@Weekend
Thanks for being considerate. Just keep the sarcasm on low if you can. I am really trying here and it upsets me when people take me as a joke.
By the way, I didn’t use Anna AJ as a reference when I started this project but now I guess I am…
She does have Japanese shaped eyes which I will keep because I think they look cool.
1 Like
wops wrong use of quotations again.
I really found it beautiful and interesting. if you see my sketchbook you will find out that I like sculpting new things.
This proportion is new to me I’m not going to lie.
@Weekend
Well I guess I am used to it because I happen to have Slavic and Ukrainian ancestry according to ancestry.com. And I grew up with 5 sisters whom every boy in my school wanted to be my friend only because of them. It was annoying to say the least.
replace ‘zodiac creatures’ by “gold ratio” , “stars” by “angles” and “sky” by “picture” 
more like , randomly fit between a 1 to 2 ratio instead of the the perfectly 1,618 … but do you even know why that number is magical ? No it’s not because " it’s in the nature everywhere " … coz it’s simply the only value which verifies .
1 + A = 1 / A with A =~ 0,61803398...
so Artists just pick up that thing to prove to the world their proportions are scientifically correct. It’s ridiculous… Nature doesn’t make maths… nature follows some Probability and Physical laws which happens to be understandable by humans with Mathematics.
yeah, it must be … it has to be ! It cannot be different ! Gold is strong and its ratio is perfect. You would notice that the horn of a Rhino doesn’t have the same proportion than the horn of an elephant … still, both are the result of millions years of evolution… why so ?
I can also make perfect gold ratio figure :
with a rectangle : width = 1 , height = Phi (or the opposite)
or a trapeze : Phi at bottom, 1 above (or the opposite)
or a triangle : 1 for the longest side, Phi -1 for the other side
1 Like
Hello friend! Googled her, looked at some pics. Not my cup of tea though. I like women with some meat on the bones. 
Edit:
Not gonna sculpt her, but rescaling my female mannequin was painless. Not to match the measurements of Anna AJ, this is just for kicks (the boobs weren’t scaled down).
1 Like
I sorry if I turned your thread sour that was not my intention but I am being absolutely honest when I say that this golden ratio stuff is bunk and it’s really causing you more problems than helping you.
I will repeat what quiet a few people have already said pick up a book on anatomy and proportions and study the 7 1/2 head or 8 head proportions.
If you are not a sculpting master please!, please! please! use references either a real model or photographs. Don’t try and do it out of imagination. To be able to do things out of imagination successfully you need to build a huge visual library that comes when you have completed many sculpts using references.
If you want to test out this golden ratio stuff the easiest one to test out is the one that says the ratio of the height of model / height to the belly button should be phi, it’s rarely that. You can measure yourself or friend and family that are willing. Gottfried Bammes in his anatomy book also helpfully gives the measurement of some of his models.
Sculpting and drawing isn’t about sticking to some formulas you got to learn to use your eyes and your judgement. You would be better off to learn to use observation and your artistic intuition.
Even the standard 8 or 71/2 head proportions are just guide lines because the change person to person or else we would all look alike.
4 Likes
After some investigation, I couldn’t find any mention of the “golden ratio” in any anatomy books, so it’s pretty much useless, also these videos explain why:
From Stanford University:
Quick recap:
The aura of this being some kind of secret knowledge from ancient times, makes people believe it’s a legit tool for getting perfect proportions for the human body (and not only that), I mean, the greatest artists used it, like ! and !; but it’s not. It doesn’t have any scientific basis and even empirical tests demonstrates its shortcomings.
4 Likes
@blenderaptor
No no no.
You said:
replace ‘zodiac creatures’ by “gold ratio” , “stars” by “angles” and “sky” by “picture”
You are stretching it. Astrology has a lot of superstition and mythology attached to it.
The golden ratio is just a mathematical relationship. Astrology may have math in it, but it is not strictly math.
You also said Phi is:
more like , randomly fit between a 1 to 2 ratio instead of the the perfectly 1,618 … but do you even know why that number is magical ? No it’s not because " it’s in the nature everywhere " … coz it’s simply the only value which verifies . 1 + A = 1 / A with A =~ 0,61803398…
Yes I know why the Phi is “golden”. You are not going to change my opinion on it and I probably won’t change yours. I have studied it for a long time and its not an “ordinary” ratio. You can find it in the Fibonacci sequence and you can find the Fibonacci sequence in the Mandelbrot set.
In my opinion the most “revealing” formula which shows how phi relates to 1 is:
Φ = 0.5 ± √1.25
(0.5 + √1.25) multiplied by (0.5 - √1.25) equals 1
They are the only 2 numbers in equal proportion that have a difference of 1 from each other that can also be multiplied together to get 1. Why is 1 so relevant? Down the rabbit hole we go…
For a reality to be “knowable” it has to have dimension and dimension must have a unit of measure.
