# MATHEMATICS OF DESIGN: "PURE BEAUTY" OR MERE FAMILIARITY?

## Why mathematical application in designing logos seems so ludicrous.

By PiousPublished 4 years ago 3 min read
Like

So far, there has barely existed any iconic heptagon. It is due to a simple reason: we are incapable of geometrically constructing such shape.

For the most parts, construction is the classical mathematical method to draw polygons, circles and other geometric shapes using only a compass and straightedge. That being said, it is incapable of drawing out a minor number of shapes, to illustrate, one-third of acute angle, a square whose area is equal to that of ​​a circle, an equilateral heptagon shape, etc.

Above all, upon sharing a mathematics passion, we have all acquired a profound knowledge of geometric construction. Thus, we decided to spare some time to make a short video on it exhibiting the beauty of mathematics.

Out of the blue, questions prompted. What is beauty? Is Mathematics truly extraordinarily beautiful? If yes, what can prove this? Still, does mathematics application in other fields, namely design, handsomely contribute to their beauty and meaning?

Further study on the golden ratio yesterday, together with our profound knowledge of construction, has brought us to the conclusion that modern designers’ application of mathematical ratios to logos (after drawing) is nothing but a ridicule.

Beauty comes along with mathematical ratios. Given that, they aren’t necessarily the origin of beauty.

I once watched a Kurzgesagt video on beauty and studied their references [1]. Accordingly, the most popular view nowadays is that familiarity breeds beauty and evolution impacts how humans perceive it. To demonstrate, symmetry is gorgeous since it’s in the shape of nature - mountains, trees, flowers, horns, etc. A pretty deer is a deer with plenty of meat. It has also been scientifically proven that symmetrically-faced women have higher fertility rates.

Upon arriving at an agreement on "beauty", let's turn to the aforementioned geometric construction.

Since it is convenient (only requires a compass and straightedge), construction was the most exceptionally capable designing method in ancient times. Compared to moderns designs, which have been made simpler with the help of computers, ancient designs were merely shapes that could be built with compasses and straightedges/ rulers.

It was NOT drawing. It was DESIGNING.

I myself affirm this since the inheritance symbols I have so far studied could pretty much be done by construction.

This is critical.

Contrary to drawing a shape (albeit stunning), construction provides us with: (1) better calculation ability and, ultimately, (2) absolutely accurate copies.

Despite being a part of blueprints, it offers the only way to feature religious and state logos. As long as the construction method is maintained, logos can possibly be replicated and passed to the next generations, without being overwhelmed by Clonophobia. Among the list are swastika, yin-yang, trigrams or symbols of Judaism and Satanism, etc.

There exist logos that did not follow the geometric construction. This way, they were gradually lost or cloned.

In general, we believe that painters, carpenters and carvers use construction to come up with their own designs, which would later be passed to the next generations. This is also how to identify cloned/fake ones. (The naked eyes are incapable of telling the real and fake ones apart. Still, the formula isn’t).

Talent is one thing, how the artist makes it extraordinary is another thing.

Thus, the process of designing patterns and logos have progressively followed mathematical formulas and ratios, in particular, geometric construction. Year after year, they have gradually become familiar, therefore, gorgeous.

In terms of aesthetics, geometric construction even preceded the golden ratio and others. Thus, it is probably the means, instead of purposes, which have created the modern standards.

That being said, since these standards exist due to means limitations, why do modern designers still apply it to their works? It is exacerbating for those who draw everything with a computer, applying them afterwards.

If the norm of beauty is in alignment with the ubiquitous prevailing views, as well as familiarity, new standards will appear sooner or later.

Designers’ applying mathematical ratios to design (1) shows that they have a superficial knowledge of the problem and (2) stifles creativity.

Still, they serve what customers wish.

We lean towards interesting things, regardless of propriety. Interest is the only thing matters.

Like

### Pious

How does it work?

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.