Interlocking arguments The audience is invited to be part of the “canning” or “sending-up” of an apparatus that is deployed as a prototype: an experimental system put in place by the “author” to propose it to his audience. The apparatus here is conceived as much as a tool for disseminating the idea as the idea itself, or even as a strategy preceding articulation. “ t ” The “time factor” is the time that the “audience” makes available to the articulation, and, by proxy, to the person articulating. Like a formulation of this temporal interface status acquired by the artistic proposal, without this time the idea, however tangible it may be, is only “potential,” a mere dream of the artist’s. The idea becomes sacrificial when the artist decides to deliberately shunt a strategy of discursive economy aiming to make the time of discourse coincide with the time of the viewer (anticipated). It posits this strategy as incompatible with the temporality that it takes as hierarchically dominant: the time of the piece. A-conclusive linearity The “author” is a fictional version of Paul Guilbert. He acts as a nonmethodical theoretician who here presents his paradigm with an its anecdotal foundation. The only way for him to resist collapse is wild imagining (the hold) and digression (the arpent). But the rules are set at the level of the fundamental anecdote: the audience knows that the construction does not claim to reach a conclusion. She will conclude herself by ceasing to listen: by his rejection of a proposition whose only claim is to exist.