Agitprop

Agitprop (pronounced aj-it-prop)

(1) A form of propaganda, emanating originally from the USSR but later more generally applied.

(2) A (usually disparaging) term for an agency or department of government or corporation which directs or coordinates publicity, advertising or other activities which may be classed as propaganda.

(3) A person (technically an agitpropist) who is trained or takes part in such activities.

(4) Of or relating to agitprop; an instance of such propaganda.

1920s: From the Russian агитпро́п (agitprop), from отде́л агитации и пропаганды (otdél agitacii i propagandy) (Department for Agitation and Propaganda), the construct in English being agit(ation) + prop(agenda), the Russian agitatsiya a borrowing from the French agitation while propaganda was gained from the German which picked it up from the Roman Catholic Church, the ecclesiastical Latin from the New Latin propāganda which was thought to be the ablative feminine gerundive of the Classical Latin prōpāgō (propagate).  The Congregātiō dē Prōpāgandā Fidē (the official title sacra congregatio christiano nomini propagando (the sacred congregation for propagating the faith)), was a committee of cardinals created in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV (1554–1623; pope 1621-1623) to supervise foreign missions.  The original Agitation Propaganda Section of the USSR’s Central Committee of the Communist Party in the USSR appeared in contemporary documents variously as Agitpróp, Agitatsiónno-propagandístskiĭ otdél, Agitpropbrigáda and Agitpropbyuro, reflecting the frequent bureaucratic and administrative changes in the early days of the Soviet state.  Agitprop is a noun and a verb and agitpropist is a noun; the noun plural is agitprops.  Variations (agitpropesque, agitproplike etc) have been used as non-standard adjectives and although no one seems to have concocted an adverb, dictionaries note the present participle agitpropping (used as a noun & adjective) and the past participle agitpropped.  The alternative spelling is agit-prop.

Agitprop began in the Soviet Union but was co-developed to its definitive forms under fascism, a political system much concerned with spectacle.

Agitprop is political propaganda disseminated through art, drama, literature etc and is historically associated with communist regimes, its origins in the material disseminated by the Department for Agitation and Propaganda of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.  Like the less overtly atheistic Nazis, the Bolsheviks learned much from the techniques the Roman Catholic Church had developed over the centuries and even Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) who habitually referred to priests as “those black crows” never tried to hide his grudging admiration for an institution which had endured and prospered for two thousand-odd years.

The Church’s sacra congregatio christiano nomini propagando (the sacred congregation for propagating the faith), established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV (1554–1623; pope 1621-1623) was a propaganda operation created to manage communications with the new countries then recently discovered and also to supervise the new system of government by congregations adopted during the Counter-Reformation.   For the Church, of interest was both the re-conquest of severed lands and the evangelization of the vast populations in regions then becoming known through the expeditions of European explorers, not all of whom were Catholic.  The theological cold war of the age was the contest between the doctrines of Rome and those of the dreaded Protestantism.

In the 1920s, the Red Army used both trains and trucks as mobile agitprop units, the trains often equipped with printing presses which enabled the graphic artists to create regionalized variations of the material.

Although the results achieved by the sacred congregation ebbed and flowed with because it was so dependent on the energy and priorities of the members of the committee, it succeeded as a propaganda project and many of the territories in Africa, Asia and South America (as well as some re-claiming of souls in Europe) which remain today predominately Roman Catholic are due to the efforts which began in the seventeenth century.  The objectives of the early Bolsheviks was strikingly similar in that their task of evangelization was one of spreading to all the gospel of communism so that the Marxist prediction of a world-wide revolution might be realized.  To the techniques borrowed from the Church the Russians added the novelties now so associated with agitprop, the colors and practices of graphic art which were mapped on to the stark simple imagery known in religious iconography and stained glass windows.  The method remained the same: a simple message, endlessly repeated and presented in a form which changed just enough to keep the viewers interested, the need for text kept to a minimum so it was suitable for the illiterate likely to be among the most receptive audiences.  Innovative too was the idea of agitprop as a moving thing, trains and trucks loaded with material to be distributed far and wide.

So distinctive is the classic agitprop poster that it remains in use as a political message implying dictatorship.  Inevitably, it’s popular also with meme-makers.

Agitprop was thus overt political propaganda, understood as such by some and to others just another form of religion, temptingly offering something tangible in this life rather than paradise in the next.  Designed to produce political consequences, it spawned a number of forks, the best known of which were those distributed through popular media such as theatre, cinema and pamphlets and although agitprop literature did exist, agitprop was so inherently visual that even in those few –laces where radio existed, impact was limited.  Soon after the October Revolution of 1917, an agitprop train toured the country, broadcasting propaganda and staging plays.  On board was a printing press which reproduced posters to be thrown from the windows as it passed through even the tiniest villages.  The Soviet’s train inspired agitprop theatre, a politicized left-wing theatre formed in 1920s Europe which soon spread to the rest of the western world.  An international and briefly influential theatre movement, it’s most associated with the work of Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956), Joan Littlewood (1914-2002) and a myriad of groups such as Red Ladder and 7:84 which emerged during the mid-twentieth century.  Despite this, agitprop is essentially a footnote in theatre history, probably because its historical moment passed, its techniques and styles becoming absorbed into mainstream, bourgeois theatre.  In its early form a didactic form of mass-propaganda, the word agitprop had, by the 1950s, come to mean a kind of highly politicized art although, having become just another mass-produced commodity, classical, two-dimensional agitprop imagery exists now in something of an ironic space.

