Oh, I don't know. I think that many visual artists would rebel if their discipline were taken over by an army of computers churning out paint-by-numbers products.
where did i mention anything like that ?
Maybe people involved in and attracted to figure skating tend secretly to despise the assumption that everything of value in the sport can be pigeon-holed into a numerical grid. Is it really all that objective and scientific to declare that a triple loop is 1.15 times as difficult as a triple toe, not 1.16?
their problem
if figure skating is a sport and requires scoring, then numbers have to be assigned to elements... and that's always been arbitrary... as you have mentioned in another thread, it seems like some skaters have an easier time with the quad lutz than the quad loop.. yet, the quad lutz gets more point... Duhamel said the throw triple flip was MUCH easier than the throw triple lutz, yet, they are the same value... i think she's also the one who mentioned how difficult the throw triple toe can be though it's lower in bv... (maybe it was someone else).. in the end, numbers have been assigned to create some canvas for scoring that is less subjective perhaps.. and that's how it goes.
(Nothing against Leonardo Da Vinci -- one of the greatest polymaths of all time -- who figured out that the ideal proportions of various parts of the human body must follow the Fibonacci sequence 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,...)
the human body part /visual arts do not follow the sequence... they follow the ratio between number of the sequence... which is close to the golden number....
Was it Leo who worked with that first ? All I can tell you is that it's present in many disciplines in a number of ways. Even chords are based on thirds, follow the golden number/fibonacci sequence ratios... and chords are old
Also, the sequence create spirals...which are commonly seen in nature (much older than any artists or mathmen ) for instead, conic seashell, romanesco cauliflower, artichokes, etc.
Modern/Contemporary musicians have been fascinated by the golden number, for instance Bartok... or even Stockhausen. It has been present in art for centuries and will remain relevant for ever...
The golden ration is 1.618
In classical sonatas for instance, the development and recapitulation is often said to be of that ration over the exposition.
Another way to look at it in art is the following
Let's take 15, 23
15/23 = 65,3 %
So roughly at the two-third point of a piece, we would reach the golden number and thus, there may be a huge climax there.
So musicians analyse works the other way around from and say that at the end of the development of a sonata, at roughly two-thirds, the climax should be... and that's where there is the most harmonic tension in a sonata.
So there are different ways to use :
1) proportions of sections (or I guess facial features etc)
2) or when it happens in time
In a short program, the golden number often is right after the last jumping pass... which happens after the half way point, for bonus points which starts at 80 seconds...
2m40 secs = 160 seconds X golden ration (0.653) 104 seconds or so... Often, that's where the music picks up for or during the step sequence...
So some choreographers may or may not know this but they are using Fibonacci ratio as well
It is so ingrained in our culture, probably because it's coming from nature, that a lot of our aesthetic concepts come from it
