The Golden Rectangle, Golden Ratio, and Phi as Design Criteria

James Gurney, of the wonderful blog Gurney Journey and Dinotopia fame, has a series of five posts on the golden rectangle and it's key ratio 1 : 1.618 ... (which is known as the golden ratio or φ). The crux is that the importance of the rectangle and the ratio is overstated and, while not belittling "mystical feeling" (my phrase and quotes), the supposed mystical role of the ratio is not factually grounded. He says it alot better than I could. So here's a list of his posts (with a brief description for each):

Part 1: Mythbusting the golden mean (the Parthenon) This post -- with extensive links at the end -- outlines the well established view and evidence that the Parthenon is not based on the golden rectangle or golden mean.
Part 2: The golden mean and Leonardo This post discusses Leonardo's "Vitruvian Man" drawing and that it reflects the ratios advocated by Roman scholar and architect Vitruvius, which are not the golden mean. that doesn't mean that Leonardo was unfamiliar with φ, but it is not evident it was central to his work.
Part 3: How the golden mean caught on with artists This post discusses the occurence of
φ in nature and how this developed a sort of mystical relevance for many which was given a sort of historical gloss.Part 4: The golden mean and the human body This post discusses the use of the golden mean by a number of artists, most notably Bauhaus architect/designers and Le Corbusier, and takes a middle view that we can learn from their work but it is not factually accurate on all counts.
Part 5: Last question about the golden rectangle The last question Gurney asks is whether the assertion that work designed with the golden rectangle/golden ratio is, in fact, more aesthetically pleasing. It can be if that is what appeals to the viewer, but it is not inherently so.