Attribution — where it appears
Named by 9 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The lens a pavement can hide
A photographed pavement reads as a correct drawing up to a radial coefficient of about four tenths — a lens strong enough to bow a straight edge across the page by nearly six pixels and to print as twenty per cent distortion at the frame's corner. The reason is that a pavement sits near the principal point, which is the one part of the frame a radial map barely touches.
The rule that draws another room
The taught rule for spacing receding boards — each gap a fixed fraction of the last — is not a projection of anything, and it produces a pavement that is a correct perspective to within a fifth of a pixel. Of a room whose horizon is a hundred and seventy pixels from the one the panel drew. The error is not incoherence; it is a disagreement between two halves of one drawing.
What survives being copied
A workshop copying a drawing from a drawing is a random walk — the spread across lineages grows as the square root of the generation, with a fitted exponent of 0.5001. A workshop copying the method is not, and its exponent is 0.012, which is no growth at all, and after forty generations two lineages started from different originals end up 5 × 10⁻¹⁵ apart. Copying the marks loses the picture; copying the recipe loses the original and keeps the recipe.
The workshop that throws drawings away
Adding a rule that discards a drawing which looks wrong turns the mark copyist's spread from a growing random walk into a stationary process — the fitted exponent falls from 0.542 to 0.022, indistinguishable from the method copyist's 0.033 — and the two mechanisms then separate only by where they settle, 0.7002 against 0.8000, seven and a half spreads apart.
Three procedures, one panel
Alberti's lateral section, the distance-point construction and a pinhole camera put every transversal at the same pixel — and every reading of the finished drawing therefore returns the same number for all three. The methods are distinguishable on the desk and indistinguishable on the panel, which is the fact any attribution has to start from.
Four marks before anything is said
A reader fitting a correct perspective to a row of transversals has three numbers to choose, so three transversals fit whatever they are and the fourth is the first that can disagree. Below that count a pavement is unfalsifiable, and a great many painted pavements are below it.
The slip that leaves no trace
A distance point put twenty-four pixels wrong moves the pavement by two and a half and leaves the reader's projective test reading exactly four thirds. The same slip on Alberti's section moves the drawing by the same amount and is caught, so the difference is not the size of the error — it is that one of them lands back on the set of correct drawings.
One hand step each
Every classical perspective construction has exactly one step a person performs by hand, and the four constructions perform four different steps. That single difference decides everything a finished drawing can say about its maker, because the answers are identical and only the mistakes are not.
What a panel says about its maker
The reading assembled over this row, run against every procedure sixty times and scored — with the failures reported as carefully as the successes, because three of the five rows are refusals. A drawing names the class of error in it, not the recipe that produced it, and one procedure it never names at all.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
ProcedureTransversalCross-ratioProjective invariantResidualToleranceConstant ratioDistance pointFalsifiabilityHorizonIdentifiabilityModel error