Let's roll the videotape back to that conversation where ZK was wondering what the fuss was about a 16:9 screen (that is, why someone might hate it and prefer a square, or square-ish, screen). If one's response to the above is "just scroll" then we have indeed reached an unbridgeable aesthetic gulf.
ZK: Ok, I get it, but, as we've been taught, the cinema screen is the screen above all.
ZK: or whatever.
DE: Most users don't watch video all day though.
ZK: Ah, yes, as I see on the site:
ZK: "The extended vertical space is convenient for displaying large amounts of information in long windows, reducing the need for excess scrolling and providing a more efficient view of data."
ZK: IS THIS FOR HOME USE?
DE: I want one for sure.
ZK: But Dragan
ZK: You're an artist.
DE: The cinema format is so lame because it is optimized for not moving your eyes.
ZK: Can u expand?
DE: Cinema is supposed just to fill out your whole view and to take in the "complete picture."
ZK: Whereas a square, you're like, "why is this a square?", and then u pay attention?
DE: On the square, I can let my eyes wander.
ZK: ah. hrm.
[Bad answers, DE. Cinematic ratios were originally designed for movie theates, where the panorama was supposed to engulf you and thereby heighten realism. There is no need for this illusion when checking the weather or your bank balance, yet on conventional PCs that's now the default screen size. --TM]
ZK: Still think this sounds like an office piece....
ZK: Are there any artworks or other media things you think would look particularly good in this format?
DE: I believe it is more interactive, gives a viewer more power.
DE: VINE BIENNAL
ZK: Ha. Yes. Any mobile phone type thing, right? Which is based on the scroll paradigm?
DE: Casio WQV10 photo exhibition.
DE: No, vine and insta just chose square because it is the same no matter how you rotate the device
ZK: Well, I don't think either rotate, tbh.
ZK: Classic Blackberry owner comment.
ZK: Tho I'm starting to see the FEED use for this... but then I'm still like, "just scroll!"
DE: Well, touch screens *and* device rotation weren't worth all the trouble.
ZK: (Btw, I like the kind of opiate of the masses take on cinema you're plying here. Very Kracauer.)
ZK: (Very anti-authoritarian.)
ZK: Is the square computer anarchist?
DE: It is not consumerist for a start.
ZK: THAT IS FOR SURE
[Again, cinematic ratios were originally designed for movie theates, where the panorama was supposed to engulf you and thereby heighten realism. There is no need for this illusion when checking the weather or your bank balance, yet on conventional PCs that's now the default screen size. --TM]
DE: The best exhibition for this format would be Olia's collection of transparent web pixels.
ZK: Oh wait, one last q
ZK: is this happening only now?
ZK: Is it hard to make a square monitor?
ZK: Or is the market so fractured, individualized, it only made sense to make one now?
DE: If you read the comments on tech blogs announcing this monitor, lots of users speak up that they had enough of 16:9 or 21:9 because what they need to see expands below that format.
DE: The market for screens is actually shockingly homogeneous, with everything being 16:9 or wider.
DE: I don't think other formats are more difficult to make
ZK: Well — I'm happy for people who need this. The market should meet every need!