Bugeye & Frogeye

Bugeye (pronounced buhg-ahy)

(1) A nautical term for a ketch-rigged sailing vessel used on Chesapeake Bay.

(2) A slang term, unrelated to the nautical use, used to describe objects or creatures with the bulging eyes resembling those of certain bugs.

1883: An Americanism, the construct being bug + eye, coined to describe the 1880s practice of shipwrights painting a large eye on each bow of the ketches used for oyster dredging in Chesapeake Bay, an estuary in the US states of Maryland and Virginia.  Bug dates from 1615–1625 and the original use was to describe insects, apparently as a variant of the earlier bugge (beetle), thought to be an alteration of the Middle English budde, from the Old English -budda (beetle) but etymologists are divided on whether the phrase “bug off” (please leave) is related to the undesired presence of insects or was of a distinct origin.  Although “unbug” makes structural sense (ie remove a bug, as opposed to the sense of “debug”), it doesn’t exist whereas forms such as the adjectives unbugged (not bugged) and unbuggable (not able to be bugged) are regarded as standard.  Eye pre-dates 900 and was from the Middle English eie, yë, eighe, eyghe, yȝe, eyȝe & ie, from the Old English ēge, a variant of ēage, from the Proto-West Germanic augā, from the Proto-Germanic augô (eye).  It was cognate with the German Auge & the Icelandic auga and akin to the Latin oculus (eye), the Lithuanian akìs (eye), the Slavic (Polish) oko (eye), the Old Church Slavonic око (oko) (eye), the Albanian sy (eye), the Ancient Greek ὄψ (óps) (in poetic use, “eye; face”) & ὄσσε (ósse) (eyes), the Armenian ակն (akn), the Avestan aši (eyes) and the Sanskrit अक्षि (ákṣi).  A related Modern English form is “ogle”.  Bugeye is a noun and bugeyed is an adjective; the noun plural is bugeyes.  Hyphenated use of all forms is common. 

Frogeye (pronounced frog-ahy or frawg-ahy)

(1) In botany, a small, whitish leaf spot with a narrow barker border, produced by certain fungi.

(2) A plant disease so characterized.

(3) A slang term, unrelated to the botanical use, used to describe objects or creatures with the bulging eyes resembling those of frogs.

1914–15: A descriptive general term, the construct being frog + eye, for the condition Botryosphaeria obtusa, a plant pathogen that causes Frogeye leaf spot, black rot and cankers on many plant species.  The fungus was first described by in 1832 as Sphaeria obtusa, refined as Physalospora obtusa in 1892 while the final classification was defined in 1964.  Frog (any of a class of small tailless amphibians of the family Ranidae (order Anura) which typically move by hopping and in zoology often referred to as “true frog” because in general use “frog” is used loosely or visually similar creatures) pre-dates 1000 and was from the Middle English frogge, from the Old English frogga, from the Proto-West Germanic froggō (frog).  It was cognate with the Norwegian Nynorsk fraug (frog) and Old Norse frauki and there may be links with the Saterland Frisian Poage (frog) and the German Low German Pogg & Pogge (frog).  The alternative forms in English (some still in regional use at least as late as the mid-seventeenth century were frosk, frosh & frock.  Eye pre-dates 900 and was from the Middle English eie, yë, eighe, eyghe, yȝe, eyȝe & ie, from the Old English ēge, a variant of ēage, from the Proto-West Germanic augā, from the Proto-Germanic augô (eye).  It was cognate with the German Auge & the Icelandic auga and akin to the Latin oculus (eye), the Lithuanian akìs (eye), the Slavic (Polish) oko (eye), the Old Church Slavonic око (oko) (eye), the Albanian sy (eye), the Ancient Greek ὄψ (óps) (in poetic use, “eye; face”) & ὄσσε (ósse) (eyes), the Armenian ակն (akn), the Avestan aši (eyes) and the Sanskrit अक्षि (ákṣi).  A related Modern English form is “ogle”.  Frogeye is a noun and frogeyed is an adjective; the noun plural is frogeyes.  Hyphenated use of all forms is common.

Bugeye or frogeye: The Austin-Healey Sprite

1960 Austin-Healey Sprite (left) & 1972 MG Midget (right).

The Austin-Healey Sprite was produced between 1958 and 1971 (although in the last year of production they were badged as the Austin Sprite, reflecting the end of the twenty year contract with Donald Healey's (1898–1988) eponymous company).  Beginning in 1961, the car was restyled and a more conventional frontal appearance was adopted, shared with the almost identical MG Midget, introduced as at the same time as a corporate companion and the Midget outlived the Sprite, the last built in 1980.  Upon release, the Sprite immediately picked up the nicknames frogeye (UK & most of the Commonwealth) and bugeye (North America) because the headlights were mounted as protuberances atop the hood (bonnet), bearing a resemblance to the eyes of some frogs and bugs.  The original design included retractable headlights but to reduce both cost and weight, fixed-lights were used.  As purely functional mountings, such things continue to be fitted to rally-cars.  The linguistic quirk that saw the Sprite nicknamed bugeye in North America and frogeye in most of the rest of the English-speaking world is a mystery.  Etymologists have noted the prior US use of bugeye as a nautical term but it was both geographically and demographically specific and that use, visually, was hardly analogous with the Sprite.  No other explanation has been offered; the English language is like that.

