[Leica] HCB and geometry

["Robert Rose" <rjr@usip.com>]

Oliver,

You would think it was a likely error, as many people (including
editors) have never heard of phi, and would think it is a typo and
change it to pi.  In the context of what was quoted "the formula for the
golden section, the mathematical rule of aesthetic balance which has
been used by artists since antiquity" you would also seem to be right.

So, someone has it wrong.

There is the possibility that HCB himself had it wrong (e.g., John
Banville quoted correctly).  Consider that two other sources also refer
to pi, not phi:

"Its stereotypes are remarkable by their balance between shade and
light and their nearly perfect symmetry (the photographer had a theory
of "pi")."  http://www.gazette-drouot.com/gazette/exposition.html

"With pulling, balance perfect between shade and light, between vacuum
and full, right report/ratio, this famous "pi", a transcendental number
to which always Cartier-Bresson refers.." 
http://www.cinethea.com/art_sorties_photo.html

What we need is an HCB scholar, or something written by HCB, to help
decide whether Banville quoted wrong, or whether HCB had it wrong.

I just happened to pick up a copy of "The Golden Ratio: The Story of
Phi, the World's Most Astonishing Number" by Mario Livio.  I will let
you know if HCB is mentioned (but I doubt it).

Regards,
Bob Rose

Oliver Bryk wrote:
. . .  I suspect that John Banville made a mistake in quoting HCB who
probably said, "but I do believe in Phi." Pi makes no sense in this
context. . . . Is there a mathematician in the house who can confirm or
contradict my supposition?

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html