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.  Although dense, this one did stop short of the impenetrability he sometimes achieved and one can see his point but it seems only to state the obvious; wicked types like Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945; 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".  In the age of AI (artificial intelligence) generated images, voice and video content indistinguishable from "the real", it would seem unwise to assume anything "is real".

Mannerist but not quite surrealist: Advertising for the 1961 Pontiac Bonneville Sport Coupe (left) with images 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 to which the rim (in the true sense of the word) directly was bolted.

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 (the original advertising copy read “Wide Track Wheels” but was soon clipped to “Wide Track” because it was snappier), 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 carried-over for the much wider 1959 bodies, rushed into production because the sleek new Chryslers had rendered the old look frumpy and suddenly old-fashioned.  That spliced-in five inches certainly enhanced the look but the engineering was sound, the wider stance did genuinely improve handling.  Just to make sure people got the message about the “wide” in the “Wide Track” theme, the advertising 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.  The early automobiles used a narrower track than the traditional horse-drawn carriages and while this tended not to cause motorists difficulties in urban conditions (indeed, the narrower profile was often a great advantage when negotiating around the built environment), in rural areas where road maintenance between distant settlements was usually infrequent and sometimes non-existent, unless able (especially in winter) to play the wheels of one's vehicle in the well-worn tracks of a thousand or more before, progress often simply had to stop.  Thus Cadillac's Model S, the additional width spliced into the structure designed exactly to match the ruts in the roads of the rural Southwest, cut by generations of horse-drawn wagons.      

A road on the outskirts of Toronto, Canada, 1914.

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.  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 there anything new in the luxurious tufted leather upholstery Detroit in the 1970s came to adore, 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 reverential Republicans assembled and 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 must 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.

Authentic

Authentic (pronounced aw-then-tik)

(1) Something not false or copied; genuine; real.

(2) Having an origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified: with certified provenance.

(3) Representing one’s true nature or beliefs; true to oneself or to the person identified.

(4) Entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy.

(5) In law, executed with all due formalities; conforming to process.

(6) In music (of a church mode and most often applied to the Gregorian chant), having a range extending from the final to the octave above.

(7) In music (of a cadence), progressing from a dominant to a tonic chord.

(8) In musical performance, using period instruments and historically researched scores and playing techniques in an attempt to perform a piece as it would have been played at the time it was written (or in certain cases, first performed).

(9) Authoritative; definitive (obsolete).

1300–1350: From the Middle English authentik & autentik (authoritative, duly authorized (a sense now obsolete)), from the Old French autentique (authentic; canonical (from which thirteenth century Modern French gained authentique)), from the Late Latin authenticus (the work of the author, genuine ( which when used as a neuter noun also meant “an original document, the original”), from the Ancient Greek αὐθεντικός (authentikós) (original, primary, at first hand), the construct being αὐθέντης (authéntēs) (lord, master; perpetrator (literally, “one who does things oneself; one who acts independently (the construct being aut(o-) (self-) + -hentēs (doer)) + -ikos (–ic) (the adjective suffix)), from the primitive Indo-European root sene- (to accomplish, to achieve).  The alternative spellings authentical, authentick, authenticke & authentique are all archaic.  Authentic is an adjective (and a non-standard noun), authentically is an adverb, authenticity & authentification are nouns, authenticate, authenticating & authenticated are verbs; the most common noun plural is authentifications.

The modern sense of something “real, entitled to acceptance as factual” emerged in the mid-fourteenth century and synonyms (depending on context) include true, veritable, genuine, real, bonafide, bona fide, unfaked, reliable, trustworthy, credible & unfaked.  As antonyms (the choice of which will be dictated by context and sentence structure) the derived adjectives include: non-authentic, inauthentic & unauthentic (the three usually synonymous but nuances can be constructed depending on the context) and the curious quasi-authentic, used presumably to suggest degrees of fakeness, sincerity etc).  Inauthentic from 1783 is the most often used and thus presumably the preferred form and in this it competes also with phony, fake, faux, bogus, imitation, clone, impersonation, impression, mimic, parody, reflection, replica, tribute, reproduction, apery, copy, counterfeit, ditto, dupe, duplicate, ersatz, forgery, image, likeness, match, mime, mimesis, mockery, parallel, resemblance, ringer, semblance, sham, simulacrum, simulation, emulation, takeoff, ripoff, transcription, travesty, Xerox, aping, carbon copy, echo, match, mirror, knockoff, paraphrasing, parroting, patterning, representation & replica & the rare ingenuine.  The verb authenticate (verify, establish the credibility of) dates from the 1650s and was from the Medieval Latin authenticatus, the past participle of authenticare, from the Late Latin authenticus; the form of use in the mid seventeenth century was sometimes “render authentic”.  The noun authenticity (the quality of being authentic, or entitled; acceptance as to being true or correct) dates from the 1760 and replaced the earlier authentity (1650s) & authenticness (1620s).