1963 Lightburn Zeta (left) 1964 Lightburn Zeta Sports (centre) & Lightburn Zeta Sports with "sports lights" (right).  Not everything in the 1960s was groovy. 

1949 Crosley Hotshot.

Although distinctive, the look wasn’t new, familiar from the use of the Triumph TR2 (1952) and Crosley in the US had used a similar arrangement for their "Hotshot" & "Super Sport" (1949-1952 and notable for being fitted with four-wheel disk brakes although heey didn't work very well) and in Australia, Lightburn (previously noted for their well-regarded washing machines and cement mixers) were in 1964 forced to adopt them for the woeful Zeta Sports to meet headlight-height regulations.  The Zeta Sports was better looking than the Trabant-like "two-door sedan" which preceded it but truly that is damning with faint praise.  An adaptation (development seems not the appropriate word) of the Meadows Frisky microcar of the mid-1950s, the Zeta Sports was built in South Australia and initially it wasn't realized headlight-height rules in New South Wales (NSW) were such that the low-slung Zeta couldn't comply, even were the suspension to be raised, an expedient MG was compelled to use in 1974 to ensure the bumpers of the Midget & MGB sat at the height specified in new US rules.  Instead "sports lights" were added to the bonnet (hood) which lent more more cartoon-like absurdity to the thing but did little to increase its appeal, only a few dozen built in the two years it was available.

1959 Alfa Romeo Giulietta Sprint Speciale, Tipo (type) 101.20. 

Ungainly the bugeye lights may have been but they were a potentially handy addition given the original headlights doubled as bumper bars.  That seems a silly idea and it is but it wasn't unique to the Zeta and some examples had exquisite (if vulnerable) coachwork, such as the early (low-nose) versions of the much-admired Alfa Romeo Giulietta SS (Sprint Speciale, Tipo (type) 101.20; 1957-1962).  It was only the first 101 cars which were produced in lightweight, bumper-bar less form, that run to fulfil the FIA's homologation rules which demanded a minimum of 100 identical examples to establish eligibility in certain classes of production-car racing.

Lindsay Lohan in "bugeye" sunglasses, the look made popular by Jacqueline Kennedy (1929-1994; US First Lady 1961-1963). 

So aerodynamically efficient (the drag coefficient (CD) a reputed .28) was Carrozzeria Bertone's design that although using only a 1290 cm³ (79 cubic inch) engine with barely 100 hp (75 kW), the SS could achieve an even now impressive 200 km/h (124 mph).  Fitted with a 498 cm³ engine which yielded 21 hp (15.5 kW), the Zeta Sedan thankfully wasn't that fast but did feature a four speed manual gearbox with no reverse gear; to reverse a Zeta, the ignition key was turned the opposite direction so the crankshaft turned the other way.  All four gears remained available so top speed in reverse would presumably have been about the same as going forward but, as Chrysler discovered during the testing for the doomed Airflow (1934-1937), given the vagaries of aerodynamics, it may even have been faster, something which certainly may have been true of the Sports, (at least with the soft top erected) given the additional drag induced by the bugeye lights.  This was never subject to a practical test because unlike the sedan, the diminutive roadster had a reverse gear.  

The class-winning Austin-Healey Sprite, Coupe des Alpes rally, 1958.  With its goofy bugeyes and "grinning grill", the Sprite was often anthropomorphized.  It was part of the little machine's charm and, cheap to run and easy to tune, Sprites were for decades a mainstay of entry-level motorsport and still appear in historic categories.  For years they were cheap so predictably were repowered by more powerful engines including V8s, the transplantation of which could be challenging, as was the subsequent driving experience.

An Italian Bugeye: Pininfarina's Ferrari 330 GTC Speciale

1968 Ferrari 330 GTC.

Introduced at the 1966 Geneva Auto Show, the 330 GTC was an important model for Ferrari and something of a watershed, the model defining the template which would be used for a succession of grand touring models which profitably could be manufactured and sold in volumes which, by Ferrari’s historic standards, constituted mass-production.  Between 1966-1968 597 were built (the of-quoted 598 said to be a double-counting of one chassis number), buyers attracted not only by the style but also creature comforts like air-conditioning and electric windows.  Additionally, there had been refinements to extend the appeal beyond those drawn to the faster but more raucous sports cars, independent rear suspension meaning the ride was softer and the attention paid to NVH (noise, vibration and harshness although the acronym wasn’t then in use in Italy where all three qualities still had a following) meant merely the thing was less tiring (noise is a source of stress); the 330 GTC was said to be the first Ferrari in which the radio genuinely was usable.  Styled by Pininfarina, taking cues from the 500 Superfast (1964-1966) at the front and the 275 GTS (1964-1966) to the rear, it shared the 2,400 mm (94½ inch) wheelbase of the 275 GTB (1964-1968).  A lovely, elegant shape which aged well, it wouldn’t seem to need enhancement but Pininfarina did just that, using the 330 GTC as a test-bed for a number of design studies, some of the details almost imperceptible and some obvious.

