@freemo yes, but not really considering that panels could easily be cut into shapes other than rectangles. Even ovals are relatively rare. Original shapes tend to be distracting and get reclassified into "wall art between painting and sculpture".
@freemo for practical reasons, I reluctantly settled on foot/inch-based formats for my paintings: 18:24 and 24:36 (inches:inches). It doubles the surface area but doesn't preserve the aspect ratio (3:4 vs. 2:3). It's not too bad because if I double the surface area again, I'm back to 36:48 = 3:4. So instead of being always 1/sqrt(2), it alternates between 3:4 and 2:3.
It matters to me when dividing a 4 ft by 8 ft plywood panel without wasting too much.
@freemo for practical reasons, I reluctantly settled on foot/inch-based formats for my paintings: 18:24 and 24:36 (inches:inches). It doubles the surface area but doesn't preserve the aspect ratio (3:4 vs. 2:3). It's not too bad because if I double the surface area again, I'm back to 36:48 = 3:4. So instead of being always 1/sqrt(2), it alternates between 3:4 and 2:3.
@freemo @dlakelan mentions "saliency bias". I have to digest all this stuff. My overall impression is that different paradoxes emerge from the way we model things (and go beyond their domain of applicability).
If half of an airline's flights are full and half are empty, passengers will complain that the flights are full every time, contrasting with the assessment of the crew who report that half of the flights are empty. How do you call this effect/paradox? (I forgot)
The same effect explains that if you have an average number of friends (= popularity), more than half of your friends are more popular than you.
Or when your doctor tells you you're in average physical condition but each time you go cycling, most cyclists you come across are faster than you (because the fast cyclists are also the ones who spend the most time on the roads and are encountered disproportionately).