Beware of the inauthentic: The authentic Lindsay Lohan (left) and the Grand Theft Auto's (GTA 5) ersatz (right), a mere "generic young woman".

Concurring with the 2016 ruling of the New York County Supreme Court which, on appeal, also found for the game’s makers (Take-Two, aka Rockstar) , the judges, as a point of law, accepted the claim a computer game’s character "could be construed a portrait", which "could constitute an invasion of an individual’s privacy" but, on the facts of the case, the likeness was "not sufficiently strong".  The “… artistic renderings are an indistinct, satirical representation of the style, look and persona of a modern, beach-going young woman... that is not recognizable as the plaintiff" Judge Eugene Fahey wrote in his ruling.  Judge Fahey's words recalled those of Potter Stewart (1915–1985; associate justice of the US Supreme Court 1958-1981) when in Jacobellis v Ohio (378 U.S. 184 (1964) he wrote: “I shall not today attempt further to define… and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.  But I know it when I see it…”  Judge Fahey knew a basic white girl when he saw one; he just couldn't name her.  Lindsay Lohan's lawyers did not seek leave to appeal.

The game’s developers may have taken the risk of incurring Lindsay Lohan’s wrath and indignation because they’d been lured into a false sense of security by Crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) not filing a writ after a likeness of her appeared on GTA 4’s (2008) Statue Of Happiness which stands on Happiness Island, just off the coast of Liberty City.  The Statue of Happiness was a blatant knock-off of the New York’s Statue of Liberty and crooked Hillary became a determined and acerbic critic of Rockstar and the GTA franchise after the “Hot Coffee” scandal.  That controversy arose after modders promulgated a code which in GTA: San Andreas’ release (2004) unlocked a hidden “mini-game” which allowed players to control explicit on-screen sex acts.  Men having sex with women with whom they don’t enjoy benefit of marriage is a bit of a sore point with crooked Hillary, then a US senator (Democrat-NY), who embarked on a campaign for new regulations be imposed on the industry and the most immediate consequence was the SSRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) launching an investigation, subsequently raising GTA: San Andreas’ rating from “M” (Mature) to “AO” (Adults Only 18) until the objectionable content was removed.  For those who wondered if the frightening visage on the GTA 4 statute really was what some suspected, the object’s file name was “stat_hilberty01.wdr”.

Roskstar's Statue Of Happiness in GTA 4 (2008, left) and an official photograph of crooked Hillary Clinton (right). 

Rockstar seeking vengeance was understandable because crooked Hillary’s moral crusade proved tiresome for the company.  Once the ESRB had been nudged into action, crooked Hillary petitioned the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to (1) find the source of the game's “graphic pornographic and violent content”, (2) determine if it should be slapped with an AO rating and (3) “examine the adequacy of the retailers' rating enforcement policies.”  Not content, she then announced she’d be sponsoring in the Senate a bill for an act which would make it a federal crime (with a mandatory US$5,000 fine) to sell to anyone under 18, violent or sexually explicit video games; the Family Entertainment Protection Act was filed on 17 December 2005 and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, where quietly it was allowed to expire.

While the act slowly was being strangled in committee hearings, the FTC and Rockstar reached a settlement, the commission ruling the company had violated the Federal Trade Commission Act (1914) by failing to disclose the inclusion of “unused, but potentially viewable” explicit content” (that it was enabled by a third party was held to be “not relevant”).  The settlement required Rockstar “clearly and prominently disclose on product packaging and in any promotion or advertisement for electronic games, content relevant to the rating, unless that content had been disclosed sufficiently in prior submissions to the rating authority” with violations punishable by a fine of up to US$11,000.  In the spirit of the now again fashionable Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933; US president 1923-1929) era capitalism, no fine was imposed for the “Hot Coffee incident”, presumably because the company had already booked a US$24.5 million loss from the product recall earlier mandated.