1964 Ferrari 330 GT 2+2 (left) and 1967 Ferrari 365 California Spyder (right). 

Of the latter, the most obvious was the addition of a pair of Supervis (super vision) driving lights in retractable housings, as used on the Ferrari 365 California Spyder (1966-1967).  By the mid 1960s, integrated quad headlights had for a decade been a part of mainstream design but their appearance on a Ferrari  had not met with universal praise, the 330 GT 2+2 (1964-1967) produced for its first two seasons with four but reverting to what was judged a more aesthetically accomplished pair for the rest of its run.  Speeds however were rising and the networks of European roads designed for high speed cruising rapidly were being extended and the need for better headlights was acknowledged.  Soon, technology would provide that but in the short term the solution was to add another pair and the retractable units on the Superfast were a way to do that without compromising the marque’s recognizable design language.  It was only on the Superfast the Supervis lights were standard equipment and they appeared on only two of the four 330 GTC Speciales along with a handful of regular production 330 GTC (fitted upon customer request, most sources suggest only three took up the option) and the clearly limited demand, coupled with the labor-intensive installation process, dissuaded Ferrari from extending availability as early as 1965 they appear to have vanished from the option list.  Not until compelled by US regulators a half-decade later would the factory return to retractable headlights, by then in a symmetrical quad.

Ferrari 330 GTC Speciale (serial number 8727, Pininfarina construction number CO 004, left) and in bug-eye mode (right).  This does hint why rarely are the the 365 California Spyders photographed with headlights raised. 

The brace of Supervis on chassis 8727 had a history.  Sometime prior to 1988 the front of the car had been damaged and when repairs were effected, the bug-eye lights simply were removed, the suddenly gaping apertures covered with a plug from sheet aluminium; once painted, the nose again resembled that of the standard 330 GTC the car had once been.  It was only during a later restoration the plugs were discovered and information was sought from Pininfarina which provided details of the history.  Obviously the rotating mechanisms were no longer available so those on one of the 14 365 California Spyders were removed and disassembled, allowing every part exactly to be duplicated, a process as expensive as it sounds and, adding to the cost, it was necessary to fabricate a new nose-cone because the existing metal surrounding the plugs had become too fragile to support the weight.

Skinnytoker Trindalyn Mackenzie skinnysplaining that "skinny isn't owned, it's rented".

The bug-eye look was adopted by the skinnytokers (the skinnytok community said to be "the acceptable pro ana") because the exaggerated size of the frames and lens creates the visual illusion of making the face appear thinner although Trindalyn Mackenzie seems anyway splendidly slender.  

A French bugeye: The Matra 530SX

Matra’s 1967 advertising copy for the last of the Sports Jets (left) and a 530 (right).

René Bonnet (1904–1983) was a self-taught French designer and engineer who joined the long list of those unable to resist the lure of building a car bearing his name.  It ended badly but his venture does enjoy a place in history because briefly he produced the first mid-engined road cars offered for general sale, some four years after the configuration had in Formula One racing begun to exert a dominance which endures to this day.  His diminutive sports car (marketed variously as René Bonnet Djet, Matra-Bonnet Djet, Matra Sports Djet & Matra Sports Jet) were produced by his company between 1962-1964 and by Matra for a further two years, the French manufacturer taking over the concern when Bonnet was unable to pay for the components earlier supplied.  While Matra continued production of the Djet, it used the underpinnings for a much revised model which would in 1967 emerge as the Matra 530.

Matra R.530 surface to air missile (1962, left) and René Bonnet Missile (1959-1962).

