An Attempt at writing coherently about a complex subject.

 (NOTE: For the sake of focusing on the practical aspect of this information, I have omitted most historic information in this draft)

The Math of Art: Fibonacci Numbers Vs the Rule of Thirds

Fibonacci Numbers is the term given for numbers of a specific sequence. This sequence begins with the numbers 0 and 1. In this sequence,
by adding the preceding two numbers, we derive the next Fibonacci number. The sequence, therefore, is as follows:

0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89...

continuing indefinitely.

    Fibonacci numbers are a valuable asset to the artist due to their association with The Golden Ratio,or Phi. Any two Fibonacci numbers, in order, starting from 55:89 approximates Phi, or the ratio 1:1.618. The smaller of the two numbers is referred to as the golden section of the longer. This ratio is also called The Divine Ratio, owing to it existing in numerous natural forms. This ratio may be found frequently in the relative distances within the human form. Phi may be found in the features of the face, and length of arms, and legs. The entire body itself is also divisible by said ratio.
    To the Artist, this means that by using Fibonacci numbers and golden sections instead of the more popular approximation of thirds, one can accurately measure the human form instead of relying on shorthand. An artist may ask, Why? Artists have been using the rule of thirds for generation, so why abandon an established tradition in favor of measuring in Fibonacci numbers? The answer is twofold. Firstly, we must understand the reason why the rule of thirds is used; secondly, we must address that the methods produce different results.
    The rule of thirds is an easier method. Thirds are easier to approximate with the eye than Phi. To an artist, even with Fibonacci numbers, using units of 1,2,3, is far more approachable than 55,89,144, etc.. For most learning artists, using such units to draft without extra tools or an extraordinary affinity for numbers would have been extremely difficult in the past; however, The modern artist must understand that the medium has changed, and the popularity of digital mediums and the pixel as a unit of measurement makes utilizing larger numbers much easier . The artist can also use Phi when working in physical mediums, as printing a guide created by measuring pixels and scaling them to fit ones desired size.
    If both may be used, why choose the more complex method? Accuracy. Above, I refer to the rule of thirds as the "approximation of thirds". This is because, realistically, thirds is just that, close, but not the same. Simply put, The rule of thirds is inaccurate. The ratio of thirds, when measuring the same distance actually representable by Phi, uses the following ratio:

 3:2
or
1.66:1

as opposed to Phi:

1.618:1.

This difference of .042, when applied to the human body, can cause significant distortions. The chin and nose elongated, or horse-face, as some would call it, being a common result.

Repetition/Looping: I am extremely confused

I recently read that advanced writers keep the same or closely related subjects at the beginning of sentences or clauses.

This:

The President ..............................................proposed lower taxes.
He  ..............................................................drafted the proposal in December
and......................................................... hoped it would be passed within the next year.
The president.............................................. estimated accurately, and as such,
He ...............................................................will likely be re-elected. 

Is supposedly better structured than:

The President's proposal..........................promised to lower taxes.
A draft......................................................was written in December.
The president............................................hoped it would be passe within the next year.
This president's estimation........................................was accurate.
The people...............................................will most likely re-elect him.

By keeping the beginning of each clause or sentence as related as possible to the original (and ultimately, most important) subject, the writing is easier to follow. The subject is the president in the first, but the subject is the president, his proposal, a draft, his estimation, and the people, in the second. Though I understand this in concept, and in how it'd work to keep the paragraph easier to follow, I also feel like it's beating the reader over the head, and does not allow for subtle transitions.

Simplicity

I've been trying to figure out what I can do to improve my writing. I keep being told that simplicity is key. That a sentence should be as concise and clear as possible without losing meaning. I've been able to clean up my sentences, but am not sure if I'm taking it to far, as I see a lot of professional writers who don't make their sentences as clear as possible, instead aiming for a more conversational style. Now, one could assume that conversational style fits the informal nature of most on-line articles, but I also feel like the simpler the text, the more accessible, and ultimately more accessible seems less formal, with a lower barrier of entry.
----
(Edited for conciseness)
I've been figuring out how to improve my writing recently. Most texts claim the key is simplicity. A sentence should be concise and clear as possible without losing meaning. I cleaned up my sentences, but am not sure if I'm taking it to far. I see a lot of professional writers who don't make their sentences as clear, instead utilizing a more conversational style. One could assume conversational style fits the informality of most on-line articles, but I feel simpler text is  more accessible, which seems less formal due a lower barrier of entry.
 ---

I know that it's a stylistic choice, as opposed to any rules, but I'm not exactly sure what dictates how simple a work should be. I only know how to write like I speak, or write as clear as possible. It's just the way I've been taught. I assume I'm wrong though to feel like clearer is better, seeing as I can figure out how to eliminate useless words from literally any article I've ever read.

Elegance Versus Clarity

I'm an English Major, a senior in college. I'm attempting to improve my writing ability. In order to do this, I started a blog on gaming today. It's a subject I'm confident in, and I'm hoping that just by writing and analyzing my work, I'll develop my skill as a writer. Here is an excerpt from my first post:

" As you may be guessing at this point, being good with words does not equate to being intelligent, and I spent quite a bit of time thinking that I simply could not write about games because, unlike most people who I know who write about games, I can't afford them."

Lets clean it up a bit:

"By now you may have realized that being good with words does not mean I am an intelligent person. I've spent too much time believing that I can't write about games, owing to the fact I can't afford them. "

I tried to get the same point across and eliminate excess that did nothing to enforce this point. I assume most people understand a game critic can afford games

Which is better? I think the second passage is clearer. Using less commas and "ands" or "buts" makes the point easier to follow. these devices imply a change in the intended statement. On the other hand, the first may be more difficult to follow, but I think it flows better. When I imagine an elegant speaking voice, this is the voice that I speak in. I can only guess, but the nuances of spoken language could be the reason it's harder to follow. We are programmed to communicate verbally, written language is an invention, and so is more difficult to understand. That we read in an imaginary voice is a problem though, as in our voice, the meaning may change. I think that's why I over-use commas as well. Years of poetry classes have instilled in me the idea that a comma denotes a pause, a period denotes a stop. In writing prose, this is different.

Other issues I'm still having include mismatching tense (something that, along with plurality, I notice a lot of internet writers have ), and I still don't perfectly understand nominalization (the tendency to use the noun form instead of the verb form).

Example:

noun: They responded to me with outright refusal.

Verb: They refused me outright.

The second statement is more direct, and I've been told by professors that despite it's simplicity, it is stronger. I don't understand why. To my ear the first sentence sounds more elegant. Which should I use?