Real & fake appears as simple and obvious a dichotomy as black & white but humanity has managed over the millennia to create many grey areas in many shades, thus the wealth of antonyms and synonyms for “authentic”.  Authentic now carries the connotation of an authoritative confirmation (which can be formalized as a process which culminates with the issue of a “certificate of authenticity” although the usefulness of that of course depends on the issuing authority being regarded as authentic.  Genuine carries a similar meaning but in a less formalized sense and in some fields (such as the art market), something can simultaneously be genuine yet not authentic (a painting might for example be a genuine seventeenth century oil on canvas work yet not be the Rembrandt it was represented to be; it’s thus not authentic).  The word real is probably the most simple term of all and can often be used interchangeably but unless what’s being described is unquestionable “real” in every sense, more nuanced words may be needed.  Veritable was from the Middle French veritable, from the Old French veritable, from the Latin veritabilis, from vēritās (truth), the construct being vērus (true; real) +‎ -tās (the suffix used to form abstract nouns).  The traditional of use in English however means veritable had become an expression of admiration (eg “she is a veritable saint”) rather than a measure of truthfulness or authenticity.

Other nuances also organically have evolved.  Authentic now implies the contents of the thing in question correspond to the facts and are not fictitious while genuine implies that whatever is being considered is something unadulterated from its original form although what it contains may in some way be inauthentic.  This is serviceable and as long as it’s not used in a manner likely to mislead is a handy linguistic tool but as Henry Fowler (1858–1933) noted in his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), it was an artificial distinction, “…illustrated by the fact that, “genuine” having no verb of its own, “authenticate” serves for both”.

Degrees of authenticity: 2016 Jaguar XKSS (continuation series)

In 2016 Jaguar displayed the first of nine XKSS "continuation" models.  In 1957, Jaguar had planned a run of 25 XKSSs which were road-going conversions of the Le Mans-winning D-type (1954-1956).  Such things were possible in those happier, less regulated times.  However, nine of the cars earmarked for export to North America were lost in fire so only 16 were ever completed.  These nine, using the serial numbers allocated in 1957 are thus regarded as a "continuation of the original run" to completion, Jaguar insisting it is not "cloning itself".  The project was well-received and the factory subsequent announced it would also continue the production run of the lightweight E-Types, again using the allocated but never absorbed ID numbers.  Other manufacturers, including Aston Martin, have embarked on their own continuation programmes and at a unit cost in excess of US$1 million, it's a lucrative business.

In the upper (or at least the most obsessional) reaches of the collector car market, the idea of “authenticity” is best expressed as “originality”.  As early as the 1950s when the market began to the process of assuming its present form, originality was valued because many of the pre-war machines first to attract interest (Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Lagonda etc from the UK, Duesenberg, Stutz, Cadillac etc from the US and Mercedes-Benz, Isotta Fraschini, Bugatti etc from Europe) had over the years receive different coachwork from that which was originally supplied.  At the time however, the contemporary records suggest that if a rakish new body had replaced something dowdy, it was a matter for comment rather than objection.  Nor were replacement engines and transmissions thought objectionable as long as they replicated the originals, there then being an understanding things wear out.  Those mechanical components were however among the first to come to the attention of the originality police and “matching numbers” became a thing, every stamped component with a serial number (engine blocks & heads, transmission cases, differential housings etc) which could be verified against factory records, made a car more collectable and thus more valuable.  It was a matter of originality which came to matter, not functionality which mattered; a newer, better engine detracted from the value.  In some cases originality was allowed to be a shifting concept especially with vehicles used in competition; if a Ferrari was found to be on its third engine, that was fine as long as each swap was performed, in period, by the factory or its racing team.

That exception aside, it’s now very different and, all else being equal, the most authentic collectable of its type is the one most original.  These days collectors will line up their possessions in rows to be judged by “certified judges” who, clipboards in hand will peak and poke, ticking or crossing the boxes as they go.  They’re prepared to concede the air in the tyres, the fuel in the tank and the odd speck of dust on the carpet may not be what was there when first the thing left the factory but points will be deducted for offenses such as incorrect screw heads, or a hose clap perhaps being installed clockwise rather than anti-clockwise.  Sometimes a variation from the original can’t be detected, even by a certified judge.  If a component (without a verifiable serial number) has been replaced with a genuine factory part number, if done properly that will often get a tick whereas a reproduction part from a third-party manufacturer will often have some barely discernible difference and thus get a cross.