It was only force of circumstances which would lead Matra to producing the Djet.  As Bonnet’s largest creditor when the bills grew beyond his capacity to pay, the accountants worked out the only hope of recovering their stake was to take the equity and continue the operation.  Although asset-stripping wasn’t then the thing it would later become, there’s nothing to suggest this was contemplated and the feeling was the superior administrative capacity of Matra would allow things to be run in a more business-like manner although there was genuine interest in the workforce’s skills with the then still novel fibreglass.  However, although Djet production resumed under new management, Bonnet’s other offerings such as the Missile (1959-1962) were retired.  The missile, a small, front-wheel drive (FWD) convertible was a tourer in the pre-war vein rather than a sports car but while the idea probably had potential, the price was high, the performance lethargic and the styling quirky even by French standards.  In looks, it had much in common with the contemporary Daimler SP250 including the tailfins and catfish-like nose but while the British roadster was genuinely a high-high performance (if flawed) sports car, the missile did not live up to its name; under the hood (bonnet) sat small (some sub 1000 cm³) four cylinder engines rather than the Daimler’s sonorous V8.  One influence did however carry over: Matra named the 530 after one of their other products: the R.530 surface to air missile which had entered service in 1962 after a five year development.

Vis-à-vis: Matra 530: The LX (left) and the SX (right).

Using three-numeral numbers for car names is not unusual but usually the reference is to engine capacity (in the metric world a 280 being 2.8 litres, a 350, 3.5 litres etc while in imperial terms 350, 427 et al stood as an indication of the displacement in cubic inches).  Buick proved a contrarian, their 445 V8 gaining the name from its torque rating and the company used 225 in honor of the impressive 225 inch (5.7 m) length of the the 1959 Electra, sticking to to it for years even as the thing grew and shrunk (in 1967 Jayne Mansfield (1933–1967) died in a 225) and there have been many three-digit numbers which indicated a model's place in the hierarchy, the choice sometimes seemingly arbitrary.  Porsche in 1963 thought 901 was innocuous but Peugeot objected, claiming an exclusive right (for cars sold in France) to the use of three digit numbers with a central "0".  At that point Mercedes-Benz had in France been for a decade been selling the 300 and were about to release the 600 so it seemed an ambitious claim but, given the advice the case would be heard in a French court (which meant the French would win), Porsche renamed the thing 911 and the rest is history.  The "Letter Series" Chrysler 300 gained the name from its industry-leading 300 horse power, 331 cubic inch (5.4 litre) V8 and such was the reputation the thing soon established that even though over the following eleven years displacement and power both rose, the "300" model designation was retained, the allure so strong there was a twenty-first century revival.  Even now, 300 sounds an impressive number if linked to horsepower while the "110" used by both Austin and Wolseley doesn't stir the imagination, even though it denoted a useful 11% jump in horsepower from the previous 99.  The three-dozen odd models of the French Monica (1971-1975) were all called "560" because although Chrysler invoiced the company for "340 cid" (cubic inch displacement) V8s, to have called it the 340 would have baffled many in Europe for whom inches were mysterious so 560 it was, a familiar allusion to its 5.6 litres.  

1971 Chrysler (Australia) Valiant Regal 770 Hardtop.

Perhaps because 220, 440, 330 and such can be multiples of amicable numbers (and thus possess a beauty for mathematicians), they seem to have been used as model designations unrelated to the three numeral string’s usual function of (usually with some rounding up or down) indicating engine displacement (Kawasaki 440=440 cm3; Mercedes-Benz 220=2.2 litres; Oldsmobile 330=330 cid etc). AMC had the most complete sequence, using 220, 330, 440, 550, 660, 770, 880 and 990 to tag a model’s place in the hierarchy and in Australia Chrysler used 660 and 770 for their blinged-up Hillman Hunter and Valiant respectively; they also called the Hunter a “Royal” in case 660 was too abstract for the colonials. There, the Mark 1 Ford Cortina was sold as a 220 & 440 to distinguish between the standard and “deluxe” editions but instead of a 330 to slot between the two they released a 240. 550 is also a footnote because the Mercedes-Benz R230 (2001-2011) was unusual because of the quirk of the SL 550 (2006-2011), a designation used exclusively in the North American market, the RoW (rest of the world) cars retaining the SL 500 badge even though both used the 5.5 litre (333 cubic inch) V8 (M273).

Nor is a link with the materiel of the military unusual, the names of warships have been borrowed and Chevrolet used Corvette as a deliberate allusion to speed and agility but an air-to-air missile was an unusual source although Dodge did once display a Sidewinder show car.  Eventually the Corvette did live up to its name although the humble Triumph Spitfire was a far cry from the fighter aircraft which became famous in the Battle of Britain (1940).  At the time though, it wasn't the Matra's name which attracted most comment.  There have been quite a few French cars which looked weirder than the 530 but the small, mid-engined sports car was visually strange enough although, almost sixty years on, it has aged rather well and the appearance would by most plausibly be accepted as something decades younger.  The automotive venture wasn’t a risk for Matra because it was a large and diversified industrial conglomerate with profitable interests in transport, telecommunications, aerospace and of course defence (missiles, cluster-bombs, rockets and all that).  As things transpired, the automotive division would for a while prove a valuable prestige project, the participation in motorsport yielding a Formula One Constructors’ Championship and three back-to-back victories in the Le Mans 24 hour endurance classic.

Matra 530: The LX (left) and the SX (right).

