Mathematician debunks the Parthenon’s famous optical illusions
Popular Science...
The Parthenon is undeniably one of history’s most renowned architectural feats,but one detail of its structural genius is a total hoax. For over 2,000 years, scholars and admirers have alleged that the ancient Greek building’s nearly imperceptible curves were specifically crafted to compensate for optical illusions that would otherwise ruin the structure’s clean lines.
But recent analysis says otherwise. After a detailed investigation and complex computational modeling, University of Oxford mathematician Alain Goriely says the illusions are just that—illusions.
“The Parthenon is more than a building standing on the Athenian Acropolis; it has become over the ages the very paradigm of antiquity, a vessel into which successive generations have poured their ideals of perfection,” Goriely wrote in his study recently published in the journal Royal Society Open Science. “As such, it is the mother of all myths.”
The Parthenon was first conceived and built as a temple dedicated to Athens’ namesake goddess Athena during the city’s Golden Age. Construction took 15 years to complete, and it remains one the most recognizable examples of classical Doric architecture. The Parthenon occupied many roles in the ensuing centuries, including a treasury, mosque, church, and even a gunpowder depot—the latter era leading to extensive damage during a bombardment by Venetian forces in 1687.
Claims regarding the Parthenon’s optical illusion-defying aspects began circulating about 400 years after its construction. The first assertions are likely attributable to the 1st century BCE Roman architect Vitruvius, who described subtle column curvatures and scale corrections crafted to counteract the appearance of concavity. Vitruvius particularly focused on the temple’s stylobate, or base, whose sides feature a slight arc towards the center to offset the illusion of sagging. Later theorists built on this allegation by citing various light tricks as causes for the appearance of any deformities.
Goriely conceded in his study that he “fell into a bit of a rabbit hole,” but ultimately examined four primary myths about various Parthenon architectural adjustments. Extensive computer modeling further strengthened his calculations that none of the claims are actually visible within the Parthenon. While factors like column bulging do exist, the barely 0.7 inch warps are almost undetectable at average viewing distances. Instead, Goriely theorizes these and other curvatures were intentionally included for much more mundane issues. The base arcs possibly helped prevent rain puddles, or they may simply have been more visually pleasing in ancient Greek society.
Although no single explanation likely accounts for the endurance of these Parthenon myths, Goriely argued at least some of it stems from the over-veneration of Greek history that began during the Enlightenment.
“Based on this romantic vision, the Parthenon is assumed to have been designed and executed with a perfect awareness…as though the builders possessed the combined knowledge of twentieth-century modern sciences and more,” he wrote.
Instead, Goriely offered an alternative approach: “Trust your own eyes, question what you see and decide for yourself whether the theory of optical corrections holds up.”
The post Mathematician debunks the Parthenon’s famous optical illusions appeared first on Popular Science.