An Elite Marti Report including the factory option list and door data plate info, reproductions of the door data plate & window sticker and personalized production statistics.  All these are supplied mounted on a board (in Ford matte blue) installed in a 16 x 20 inch (405 x 508 mm)" black frame.

Given the money which churns around the market, there’s a bit of an informal industry in faking authenticity and with some vehicles it is actually technically possible exactly to take a mundane version of something and emulate a more desirable model; the difference in value potentially in the millions.  In some cases however, even if technically possible, it may be functionally not: If it’s notorious that only ten copies were produced of a certain model and all have for decades been accounted for, it’s not plausible to possess an eleventh. However, there are instances where the combination of (1) the factory not maintaining the necessary records and (2) the vehicle itself not being fitted with the requisite stampings or identification plates to determine exactly what options may originally have been fitted.  However, even if documented and thus "authenticated", there can still be pitfalls.  In the collectable market for vehicles (Ford, Lincoln & Mercury) produced in the US by the Ford Motor Company (FoMoCo) between 1967-2017, the gold standard is the service offered by mechanical engineer Kevin Marti's (b 1957) Marti Auto Works.  That company has been licensed by FoMoCo to generate reports detailing the specification (mechanical, trim, options) on the day it left the factory, all data grabbed directly from Ford's databases.  Available at three price-point (Standard, Deluxe & Elite), a Marti report is a valuable resource for both buyers and sellers.  However, what the reports provide is what is in the database and that reflects the specification with which a vehicle should have been built and while the phrase "Monday & Friday cars" (popularized by Arthur Hailey's (1920-2004) novel Wheels (1971)) shouldn't be taken literally, its currency in the era was an indication mistakes did happen on car production lines and, given the factories were every day producing them in the thousands, that should not be a surprise.  QC (quality control) inspections meant many E&O (errors and omissions) were rectified but some did slip through and while most were minor enough to be corrected by dealers, if the buyer was content to be appeased with a partial refund or credit, a vehicle could enter the wild with a specification in some way different from what was recorded in FoMoCo's database.  Only a comparatively tiny number of such vehicles each year appeared but if a vehicle represented as "original" or "matching numbers" varies in some detail from the authoritative Marti Report, a seller will benefit if in possession of additional explanatory documents.  As a footnote, the reason Ford's records prior to 1967 are not available is because the company "destroyed" the granular data. 

An authentic 1967 Chevrolet SS 427.

Because of the way the data details were recorded on the tags attached to Chevrolet’s vehicles during this era it can be difficult for collectors always to verify a car as presented is in quite the form it was when first it emerged from the factory.  Quite a few 1967 Impalas have been modified to “become” and SS 427 and it can take an expert to authenticate the real thing, the difference between one and another meaning tens of thousands of dollars in value.  Fortunately, there are many experts and they are needed to distinguish between the clones and the real SS 427s (the model achieving 2,124 sales in 1967, 1,778 in 1968 and 2,455 in its swansong season in 1969.  The 1967 Chevrolet SS 427 is now a collectable but it’s also a pedant’s delight because (1) although Impala-based it’s not by most treated as an Impala (this is contested) and (2) there was also a 1967 Impala SS 427 which is similar but not identical; technically, the SS 427 was a full-sized Chevrolet with RPO (regular production option) Z24.  In collector terms, the things were not especially rare but the ecosystem of Chevrolet’s full-sized SS range was by then in decline; from a peak of almost 240,000 SS Impalas in 1965, volumes just two years later had fallen by some by over 80% to just 40,000 as customer interest shifted to the smaller, lighter pony cars and intermediates.  It was a trend affecting all manufacturers and even before the muscle car era ended, the high-performance, full-sized segment would be driven to extinction, not by government pressure or edict but by lack of interest.

An authentic 1967 Chevrolet SS 427 cockpit.

Chevrolet’s SS (Super Sport) option was released in 1961 as a bundle available for Impalas with high-performance V8s: it featured both suspension modifications and dress-up items including unique body and interior trim, power steering, power brakes with sintered metallic linings, full wheel covers with a three blade spinner, a passenger grab bar, a console for the floor shift, and a tachometer on the steering column.  In that year, Chevrolet built close to half a million Impalas but only 453 buyers (a scant 142 of whom selected the top 409 cubic inch (6.7 litre) engine) opted for what was (at US$53.80) the bargain-priced SS package, an indication the marketing needed to be tweaked.  The problem was that Chevrolet had intended the 1961 SS live up to its name and it was available only with the 348 (5.7) & 409 V8s which could be quite raucous and were notably thirstier than many were prepared to tolerate, even then.  What dealers noted was how buyers were drawn to the style but put off by the specification which demanded much more from the driver that the smaller-engined models which wafted effortlessly along, automatic transmissions by now the default choice for most Impala buyers.