The road-car business however proved challenging and Matra never became a major player.  Although the British and Italians would prove there was a market for small, economical sports cars, buyers seemed mostly to prefer more traditionally engineered roadsters which were ruggedly handsome rather than delicately avant-garde.  Although as a niche model in a niche market, the volumes were never high, the 530 was subject to constant development and in 1970 the 530LX was released, distinguished by detail changes and some mechanical improvements.  Most distinctive however was next year’s 530SX, an exercise in “de-contenting” (producing what the US industry used to call a “stripper”) so it could be offered at a lower price point, advertised at 19,000 Fr against the 22,695 asked for the LX.  It was a linguistic coincidence the SX label was later chosen for the lower price 386 & 486 CPUs (central processing unit) by the US-based Intel although they labeled their full-priced offerings DX.

Yuri Gagarin (1934–1968; Soviet pilot and cosmonaut and the first human to travel to “outer space”) with his 1965 Matra Djet (left), standing in front of the Покори́телям ко́смоса (Monumént Pokorítelyam kósmosa) (Monument to the Conquerors of Space), the titanium obelisk erected in 1964 to celebrate the USSR's pioneering achievements in space exploration.  The structure stands 351 feet (107 metres) tall and assumes an incline of 77° which is a bit of artistic licence because the rockets were launched in a vertical path but it was a good decision however because it lent the monument a greater sense of drama.  Underneath the obelisk sits the Музей космонавтики (Memorial Museum of Cosmonautics (known also as the Memorial Museum of Astronautics or Memorial Museum of Space Exploration)) and in the way which was typical of projects in the Brezhnev-era (Leonid Brezhnev (1906–1982; Soviet leader 1964-1982) USSR, although construction was begun in 1964, it wasn't until 1981 the museum opened to the public.  In the Soviet Union, while it was common for projects to be delayed for years, they were usually described as "ahead of schedule". 

The reduction in the cost of production of the SX was achieved in the usual way: remove whatever expensive stuff can be removed.  Thus (1) the retractable headlights were replaced with four fixed “bugeyes”, a single engine air vent was fitted instead of the LX’s four, (3) the rear seat and carpet were deleted, (4) the front seats were non-adjustable, (5) the trimmed dashboard was replaced by one in brushed aluminium (which was much-praised), the removable targa panels in the roof were substituted with a solid panel and, (7) metal parts like bumpers and the grille were painted matte black rather than being chromed.  In the the spirit of the ancien regime, the Frensh adopted the nicknames La Matra de Seigneur (the Matra of a Lord) for the LX & La Matra Pirate (the Matra of a pirate) for the SX.

Who wore the bugeye best?  Austin-Healey Sprite (1958, left), Lightburn Zeta Sports (1964, centre) and Matra 530SX (1971, right).

The SX did little to boost sales and even in 1972 which proved the 530’s most prolific year with 2159 produced, buyers still preferred the more expensive model by 1299 to 860.  Between 1967-1973, only 9609 530s were made: 3732 of the early models, 4731 of the LX and 1146 of the bugeyed SX and, innovative, influential and intriguing as it and the Djet were, it was a failure compared with something unadventurous like the MGB (1963-1980), over a half-million of which were delivered.  One 530 however remains especially memorable, a harlequinesque 1968 model painted by French artist Sonia Delaunay (1885–1979), a founder of the school of Orphism (a fork of Cubism which usually is described as an exercise in pure abstraction rendered in vivid colors).  The work was commissioned by Matra's CEO Jean-Luc Lagardère (1928–2003) for a charity auction and still is sometimes displayed in galleries.  In 2003, after some thirty years of co-production with larger manufacturers, Matra’s automotive division was declared bankrupt and liquidated.

Simulacrum

Simulacrum (pronounced sim-yuh-ley-kruhm)

(1) A slight, unreal, or superficial likeness or semblance; a physical image or representation of a deity, person, or thing.

(2) An effigy, image, or representation; a thing which has the appearance or form of another thing, but not its true qualities; a thing which simulates another thing; an imitation, a semblance; a thing which has a similarity to the appearance or form of another thing, but not its true qualities

(3) Used loosely, any representational image of something (a nod to the Latin source).

1590–1600: A learned borrowing of the Latin simulācrum (likeness, image) and a dissimilation of simulaclom, the construct being simulā(re) (to pretend, to imitate), + -crum (the instrumental suffix which was a variant of -culum, from the primitive Indo-European –tlom (a suffix forming instrument nouns).  The Latin simulāre was the present active infinitive of simulō (to represent, simulate) from similis (similar to; alike), ultimately from the primitive Indo-European sem- (one; together).  In English, the idea was always of “something having the mere appearance of another”, hence the conveyed notion of a “a specious imitation”, the predominant sense early in the nineteenth century while later it would be applied to works or art (most notably in portraiture) judged, “blatant flattery”.  In English, simulacrum replaced the late fourteenth century semulacre which had come from the Old French simulacre.  As well as the English simulacrum, the descendents from the Latin simulācrum include the French simulacre, the Spanish simulacro and the Polish symulakrum.  Simulacrum is a noun and simulacral is an adjective; the noun plural is simulacrums or simulacra (a learned borrowing from Latin simulācra).  Although neither is listed, by lexicographers, in the world of art criticism, simulacrally would be a tempting adverb and simulacrumism an obvious noun.  The comparative is more simulacral, the suplerative most simulacral.

