive the decision. Just as there is no optimum running length for a film, no optimum key for a symphony, and no optimum structure for a poem, there’s no optimum shape for a painting.[/I]“
March 15, 2014 at 10:52 am #1202067The idea that there is some sort of absolute “best” ratio seems very strange to me. Doesn’t the best ratio depend on what you want to paint and what you want to convey?
James Gurney says it like this in his [URL=http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.nl/search?q=golden+ratio]series[/URL] about the golden mean:
That’s an absolutely beautiful quote. I accept it wholeheartedly. My motive for beginning this thread is that I gravitate towards uniformity for efficiency – in dress, etc. Furthermore, I need to buy a multi-pack of canvases which are packed all the same size.
March 15, 2014 at 10:56 am #1201991In my opinion, it depends on the composition. Generally speaking, when I shoot photos, I prefer 2:3 for landscape format and 4:3 for portrait format.
Don
March 15, 2014 at 11:03 am #12019581-The Card Players by Paul Cezanne $300 million. 97cm x 130 cm. (Ratio = about 4:3) (Portrait)
2-Adele Bloch-Bauer II by Gustav Klimt $102 million. 120cm x 190 cm (Ratio = about 3:2) (Portrait)[FONT="Verdana"]I have learned to use the word 'impossible' with the greatest caution.
Wernher von BraunMarch 15, 2014 at 11:25 am #1202047My motive for beginning this thread is that I gravitate towards uniformity for efficiency
Ah, ok, I understand, now.
Maybe the most “average” ratio is best. For me, a 2:5 ratio, is about the most extreme ratio that’s still useful (1:3 is a bit too extreme for me, it feels unbalanced). A 1:1 ratio is the least extreme ratio. The average between those ratios is about 1:√2 (like the a4 paper format). I don’t think canvases like that exist. The closest ratio is 2:3, followed by 3:4. I think they are both safe choices. If you take a 1:2 ratio as the most extreme but still useful ratio, the average is a 3:4 ratio.
March 15, 2014 at 11:55 am #1202068Ah, ok, I understand, now.
Maybe the most “average” ratio is best. For me, a 2:5 ratio, is about the most extreme ratio that’s still useful (1:3 is a bit too extreme for me, it feels unbalanced). A 1:1 ratio is the least extreme ratio. The average between those ratios is about 1:√2 (like the a4 paper format). I don’t think canvases like that exist. The closest ratio is 2:3, followed by 3:4. I think they are both safe choices. If you take a 1:2 ratio as the most extreme but still useful ratio, the average is a 3:4 ratio.
Thanks – this is actually what I was looking for. A4 is a great ratio. It connotes stationery for me lol, but good proportions. That 1:√2 is rather interesting. The consensus so far seems to be 2:3, 3:4, and 4:5. I’m leaning towards 3:4 – which is in the middle.
March 15, 2014 at 4:43 pm #1202058Have you considered the square root of 2 ? 1.4142 : 1
Down a bit from divine proportion of 1.618 . There are others too you know.
TonyMarch 15, 2014 at 8:49 pm #1202064I personally am a big fan of 2:3. 8*12 for still life. 10*15 for portrait. Not a traditional size, but I make my own panels, and if I ever manage anything good enough to frame I’ll figure it out. I like my handy range of viewfinder (ie cardboard from cereal boxes I’ve cut openings of various 2:3 sizes into) and I find it helpful not to have to match stuff up and do math, so I understanding wanting to work at one dimension. When I worked at a bunch, I would forget which was which, make an assumption, not check it and then realize later the problems I was having were a mismatch in dimension between reference and what I was working on.
I do have a few square though, just in case the impulse strikes
March 16, 2014 at 1:55 am #1201956I find the ‘longer’ canvases take a while to visually get accustomed to when used horizontally. But…long ratios (such as 2:1 or longer) are awesome when used vertically. And they are also easier to find a place for on a small wall.
If done well, any ratio (including square) can work well…it’s all about the placement and and arrangement of the elements.
-
AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘Golden Ratio Canvas or 3:4 or 2:3???’ is closed to new replies.
Register For This Site
A password will be e-mailed to you.
Search