So the sales barrier was the implication of the costs attached to the SS bundle rather than the attractiveness.  The headline number of US$53.80 actually included only the "spinner" wheel covers, SS badges, a shiny floor plate for the four-speed's shifter and a Corvette-style grab-bar for the glove-box (Ralph Nader (b 1934) noted that one).  However, ticking the SS option box triggered a list of "mandatory options" (a seeming oxymoron Detroit came to adore) including wider tyres (with compulsory narrow-band whitewalls), PAS & PB, (power assisted steering & power brakes), LPO (Limited Production Option) 1108 (Police Handling Package, a bundle including HD (heavy-duty) suspension components and sintered metallic brake linings), a steering column mounted 7000 rpm tachometer and a padded dashboard (the last little more than reassuringly decorative and unlikely much to impress Mr Nader).  Having agreed to pay for all that, the buyer then had to decide whether to opt (at progressively increasing cost) for the 348 (with 305, 340 or 350 horsepower (HP)) or 409 (360 HP).  The Powerglide two-speed  automatic transmission was available only with the mildest of the 348s, further limiting the sales potential, the three or four-speed manual otherwise obligatory.  In 1961, it was much more expensive to buy a SS Chevrolet than the US$53.80 on the brochure suggested and however pleasing, it was a long way removed from Chevrolet's traditional place as the low-priced rung on the "Sloan ladder".  The decision was thus taken for 1962 to make the "show" available without the "go" and the SS became an "appearance package", available with even six-cylinder engines.  Sales skyrocketed and between 1962-1969 some 920,000 SS packages were sold for the full-sized line; it was for years a handy revenue sub-centre.   

An authentic 1967 Chevrolet SS 427.

GM had noted the dress-up bits were just Chevrolet part-numbers which could be ordered by dealers, some of which received customer requests separately to fit the trim pieces so some 1961 Impalas did to some extent resemble the SS cars though without the high-performance equipment.  Thus from 1962 the SS option became widely available and consisted of bling and accessories, able to be ordered with even the most modest engines.  Splitting the market between drag-strip monsters and boulevard cruisers which could be made to look much the same proved a great success.  It was obvious there were more buyers who wanted their Impala to look like a a fast one than were able or prepared to pay for the experience and Chevrolet’s “SS appearance package” proved influential, the approach becoming a a template for the whole industry, spreading internationally, the Porsche 911T Lux (1972-1973) an example.  The entry level 911T was the least powerful of the range and lacked some of the luxury fittings of the more expensive and more powerful 911E & 911S but for those who wanted the fittings but had no desire (or willingness to pay) for the horsepower, the 911T Lux was created which combined the mechanical specification of the "T" with the trim of the "S", the factory doing exactly what so many of Chevrolet's SS customers settled on after 1962.

An authentic 1967 Chevrolet SS 427.

Starting in 1967, beyond the standard-issue SS models, buyers could also choose the SS 427 model (RPO Z24) but confusingly, an Impala SS could be ordered with the 427 cubic inch (7.0 litre) V8 a situation which continued until the 1969 model year when, according to Chevrolet, only the SS 427 was available despite the company that year adding the “Impala” badges not used on the SS 427s in 1967 & 1968.  It’s little wonder the big-bodied 427s of those three years confuse many.  The flavours of the 427 V8 offered over the years also bounced around: For 1967, only the 385 horsepower (HP) L36 was available, the choice the next year extended to the L36 (390 HP) & L72 (425 HP), that pair augmented in 1969 by the LS1 (335 HP).  Curiously a triple-carburetor option had been scheduled to appear on the 1967 SS 427 (and the Camaro) but both were cancelled after one of GM’s many corporate edicts, the three simulated stacks on the hood (bonnet) a relic of the late change of plans.

Rear-seat "leaping impala" emblem in an authentic 1967 Chevrolet SS 427.