Simulacrum had an untroubled etymology didn’t cause a problem until French post-structuralists found a way to add layers of complication.  The sociologist & philosopher Jean Baudrillard (1929-2007) wrote a typically dense paper (The Precession of Simulacra (1981)) explaining simulacra were “…something that replaces reality with its representation… Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being, or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal.... It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real.” and his examples ranged from Disneyland to the Watergate scandal.  One can see his point but it seems only to state the obvious and wicked types like Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Joseph Goebbels (1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) said it in fewer words.  To be fair, Baudrillard’s point was more about the consequences of simulacra than the process of their creation and the social, political and economic implication of states or (more to the point) corporations attaining the means to “replace” reality with a constructed representation were profound.  The idea has become more relevant (and certainly more discussed) in the post-fake news world in which clear distinctions between that which is real and its imitations have become blurred and there’s an understanding that through many channels of distribution, increasingly, audiences are coming to assume nothing is real.

Mannerist but not quite surrealist: Advertising for the 1961 Pontiac Bonneville Sports Coupe (left) with graphical art by Art Fitzpatrick (1919–2015) & Van Kaufman (1918-1995) and a (real) 1961 Pontiac Bonneville Sports Coupe (right) fitted with Pontiac's much admired 8-lug wheels, their exposed centres actually the brake drum.

The work of Fitzpatrick & Kaufman is the best remembered of the 1960s advertising by the US auto industry and their finest creations were those for General Motors’ (GM) Pontiac Motor Division (PMD).  The pair rendered memorable images but certainly took some artistic licence and created what were even then admired as simulacrums rather than taken too literally.  While PMD’s “Year of the Wide-Track” (introduced in 1959) is remembered as a slogan, it wasn’t just advertising shtick, the decision taken to increase the track of Pontiacs by 5 inches (127 mm) because the 1958 frames were used for the much wider 1959 bodies, rushed into production because the sleek new Chryslers had rendered the old look frumpy and suddenly old-fashioned.  It certainly enhanced the look but the engineering was sound, the wider stance also genuinely improved handling.  Just to make sure people got the message about the “wide” in the “Wide Track” theme, their artwork deliberately exaggerated the width of the cars they depicted and while it was the era of “longer, lower, wider” (and PMD certainly did their bit in that), things never got quite that wide.  Had they been, the experience of driving would have felt something like steering an aircraft carrier's flight deck.

1908 Cadillac Model S: The standard 56 inch (1422 mm) track (left) and the 61 inch (1549 mm) "wide track" (right), the more "sure-footed" stance designed for rutted rural roads.  

Pontiac made much of the “Year of the Wide Track” and it worked so well “wide track” would be an advertising hook for much of the 1960s although the idea wasn’t new, Cadillac in 1908 offering a wide track option for their Model S.  While the four cylinder Cadillacs were coming to be offered with increasingly large and elaborate coachwork, to increase the appeal of the single cylinder, 98 cubic inch (1.6 litre) Model S for rural buyers, there was the option of a 61 inch (1549 mm) track, 5 inches (127 mm) wider than standard.  The extra width was designed exactly to match the ruts in the roads of the rural Southwest, cut by generations of horse-drawn wagons.  Though a thoughtful gesture, times were changing and the 1908 Model S would prove the last single cylinder Cadillac, the corporation the next season standardizing the line around the Model Thirty which upon release would use the 226 cubic inch (3.7 litre) four-cylinder engine although in a harbinger of the 1950s and 1960s, it would be enlarged to 255 cubic inches (4.2 litre) for 1910, 286 cubic inches (4.7 litres) for 1911-1912 and finally 366 cubic inches (6.0 litres) for 1914.  For 1915, there was another glimpse of Cadillac’s path in the twentieth century with the introduction of the Model 51, fitted with the company’s first V8 with a displacement of 314 cubic inches (5.1 litres).  As the photographs suggest, nor was the luxurious tufted leather upholstery Detroit in the 1970s came to adore anything new, the style of seating used in the early (“brass era”), up-market automobiles taken straight from gentlemen’s clubs.

