The '32 Grill and the Mona Lisa--What do they have in common??

And it's a great tool and fairly easy to use. In archaic times before the scientific calculator, one could have used a stick and a string to produce proportioned results. I always think of the free masons when I hear this formula. I like this thread, but I kind of dig math and it's relationship to everything around us. It's called "Golden" cause it looks good. That simple.

 

well...it was fun and I agree on the NOT.
But I actually enjoyed this one. So what's next?

 

Rodster, can you help settle an old rumor? Wondering if the '32 resembled Edsel's face?
Seems that Leonardo had trouble finding a model, so he looked in a mirror, at least one story goes.

 

It looks more like Henry.

 

A picture done with my 1903 Eastman Improved #2 7X11 format camera.

​

7X11 was Golden Mean, but 8X10 mostly kicked its a$$. There are only a handful of 7X11 cameras extant.

Yes Virginia, 7X11 inches. The car is a '27 La Salle, and while pretty, has nothing to do with this discussion

 

Actually there IS some wonderful info on that on the HAMB; Check out this thread on early Ford patents started by Bruce Lancaster:

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=220726&highlight=grill

 

Here they are in black and white, thanks to Bruce:

Note that these patents were applied for in April and June of 1931 by guys named Joseph Galamb and William F. Pioch respectively.


Follow this link to the U.S. Patent Office archives to see the complete discription:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=8L..._is=0&as_maxy_is=&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

Only one of thse should be put down

 

Yeah, yeah. There's a whole lot more to why the deuce grill is popular than just it's ratio of proportion. And there's a lot more to it than just aesthetics.

This is similar to trying to explain why a particular tune is pleasing.
Or what makes a joke funny. Certain aspects can be brought to light, but any attempt at an exhaustive explanation is an exercise in futility, and actually robs something from the enjoyment of the experience.

Trying to apply a formula to art also never takes into account personal taste.

 

Not that I am diasgreeing with your point, but those are dropped headlight bars in your examples. The work of Hot Rodders...not the Ford guys.

Neal

 

again, we are talking about form and proportion and its contribution an object's broad and enduring aesthetic appeal--in this case our beloved '32 Grill. There are many down right ugly things (in my eye) that fit the golden sector proportion, but you can bet that somebody somewhere will find them aesthetically pleasing or even beautiful--that's because beauty is truely in the eye of the beholder. So we agree with everything you say here.. We're simply discussing why some things like, for example, the '32 Grill or maybe Marilyn Monroe, seem to aesthetically please a very high percentage of us.

Gaze and seize the uncanny similarities!

 

You're right! And it looks a lot better. I'll fix my original post and credit you. The ford guys used the bar just like the plymouth guys--hot rodders improved on it a ton in my estimation--much better balance.

 

Rodster, can we see a pic of the rest of the hotrod in your avatar?

 

Go to this link to see more pics: http://www.jalopyjournal.com/?p=2784 It's the third in a three-part piece Ryan did on the car, the builder, and my Humble conecction to it.
R

 

Thanks, very cool little hot-rod wow!

 

HOLY CRAP! Where has she been all my life! Thanks for the link!

 

EXCELLENT thanks a LOT for this one!
So Galamb responsible for the sheet metal and Pioch, who was I think head of tooling patented the grill for Ford. Which looks standard procedure to me that a company wants safeguard the property rights. But this still does not answer the question who designed it?
Galamb together with Edsel..or somebody at Briggs?

 

You're right, the "designer" is still a mystery, though Galamb could very well have been the principal designer. It's simply not clear from the record whether his "invention" was merely implementing someone else's design or whether it was his own.

As you can see below Galamb's application did in fact focus to some degree on the "ornamental" appeal of the shield and, for example, the fact that he was incorporating chromium elements for both aesthetic and functional purposes. It's not the nature of patent applications to focus on the beauty of an object so it's not surprising that technical and practical details were the main focus.





For clarification, Galamb was the principle "inventor," while Pioch's patent application was focused on manufacturing improvements (this is consistent with his role in tooling) for constructing the original Galamb shield, as reflected in the following excerpt from Pioch's application:

 

I think most likely this is the most far we can take the research.
And reading the patent again with your remarks in mind, it sounds as if it was written with a great sense of pride and the intention to emphasize the aesthetics and beauty of this design. So I think Galamb even if he might have not been the "designer of the original shape" must have taken ownership of grille as his work, due to his contribution - which is fair to do, as their is quite some engineering in the grille that went beyond pure shape.
So the case is closed for me (till someone comes with new information ). Thanks for the entertainment and the insights.

 

Oh damnit, I was thinkin' about that old porn flick THE GOLDEN TRIANGLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!