According to Chevrolet's fall 1966 brochure the SS 427 was: “The ’67 Super Sports by Chevrolet” which sounds definitive but whether the 1967 & 1968 SS 427s are really Impalas still is discussed between two factions, both with entrenched positions and it's unlikely minds ever have been changed.  It’s something like the 1948 debate about the existence of God between British Jesuit priest & historian of philosophy Frederick Copleston (1907–1994) and noted atheist, British mathematician & philosopher Bertrand Russell (Third Earl Russell, 1872–1970): When someone with a sincere belief debates with someone with a sincere lack of belief, opinions are unlikely to change.  One faction argues that because no “Impala” badge appears anywhere on the 1967-1968 cars then obviously they're not Impalas while the other points out that in every other aspect they're obviously Impalas before playing their trump card: the stylized “leaping impala” emblem, prominently which sits in the middle of the rear seat.  So it’s a matter of whether “symbol trumps (lack of) text” which seems one of the industry’s more sterile debates though it has never gone away and that the Impala badge returned for 1969 presumably can be interpreted to afforce the theories of either side.  Nothing in the VIN (vehicle identification number) reflects whether a full-size Chevrolet is a SS 427 or another model so an original build sheet and/or window sticker with the vital Z24 reference will be the best evidence.  There are now many 1967-1969 SS 427 "clones" (fake, faux, tribute, reproduction & replica the other terms used depending on circumstances and claims asserted) and the authentication of what's genuine and what's not is a minor industry in the collector market. 

Authenticity in art 

Christ with the Woman Taken in Adultery (1942), oil on canvas by Han van Meegeren (1889–1947) following Johannes Vermeer (1632–1675).

The matter of authenticity is obviously important in the art market.  Usually the critical factor is the identity of the artist.  In May 1945, immediately after the liberation from Nazi occupation of the Netherlands, the authorities arrested Dutch national Han van Meegeren (1889–1947) and charged him with collaborating with the enemy, a capital crime.  Evidence had emerged that van Meegeren had during World War II (1939-1945) sold Vermeer's Christ with the Woman Taken in Adultery to Hermann Göring (1893–1946; prominent Nazi 1922-1945, Reichsmarschall 1940-1945).  His defense was as novel as it was unexpected: He claimed the painting was not a Vermeer but rather a forgery by his own hand, pointing out that as he had traded the fake for over a hundred other Dutch paintings purchased (frequently transactions of dubious legality) earlier by the Reichsmarschall, he was thus a national hero rather than a Nazi collaborator.  Understandably, the judges were sceptical but, in the courtroom, he provided a practical demonstration of his skill, added to his admission having forged five other fake "Vermeers" during the 1930s, as well as two "Pieter de Hoochs" all of which had shown up on European art markets since 1937.  He convinced the court and was acquitted but was then, as he expected, charged with forgery for which he received a one year sentence, half the maximum available to the court.  He died in prison of heart failure, brought on by years of drug and alcohol abuse.

His skills with brush and paint aside, Van Meegeren was able successfully to pass off his 1930s fakes as those of a seventeenth century painter of the Dutch Golden Age (not all critics agree Vermeer should be classified an "artist of the baroque" despite the timing) because of the four years he spent meticulously testing the techniques by which a "new" painting could be made to appear, even to experts, centuries old.  The breakthrough was getting the oil-based paints thoroughly to harden, a process which occurs naturally over fifty-odd years, his novel solution being to mix the pigments not with oil but the synthetic resin Bakelite.  For his canvases, he used genuine but worthless seventeenth-century paintings, removing as much of the picture as possible, scrubbing carefully with pumice and water, taking the utmost care not to lose the network of cracks, the existence of which would play a role in convincing many expert appraisers they were authentic Vermeers.  Once dry, he baked the canvas and rubbed a carefully concocted mix of ink and dust into the edges of the cracks, emulating the dirt which would, over centuries, accumulate.

Authentically guilty as sin: Hermann Göring in the dock, Nuremberg, 1946.

Modern x-ray techniques and chemical analysis mean such tricks can no longer succeed but, at the time, so convincing were his fakes no doubts were expressed and the dubious Christ with the Woman Taken in Adultery became Göring's most prized acquisition, quite something given the literally thousands of pieces of art he looted from Europe.  One of the Allied officers who interrogated Göring in Nuremberg prison prior to his trial (1945-1946) recorded that the expression on his face when told "his Vermeer" was a fake suggested that "...for the first time Göring realized there really was evil in this world".