Fitzpatrick & Kaufman’s graphic art for the 1967 Pontiac Catalina Convertible advertising campaign.  One irony in the pair being contracted by PMD is that for most of the 1960s, Pontiacs were distinguished by some of the industry’s more imaginative and dramatic styling ventures and needed the artists' simulacral tricks less than some other manufacturers (and the Chryslers of the era come to mind, the solid basic engineering below cloaked sometimes in truly bizarre or just dull  bodywork).

This advertisement from 1961 hints also at something often not understood about what was later acknowledged as the golden era for both the US auto industry and their advertising agencies.  Although the big V8 cars of the post-war years are now remembered mostly for the collectable, high-powered, high value survivors with large displacement and induction systems using sometimes two four-barrel or three two-barrel carburetors, such things were a tiny fraction of total production and most V8 engines were tuned for a compromise between power (actually, more to the point for most: torque) and economy, a modest single two barrel sitting atop most and after the brief but sharp recession of 1958, even the Lincoln Continental, aimed at the upper income demographic, was reconfigured thus in a bid to reduce the prodigious thirst of the 430 cubic inch (7.0 litre) MEL (Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln) V8.  Happily for country and oil industry, the good times returned and by 1963 the big Lincolns were again guzzling gas four barrels at a time (the MEL in 1966 even enlarged to a 462 (7.6)) although there was the courtesy of the engineering trick of off-centering slightly the carburetor’s location so the primary two throats (the other two activated only under heavy throttle load) sat directly in the centre for optimal smoothness of operation.  Despite today’s historical focus on the displacement, horsepower and burning rubber of the era, there was then much advertising copy about (claimed) fuel economy, though while then as now, YMMV (your mileage may vary), the advertising standards of the day didn’t demand such a disclaimer.

Portrait of Oliver Cromwell (1650), oil on canvas by Samuel Cooper (1609-1672).

Even if it’s something ephemeral, politicians are often sensitive about representations of their image but concerns are heightened when it’s a portrait which, often somewhere hung on public view, will long outlive them.  Although in the modern age the proliferation and accessibility of the of the photographic record has meant portraits no longer enjoy an exclusivity in the depiction of history, there’s still something about a portrait which conveys, however misleadingly, a certain authority.  That’s not to suggest the classic representational portraits have always been wholly authentic, a good many of those of the good and great acknowledged to have been painted by “sympathetic” artists known for their subtleties in rendering their subjects variously more slender, youthful or hirsute as the raw material required.  Probably few were like Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658; Lord Protector of the Commonwealth 1653-1658) who told Samuel Cooper to paint him “warts and all”.  The artist obliged.

Randolph Churchill (1932), oil on canvas by Philip de László (left) and Randolph Churchill’s official campaign photograph (1935, right).

There have been artists for whom a certain fork of the simulacrum has provided a long a lucrative career.  Philip Alexius László de Lombos (1869–1937 and known professionally as Philip de László) was a UK-based Hungarian painter who was renowned for his sympathetic portraiture of royalty, the aristocracy and anyone else able to afford his fee (which for a time-consuming large, full-length works could be as much as 3000 guineas).  His reputation as a painter suffered after his death because he was dismissed by some as a “shameless flatterer” but in more recent years he’s been re-evaluated and there’s now much admiration for his eye and technical prowess, indeed, some have noted he deserves to be regarded more highly than many of those who sat for him.  His portrait of Randolph Churchill (1911-1968) (1932, left) has, rather waspishly, been described by some authors as something of an idealized simulacrum and the reaction of the journalist Alan Brien (1925-2008) was typical.  He met Churchill only in when his dissolute habits had inflicted their ravages and remarked that the contrast was startling, “…as if Dorian Gray had changed places with his picture for one day of the year.”  Although infamously obnoxious, on this occasion Churchill responded with good humor, replying “Yes, it is hard to believe that was me, isn’t it?  I was a joli garçon (pretty boy) in those days.”  That may have been true for as his official photograph for the 1935 Wavertree by-election (where he stood as an “Independent Conservative” on a platform of rearmament and opposition to Indian Home Rule) suggests, the artist may have been true to his subject.  Neither portrait now photograph seems to have helped politically and his loss at Wavertree was one of several he would suffer in his attempts to be elected to the House of Commons.

Portrait of Gina Rinehart (née Hancock, b 1954) by Western Aranda artist Vincent Namatjira (b 1983), National Gallery of Australia (NGA) (left) and photograph of Gina Rinehart (right).