Build any unit of measure without 1’s if you can…
Try building a computer without using on’s and ones. Its the 1’s that count and hold their place. Zeros cannot hold a place. Example: 0+0=0 …it stays the same and you don’t move along the number line. 1+1=2…it moved. 1 holds its place because its the one number that counts and adds up that all others are built on. You cannot even compose a song without Phi showing up. Most people don’t realize it but it is not possible to make any form of measure without it creating a fractal or self-similar structure over time. The reason why is because the only way for a “unit of measure” to be useful is for it to become “defined” and the only way to “define” a unit of measure is to compare it to another unit of measure like meters to kilometers etc… Proof: I make a new unit of measure call it a quinquinquaginmeter. It isn’t very useful unless I relate or compare it to another “unit” to give you reference on its size and it becomes defined. This is also related to the concept of infinity. Most people think of infinity as some unimaginably large number that can never be reached. This is simply the wrong way to think about it. Infinity can be any size because any unit of measure can never be perfectly defined since all units of measure are based on each other and must continue forever or end with a unit that is based on itself like phi. Infinity is a measurement or mathematical concept which is a value that is not fully definable. Most people don’t realize this. In order to define a unit you must compare it to another unit that must also have some definition. Furthermore you cannot define a word without comparing it to another word, or color or sound or shape or object. Go ahead and try. Since this is true, any form of measurement is dependent on “connection” of 2 or more units. This is why we see branching structure in nature and the reality we live in called the Universe. It is my theory that any object that has a “well defined measure” is dependent on a network-like structure. The internet is like a giant measuring machine of information. We did not invent the network. If there are people that think the internet is the only means of transmission of information in this reality, they have their heads where the moons don’t shine. Look around. Everything is connected for a reason. Objects with measure are dependent on comparisons. Phi is a very interesting comparison because it is a comparison that is based on itself and gives meaning.
This picture below looks like magnetic field lines. Mag-net-ic. A “net” of atoms sharing charge and built on each other “measured” and organized on a “periodic” table. Its called periodic because the charges of elements have similar recurrences at different intervals. I could go on and tell you my theory on magnetism and where that invisible force comes from. Magnetism feels like a cushioned solid force that is invisibly floating in mid air. With this in mind lets ask the question: What is actually truly solid in the Universe? An atom is mostly empty space yet it appears solid at our human scale vantage-point. If all chunks of matter are inside and part of a larger chunk of matter (such as an electron inside an atom) could the force we feel from magnetism be a concentrated interference between an interior chunk of matter bound inside an exterior chunk of matter that appear solid at certain scales like atoms? So the “invisible” force we feel is actually part of a “solid” aspect from a larger chunk of matter that is magnified on our level by the (mag)net? Theory…
The reason the number 8 sideways is used to symbolize infinity may have something to do with this picture or this math:
If you divide 4/5 and iterate you get:
0.8
0.16
0.032
0.0064
0.00128
0.000256
+________
0.9999…
If you kept dividing and adding forever, you would get 1.
You said:
I can also make perfect gold ratio figure :
with a rectangle : width = 1 , height = Phi (or the opposite)
or a trapeze : Phi at bottom, 1 above (or the opposite)
or a triangle : 1 for the longest side, Phi -1 for the other side
What I specifically meant was: Geometrically you only need pentagon and its there. With a rectangle you have no way of knowing exactly how long the side should be without using another unit to compare it to.
Have you ever read “Zen and the art of motorcycle design”?
… maybe you’ll understand why I ask that if you have, if you haven’t, oh well.
Computers don’t actually use human numerals at all, it has nothing to do with any real ‘count’. A better analogy would be to say it’s a series of light switches. I wouldn’t think you would have to call the state of being “on” as “one”, even though we can use it symbolically for that purpose. Similarly, the voltage required to enable the transistors (silicon based) is not 1. You could force it to be a 1v transistor if you wanted, but it isn’t by design. When the transistor state is read, by running current through it, it doesn’t even bother to check the value, the flow of the electricity defines the pattern’s existence and value by its after-effect.
Infinity has a lot of meaning, now and in the past. You could also define it as the set of all things. You could also define it as being a limitless value of any base, including irrational ones such as base pi, or fractional and fractal bases. The point isn’t the value, but the fact that it is unending.
That’s false, .9 repeating does not equal 1.
(1 - 1/infinity)
1 Like
Blender10der:
0.9999…
If you kept dividing and adding forever, you would get 1.
Horusscope:
That’s false, .9 repeating does not equal 1.
(1 - 1/infinity)
I get what you mean but I think you know what I meant but you just wanted to argue to show whose smarter because its fun. 
