The Golden Section Hypothesis—Its Last Funeral

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.