Since Arakawa and Gins mean to undermine the viewer as a meaning-making machine, suddenly all of these material, technical, incidental(?) differences refuse to be bracketed as non-meaningful. These differences keep asserting themselves back into the frame. What are we to make of them? And this is just the first of dozens of similarly destabilizing exercises! All of these exercises approach "nothing" in a fecund way. They don't attempt to re-present nothing. Nor do they occlude a visual something. These exercises approach nothing because they confound our ability to make something of them. They approach nothing because we can make nothing (definite) of them.
Whereas Fludd means us to regard differences between the various hyle printings as "merely" technical and incidental, in The Mechanism of Meaning, such differences become centrally relevant. Or, more precisely, our inability to conclusively determine whether or not they are relevant becomes centrally relevant (perhaps).
Which leads us to...