Square, and not.

Over on TOP, an essay by Kirk Tuck on square format. In previous posts I've mentioned "playing" with square in photography, and in the comments he mentions "seeing" in square; it's important to have what you want in the viewfinder. This forces me to use my phone camera, as it's the only machine I have that has a 1:1 aspect ratio. Cropping afterward doesn't work, though if an image works that way, I have no anti-crop qualms. Just that the square seems to work better if it's from the beginning.

For my paintings, I prefer a 1:2 ratio, but with a camera I have seldom used the wide ratios available, 16:9 is very close. The above painting is 12  x  24, though I think the asymmetry of the frame softens that feel.

I even use it in vertical compositions.  Now, though I'm enjoying square in photos, I have no urge to paint in a square format, much as I don't have a feel for using the wide aspect ratio in the camera. I even have a bristol board pad that I've trimmed to 4.5  x  9 inches, that I use for ink sketches. Not sure of the significance of this; it might have to do with the square encouraging a certain abstraction, as I seem to be more attracted when using square to abstraction, see top photo.

The Bears work in square and rectangular, but, then, they're good Bears.

Meanwhile, of vastly more importance, to those of us who follow USA football, will Peyton Manning retire, or go free agent and end up in Kansas City? Soap opera of the month. At this point, Peyton and his boss, Jim Irsay, are going to act like adults, and stop nattering at each other at least until the Superbowl, in Indy, and featuring brother Eli, is done. I, personally think he will retire, as the neck surgery was successful, but the nerves that were pinched that led to weakness in the throwing arm have not come back as quickly as hoped. Nobody thinks he will return to Indy, regardless, as too expensive, and risky.

In 1521, The Diet of Worms begins. I'll leave you to Google that one.