Lindsay Lohan agitprop.

Bolshevik & Menshevik

Bolshevik (pronounced bohl-shuh-vik, bol-shuh-vik or buhl-shi-vyeek (Russian))

(1) A member of the more radical majority of the Social Democratic Party, 1903–1917, advocating, inter alia, the immediate and forceful seizure of power by the proletariat (in Russia and in some factions, beyond); after 1918, a member of the Russian Communist Party.

(2) In the West, historically (mostly early-mid twentieth century), a disparaging or contemptuous term used to refer to an extreme radical or revolutionary (often lowercase).  Applied loosely, it was used (even neutrally) to refer to any member of a Communist party.

(3) In the West a term, sometimes humorous, used as an adjective (often as bolshie) applied to anyone deliberately combative or uncooperative and strident or assertive in their actions or expression of view; used especially where there was a perception of behavior of attitude in conflict with socially constructed expectations (women, nuns etc).

Circa 1915: From the Russian большеви́к (bolʹševík), from большинство́ (bolʹšinstvó) (majority) (those in the majority (Majoritarians)), the construct being bólʾsh(iĭ) (larger, greater (comparative of bolʾshóĭ (large) and thus the sourced of bolʾshinstvó (majority)) + -evik (one that is (a variant of –ovik, the noun suffix)).  The adjective bol'shiy (greater), comparative of the adjective bol'shoy (big, great) is probably most familiar from the famous Bolshoi Ballet and was from the Old Church Slavonic boljiji (larger), from the primitive Indo-European root bel- (strong), source also of the Sanskrit balam (strength, force), the Greek beltion (better), the Phrygian balaios (big, fast), the Old Irish odbal (strong), the Welsh balch (proud) and the Middle Dutch, Low German & Frisian pal (strong, firm).  The popular contraction in the West (and one now remote from its party-political origins) should always be spelled bolshie.  Bolshevik & Bolshevist are nouns & adjectives, Bolshevism is a noun and Bolshevistic an adjective; the noun plural is Bolsheviks (Bolsheviki in the Russian which is pronounced buhl-shi-vyi-kyee).

Norman Mailer (1923–2007) and bolshie woman Germaine Greer (b 1939) at the Town Bloody Hall debate between the author and a panel of feminists, 30 April 1971, The Town Hall, New York City.  Both were well chosen, Greer was the author of The Female Eunuch (1970) which remains one of feminism's seminal texts and Mailer regarded (fairly or not) as a misogynist and one who received a suspended sentence for (twice) stabbing the second (the artist Adele Morales (1925–2015)) of his six wives.

In the twentieth century, “bolshevik” was often used as a term of disparagement, often from establishment figures disturbed by challenges to the status quo, subversive types like TS Elliot (1888-1965) and James Joyce (1882-1941) both called literary bolsheviks and some painters wore “artistic bolshevik” as a badge of honor; later, there would be feminists who proudly described themselves as “bolshie women”.  Winston Churchill (1875-1968; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) abhorred communism and not infrequently referred to the new order in Moscow as the “Bolshevik baboons” and was supportive of a multi-national military intervention in the Russian Civil War (1918-1920) but was also, strategically, a realist.  His biographer recounted how he note there were:

“…nearly half a million anti-Bolshevik Russians under arms, and the Russians themselves planned to double this figure.  If we were unable to support the Russians effectively, it would be far better to take a decision now to quit and face the consequences, and tell these people to make the best terms they could with the Bolsheviks.”

So it transpired and the small foreign forces were withdrawn but he always made clear that as Minister for War, he did this out of military necessity and not any lack of conviction that the communists should have been overthrown, telling a press conference in Washington DC in 1954 that had he “…been properly supported in 1919, I think we might have strangled Bolshevism in its cradle, but everybody turned up their hands and said, ‘How shocking!’”

House of Commons.”

Portrait of Clare Sheridan (then Ms Frewen) (1907), oil on canvas by Emil Fuchs (1866-1929) (left) and a sepia print of the younger Leon Trotsky (circa 1908) (right).  She would live to 84 but he would be murdered on the orders of comrade Stalin.  