The fact is with that idea: It is supposed to go on forever like infinity and since it has no end it never reaches 1 but it gets closer and closer and does reach it in a theoretical “infinite time”.
What I specifically meant when I said infinity is “not definable” was in reference to its size, not the ideas based around it. In other words…you cannot cut it in half and know how big the halves are like you can with ordinary numbers that are definable “in size”.
But to contradict a little bit of what I just said: Any number is only partially defined in size because they are all based on 1 and 1 has to be defined in size by comparison to a unit which must also have a defined size from something which leaves a bit of an unknown if you stop somewhere which is where phi comes in.
I am sorry for the tangent on this forum but the human body can be drawn with “measurements” used as reference. Those measurements have a “standard” and one cannot say the body cannot have lengths that come close to phi. If you don’t find phi lengths appealing that’s okay. I am really just experimenting and I know nature has chaos in it.
@SonicBlue
I can agree with the second video. Phi is not the definition of beauty because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One thing though…
Us humans acquire all of our tastes from experiences. Tastes can be chosen. If you eat raw fish enough it will start to taste good. If you smoke cigarettes long enough they will start to taste good. The reason the Greeks chose phi as a symbol of beauty has to do with what I explained above about the nature of measurement and how an observational (brain comp) reality is all that we know.
You have to realize the Greeks were very philosophical and loved to ponder math concepts and question reality. They pondered infinity all the time such as in Zeno’s Paradox.
why do you justify anorexia with the problem of obesity in America ? Too often i see “body-fat” haters on the web pretending that any girl above 70kg (whatever their shape or height) are land whales or other monstrosities. I recall you that you started to attack someone who just reshaped your model to something more realistic 
Wouldn’t be more convenient that you confess you prefer xxs models ?
2 Likes
1 + Phi = 1 / Phi yes , that’s lot of poetry and beauty.
1 Like
after all that… all you managed to prove is that the golden ratio phi thing is a math formula. what that has to do with the human body on the other hand…
i do find the references here to be a bit biased toward corner case body shapes. theres only a handful of super models in a world of billions. to truely prove the golden ratio is how the human body is shaped, then wouldnt almost all humans have to fit the ratios? not just the “beautiful” ones? if the golden ratio is “everywhere”, then shouldnt it be everywhere. ill admit ignorance to the topic, if this is true ill re-evaluate.
personally i cringe at those super model weirdos. but that is exclusively my personal opinion.
2 Likes
That’s the point, if golden ratio typifies beauty, then the results obtained by its employment should be beautiful, but that’s not the case, as we can see.
4 Likes
ok is this an art topic or mathematics or debate? 
Personally I like more modeling and less typing.
Maybe it’s me but I think if you have a limited amount of time, maybe you should spend it more on what you like and less on explaining why you like it. Just a thought.
Folks, stay on topic. This is a thread for a work in progress model. This is not the place to post random photos that really have no relation whatsoever with the topic of this thread.
I’ve removed a number of inappropriate and off-topic replies to this thread. Let’s keep it together.
4 Likes
Yessss Boss!
I wish to apologize to @Blender10der , lately the desire to joke has taken us a little too much, but nothing of personal, I assure you. I’m sorry.
Regarding the topic of the thread, although sometimes with a little bit of sarcasm or a little too harshly, I have always said what I thought useful to say, and I can only confirm what I said.
You are free to study or play with what you like and you are right to do it, math, geometry, numerology and so on, but if you are interested in painting, sculpture, modeling, in art in general, well, there are not formulas that count, what counts is Observing, Studying and Practicing.
Speaking of practice, while this thread was taking place, I have sculpted, modeled, painted and dressed 5 different characters, a bit rough, obviously, but this because we never stop learning, and practice is very important.
And another thing: don’t look for the perfect figure because it doesn’t exist, and if it exists it’s boring; what characterizes each individual are the differences, sometimes subtle, sometimes excessive even if consistent with human anatomy.
If you look at a beautiful and charming woman (or a man), you will see that what makes her attractive is her peculiarity, often some particular proportions; the same can be said for a person who looks nice, or threatening, or ugly in his own way.
This is why observation is important for an artist, and it is also important to study anatomy to avoid obvious errors and inconsistencies; and practice is your teacher, because it allows you to learn and master what you are engaged in.
Cheers
3 Likes
@blenderaptor
I apologize if I hurt anyone’s feelings about the human anatomy and how it shouldn’t be obese like it is in the USA. I was just saying whats true and the truth can hurt. Watch this video if you don’t believe me: YouTube Ted Talk - Obesity: National Security issue.
This data comes from what the military collects on people. Its not “exaggerated”.
All I am saying is the average body type should have a healthy % of fat and Anna AJ in that picture is not underweight or overweight.
1 Like