As they are ‘derived from’/correlated to the vertices of the Icosahedron, it is mathematically correct that the planes are in fact golden rectangles, I think. Also in the wikipedia on Golden Ratio I found this:
“In connection with his scheme for golden-ratio-based human body proportions, Zeising wrote in 1854 of a universal law "in which is contained the ground-principle of all formative striving for beauty and completeness in the realms of both nature and art, and which permeates, as a paramount spiritual ideal, all structures, forms and proportions, whether cosmic or individual, organic or inorganic, acoustic or optical; which finds its fullest realization, however, in the human form."”
All the planes have golden mean ratios and are considered "Golden Rectangles" (they are all the same size). The vertical plane (door) has the most height, horizontal (table) plane the widest and sagittal plane (wheel) the deepest (front/back). Laban used the ratio of the golden mean due to the human anatomy of the ideally proportioned body. The center of each of the rectangles is ideally the center of the human body-the diameters passing through the core. Additionally, since the rectangles are the inner scaffolding of the icosohedron this spherical 3-D solid is the ideal way to "house" the body in space as our kinesphere. Carol-Lynne Moore describes this in great detail in "The Harmonic Structure of Movement, Music, and Dance according to Rudolf Laban" (2010) chapter 3 & 4. It never ceases to amaze me how Laban drew together Platonic Solids, Human proportions/golden means, art, music and architecture to form the basis of his theories!!!
Great to read this. It raises a few questions for me:
Is it safe to say arc like human movement is elliptical?
Are there mathematical relationships between ellipses and the golden mean?
What is the relationship of Space Harmony to DaVinci's famous drawings? (And how would that figure dance?)
On another front:
Does dimensional movement exist (given our three-dimensionality)?
When I was co-teaching with Bob Dunn 20 years ago he postulated that its easier to do 3D movement (most often with unequal pulls) than 1D given the nature of control of musculature needed in operate along dimensional lines. What does everyone think about 2D movement in regards to ease and efficiency? Perhaps allowing for the elongation Jeffrey refers to helps ease.
Fun to read Ann and Jeffrey's brilliance.
and have to think about dimensional movement given our "3-dimensionalness" -- "feels" like I can access the "line" of energy being talked about, even with my 3-d being, but perhaps it need to be called something else......
(ah, for a bit of skype or instant video here)
Thanks for bringing it up.
Oh thanks for this input Ellen. I'm very curious about so much of the information in the Kestenberg work but I am only generally acquainted with it.
I'm curious what other KMP practitioners think about those.