Talk:Modulor

The first paragraph read

 * Le Corbusier developed the Modulor in the long tradition of Vitruvian Man, the work of Leon Battista Alberti, and other attempts to discover a natural underlying relationship between the proportions of the human body and the Golden Mean, and then to use that knowledge to improve both the appearance and function of architecture.

This seems to imply that Vitruvius (or his interpreters) or Alberti worked with the golden ratio, which is unsubstantiated, and most likely incorrect. Vitruvius used whole numbers, i.e. rational ratios, and da Vinci's famous Homo ad circulum, illustrating a paragraph in Vitruvius, has no convincing golden ratios, and there is no contemporary writings to support the idea. The golden ratio did not seriously enter into aesthetical analysis before the "psychophysics" of Gustav Fechner at the end of the 19th century. Therefore, I have changed the 1st paragraph into:
 * Le Corbusier developed the Modulor in the long tradition of Vitruvian Man, the work of Leon Battista Alberti, and other attempts to discover mathematical proportions in the human body, and then to use that knowledge to improve both the appearance and function of architecture.

--Niels Ø 11:37, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes???
some tender care needed:

''^ Ostwald, Michael(2001) p146 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p17 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p20 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p36 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p43 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p56 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p52 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p115 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p53 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p122 ^ Le Corbusier(2004) p131 ^ Samuel(2007) p62 ^ Samuel(2007) p83 ^ Sekler & Curtis (1978) p158 ^ Sekler & Curtis (1978) p182''

Is Samuel a book or a publisher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.2.106 (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Samuel is the author of a book listed below in the references. But you need to stop the nonsense edits; you're about to have a longer block for vandalism.  Have you tried reading your talk page or looking at the edit history to see why your silly edits keep reverting?  Dicklyon (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * since you seem to care, the article itself constitutes vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.2.106 (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting thesis; but I don't get it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

an orphan wants you to help him
Dear authors of the "Modulor” Wikipedia entry: Concerning your article, may I cordially suggest you to read the text “The TK Theory of Visual Proportions” and, if necessary, link or cross-reference the latter article with the former. Please contact me in case you have any doubts or questions. Yours, espaisNT. --EspaisNT (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC) --EspaisNT (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Update needed
This article should be revisited to consider the scholarship critiquing Modular and other systems of proportion in the field of architecture. These figures have contributed to an architecture of exclusion, as they are not based on the human body but rather a very specific demographic of our society. --M4M3M2M1 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please keep gender politics out of this
I deplore everyone to keep Wikipedia's neutral encyclopedic tone. I deemed the additions I reverted were politically motivated and thus not suited for this article. Do add sources to avoid adding your own subjective opinions. Flister AW (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)