So the identity of the painter matters, indeed, between 1968-2014, there was a standing institution called the Rembrandt Research Project (RRP), an initiative of the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (the NOW; the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research), the charter of which included authenticating all works attributed to the artist (Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn (1606-1669).  That was a conventional approach to authentication but there are others.  In the West there’s a long standing distinction between “high art” and “popular art” but not all cultures have that distinction and when the output of artists from those cultures is commoditised, what matters is ethnicity.  In Australia, the distinctive paintings categorized as “indigenous art” have become popular and are a defined market segment and what determines their authenticity is that they are legitimately and exclusively the work of indigenous artists.  The styles, of which dot painting is the best known, are technically not challenging to execute and thus easy to replicate by anyone and this has caused where non-indigenous hands have been found (or alleged) to be involved in the process.

The Times (London), 8 March 1997.

In 1997, Elizabeth Durack (1915–2000), a Western Australian disclosed that the much acclaimed works of the supposed indigenous artist “Eddie Burrup” had actually been painted by her in her studio, Eddie Burrup her pseudonym.  To make matters worse, prior to her revelation, some of the works had been included in exhibitions of Indigenous Australian art.  Although noted since the 1980s, the phrase “cultural appropriation” wasn’t then widely used outside of academia of activist communities but what Ms Durack did was a classic example of a representative of a dominant culture appropriating aspects of marginalized or minority cultures for some purpose.  Sometimes (perhaps intentionally) misunderstood, the critical part of cultural appropriation is the relationship between the hegemonic and the marginal; a white artist creating work in the style of an indigenous, colonized people and representing it in a manner which suggests it’s the product of an indigenous artist is CA.  Condoleezza Rice (b 1954; US secretary of state 2005-2009) playing Chopin on a Steinway is not; that’s cultural assimilation.  Once the truth was known, the works were removed from many galleries where they had hung and presumably the critical acclaim they had once received was withdrawn.  Both responses were of course correct.  Had Ms Durack represented the works as her own and signed them thus that would have been cultural appropriation and people could have responded as they wished but to represent them as the works of someone with a name all would interpret as that of an indigenous artist was said by some to be both cultural appropriation and deceptive & misleading conduct with all that that implies.

One of the photographs run by the Murdoch-owned daily newspaper The Australian in a report on the involvement of white people in the production of "indigenous paintings", April 2023.

More recently, there have been accusations white staff employed in a commercial gallery where indigenous Australian artists are employed to create paintings have been influenced, assisted or interfered with (depending on one’s view) in the production process.  According to the stories run in the Murdoch press, a white staff member was filmed suggesting some modification to an artist although whether this was thought to be on artistic grounds or an attempt to make something more resemble "what sells best" isn’t clear.  However, in a sense the motive doesn’t matter because the mere intervention detracts from the authenticity of the product, based as it is not on the inherent artistic merit but on the artist being indigenous.  In that the case was conceptually little different from Göring’s “Vermeer” which for years countless experts in fine art had acclaimed as a masterpiece while it hung in Carinhall, an opinion not repeated as soon as its dubious provenance was revealed.  Nor is it wholly dissimilar to the case of the replica 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO which is essentially a carbon copy of one of the 40-odd originals made (indeed it was in some ways technical superior) yet it is worth US$1.2 million while the record price for a genuine one was US$70 million.  So for a product to be thought authentic can depend on (1) that it was created by a certain individual, (2) that it was created by a member of a certain defined ethnicity or (3) that it was created by a certain institution.

Salvator Mundi (Savior of the World, circa 1505), oil on walnut by Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519).

In art, authenticity is precious in more than one sense.  Salvator Mundi, the critics admit, is not an exceptional painting but once authenticated as the work of Leonardo, it created its own exceptionalism, in 2017 becoming the most expensive painting ever sold at public auction, attracting US$450 million when offered by Christie's auction house in New York.  The criteria for assessing the works of indigenous artists is also beneficial for them because unlike mainstream art, they’re not assessed as good or bad but merely as authentically indigenous or not.  That’s why there are no bad reviews of indigenous art or performance because (1) the concept is irrelevant, (2) such an idea is claimed to be alien to indigenous peoples and (3) if expressed by white critics would represent the imposition of a Western cultural construct on a marginalized group.  Dot paintings and such are marketed through the structures of the art market because physically they’re similar objects (size, weight etc) to other paintings but they’re really modern, mass-produced artefacts which depend on provenance as much as a Chevrolet SS 427, Ferrari 250 GTO, Leonardo or Vermeer.