While some simulacrums can flatter to deceive, others are simply unflattering.  That was what Gina Rinehard (described habitually as “Australia’s richest woman”) felt about two (definitely unauthorized) portraits of which are on exhibition at the NGA.  Accordingly, she asked they be removed from view and “permanently disposed of”, presumably with the same fiery finality with which bonfires consumed portraits of Theodore Roosevelt (TR, 1858–1919; US president 1901-1909) and Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955), both works despised by their subjects.  Unfortunately for Ms Reinhart, her attempted to save the nation from having to look at what she clearly considered bad art created only what is in law known as the “Streisand effect”, named after an attempt in 2003 by the singer Barbra Streisand (b 1942) to suppress publication of a photograph showing her cliff-top residence in Malibu, taken originally to document erosion of the California coast.  All that did was generate a sudden interest in the previously obscure photograph and ensure it went viral, overnight reaching an audience of millions as it spread around the web.  Ms Reinhart’s attempt had a similar consequence: while relatively few had attended Mr Namatjira’s solo Australia in Colour exhibition at the NGA and publicity had been minimal, the interest generated by the story saw the “offending image” printed in newspapers, appear on television news bulletins (they’re still a thing with a big audience) and of course on many websites.  The “Streisand effect” is regarded as an example “reverse psychology”, the attempt to conceal something making it seem sought by those who would otherwise not have been interested or bothered to look.  People should be careful in what they wish for.

Side by side: Portraits of Barak Obama (2011) and Donald Trump (2018), both oil on canvas by Sarah A Boardman, on permanent display, Gallery of Presidents, Third Floor, Rotunda, State Capitol Building, Denver, Colorado.

In March 2025 it was reported Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) was not best pleased with a portrait of him hanging in Colorado’s State Capitol; he damned the work as “purposefully distorted” and demanded Governor Jared Polis (b 1975; governor (Democratic) of Colorado since 2019) immediately take it down.  In a post on his Truth Social platform, Mr Trump said: “Nobody likes a bad picture or painting of themselves, but the one in Colorado, in the State Capitol, put up by the Governor, along with all the other Presidents, was purposefully distorted to a level that even I, perhaps, have never seen before.  The artist also did President Obama and he looks wonderful, but the one on me is truly the worst. She must have lost her talent as she got older.  In any event, I would much prefer not having a picture than having this one, but many people from Colorado have called and written to complain. In fact, they are actually angry about it!  I am speaking on their behalf to the radical left Governor, Jared Polis, who is extremely weak on crime, in particular with respect to Tren de Aragua, which practically took over Aurora (Don’t worry, we saved it!), to take it down. Jared should be ashamed of himself!”

At the unveiling in 2019 it was well-received by the Republicans assembled.  If Fox News had an art critic (the Lord forbid), she would have approved but presumably that would now be withdrawn and denials issued it was ever conferred.  

Intriguingly, it was one of Mr Trump’s political fellow-travellers (Kevin Grantham (b 1970; state senator (Republican, Colorado) 2011-2019) who had in 2018 stated a GoFundMe page to raise the funds needed to commission the work, the US$10,000 pledged, it is claimed, within “a few hours”.  Ms Boardman’s painting mush have received the approval of the Colorado Senate Republicans because it was them who in 2019 hosted what was described as the “non-partisan unveiling event” when first the work was displayed hanging next to one of Mr Trump’s first presidential predecessor (Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017), another of Ms Boardman’s commissions.  Whether or not it’s of relevance in the matter of now controversial portrait may be a matter for professional critics to ponder but on her website the artist notes she has “…always been passionate about painting portraits, being particularly intrigued by the depth and character found deeper in her subjects… believing the ultimate challenge is to capture the personality, character and soul of an individual in a two-dimensional format...”  Her preferred models “…are carefully chosen for their enigmatic personality and uniqueness...” and she admits some of her favorite subjects those “whose faces show the tracks of real life.”

Variations on a theme of simulacra: Four AI (artificial intelligence) generated images of Lindsay Lohan by Stable Diffusion.  The car depicted (centre right) is a Mercedes-Benz SL (R107, 1971-1989), identifiable as a post-1972 North American model because of the disfiguring bumper bar. 

So a simulacrum is a likeness of something which is recognizably of the subject (maybe with the odd hint) and not of necessity “good” or “bad”; just not exactly realistic.  Of course with techniques of lighting or angles, even an unaltered photograph can similarly mislead but the word is used usually of art or behavior such as “a simulacrum or pleasure” or “a ghastly simulacrum of a smile”.  In film and biography of course, the simulacrum is almost obligatory and the more controversial the subject, the more simulacral things are likely to be: anyone reading AJP Taylor’s study (1972) of the life of Lord Beaverbrook (Maxwell Aitken, 1879-1964) would be forgiven for wondering how anyone could have said a bad word about the old chap.  All that means there’s no useful antonym of simulacrum because one really isn’t needed (there's replica, duplicate etc but the sense is different) while the synonyms are many, the choice of which should be dictated by the meaning one wishes to denote and they include: dissimilarity, unlikeness, archetype, clone, counterfeit, effigy, ersatz, facsimile, forgery, image, impersonation, impression, imprint, likeness, portrait, representation, similarity, simulation, emulation, fake, faux & study.  Simulacrum remains a little unusual in that while technically it’s a neutral descriptor, it’s almost always used with a sense of the negative or positive.