Keep it simple MJ

Artists recognize three basic forms, the square, the circle and the triangle. It has always been so, IOW if you pull aside an ancient Egyptian and line him up with an artist from the 'big apple' give each the three forms to re-arrange and formulate an effective image, brought in the judge, neither could be paired with their finished image. Test have been done with modern artists and they all forwarded different results, some looked primitive, some didn't. There would be no reason why the Egyptian would design something we thought primitive just as there would be no reason why a modern would design something we thought primitive. The only way one might tell is if the images were done in a graphic style identified as being unique to the artist and it doesn't necessarily follow that our Egyptian would have a unique style with squares, circles and triangles ... although he might.

Five thousand years ago the Egyptian had all three forms and the one that stands out in my book is the square, especially the double square in the form of a 2x1 rectangle because it's from this basic form in the plural that we extract the golden proportion. It 's not a modern construct by any means. In fact it's a bloody simple construct for it only involves one side of the rectangle and the diagonal.

So if we are going to keep Egyptian geometry simple I don't think we should discard the golden section. From an artists point of view the GS not only looks right but a discovery can be made as to why it looks right ... and that might be something discovered long after it looks right, ie, when geometry is introduced to the artist.

Graham.