Churchill didn’t approve of communism, his attitude hardened by the new regime in Moscow having murdered the last Tsar and his family.  Very much a monarchist (his wife once described him as “the last man in Europe who believes in the divine right of kings”), Churchill thus took a dim view of the Bolsheviks and while serving as Secretary of State for War and Air (1919–1921) was involved in the allied intervention supporting anti-Communist White forces in the Russian Civil War (1917-1922), his mood not improved when he learned his favorite cousin, the sculptor Clare Sheridan (1885–1970), had enjoyed a brief affair with comrade Leon Trotsky (1879-1940; founder of the Fourth International).  Whether he ever called Trotsky “the hairiest Bolshevik baboon of all” remains uncertain but it’s at least plausible and he would later tell his cousin “we shall never speak of this unpleasantness again”.  Her memories of the tryst remained fonder, recalling the time her lover had whispered: “a woman like you should be the whole world to a man.”  At least one “Bolshevik baboon” could be poetic.

By 1941, however bad he thought were the communists in Moscow, the Nazis in Berlin were worse so an alliance with the Soviet Union, unholy though it would have felt, Churchill welcomed with barely a qualm.  In 1941, after Germany invaded the Soviet Union (a unilateral repudiation of an earlier unholy alliance (the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939) which was one of history’s more cynical arrangements between adversaries, both parties knowing it was being pursued for mutual advantage as a prelude to an eventual conflict between them), the UK suddenly had gained a wartime ally albeit one with which relations had been hardly friendly and often strained since the revolutions of 1917.  In a radio broadcast that evening Churchill announced: “No one has been a more consistent opponent of communism for the last twenty-five years. I will unsay no word I have spoken about it. But all this fades away before the spectacle which is now unfolding. The past, with its crimes, its follies, its tragedies, flashes away.… The Russian danger is therefore our danger, and the danger of the United States, just as the cause of any Russian fighting for hearth and house is the cause of free men and free peoples in every quarter of the globe.”  When one of his colleagues noted the queerness of him being the one to announce such an alliance, he remarked: “If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.

He was also more perceptive in his assessment of Russian resistance to the invasion than most military & political figures in London, Washington DC or Berlin, the consensus in those circles being the Red Army would be defeated within a few months.  Given the bloody purges comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) had committed against his military leadership and the poor performance of the Russian army against the Finns in 1940, the grim expectations weren’t unreasonable but Churchill offered good odds to anyone willing to take his bet: “I will bet you a Monkey to a Mousetrap that the Russians are still fighting, and fighting victoriously, two years from now.”  That was slang from the turf, a “Monkey” being a £500 wager and a “Mousetrap” a gold sovereign with a nominal value of £1 (ie odds of 500-1).  Unholy the alliance may have been and there were tensions throughout between Moscow, Washington & London but the need to defeat Nazism meant it survived long enough to fulfil its purpose before the Cold War became the world’s new primary political dynamic. 

Menshevik (pronounced men·she·vik, men-shuh-vik or myin-shi-vyeek (Russian))

A member of the faction of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party opposed to the Bolsheviks; inter alia, they advocated a gradualist approach to the attainment of socialism through parliamentary government and cooperation with bourgeois parties.  By 1918, the remaining members had been absorbed into the Communist Party of Russia, formed that year.

1907: From the Russian меньшеви́к (menʹševík) from меньшинство́ (menʹšinstvó) (minority) from ме́ньше (ménʹše), the comparative of ма́лый (mályj) (little), the sense being “those in a minority” (the Minoritarians), the construct being ménʾsh(iĭ) (lesser, smaller (comparative of málenʾkiĭ (small) and thus the source of menʾshinstvó minority)) + -evik (one that is (a variant of –ovik, the noun suffix)).  The source the Russian men'she (lesser), was a comparative of malo (little), from the primitive Indo-European root mei- (small).  Menshevik & Menshevist are nouns & adjectives, Menshevism is a noun and Menhevistic an adjective; the noun plural is Mensheviks (Mensheviki in the Russian which is pronounced myin-shi-vyi-kyee).

The noun minimalist dates from 1907 in the sense of “one who advocates moderate reforms or policies" and was originally an adapted borrowing of Menshevik; as understood as "a practitioner of minimal art" it dates from 1967, the term “minimal art” being noted first in 1965.  It was an adjective from 1917 in the Russian political sense and since 1969 in reference to art.  It was comrade Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov 1870–1924 and known by his alias Lenin; revolutionary, political theorist and founding head of government (Soviet Russia 1917-1924 and the Soviet Union 1922-1924) who vested Bolshevik (as Bolsheviki meaning Majoritarians or those in the majority) and Menshevik (as Mensheviki meaning Minoritarians or those in the minority).

Comrade Karl Marx (1818-1883, left) & comrade Lenin (right) agitprop.  The captions translate as: Манифест Коммунистической партии; “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (top left), Программа КПСС; “Program of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union”) (top right) and Марксизм-Ленинизм; “Marxism–Leninism is our banner and our weapon!” (lower).

Lenin was a classic example of a political phenomenon which would so frequently feature in twentieth century revolutionary politics: the middle-class radical.  His intellectual predisposition had already tended that way but it was after the regime in 1886 hanged his elder brother in punishment for his involvement in an attempt to assassinate the reactionary Tsar Alexander III (1845–1894; Emperor of Russia 1881-1894) that his interest shifted from the mostly theoretical.  Apparently a somewhat inept activist in his younger years, he was soon apprehended by the Tsar’s secret police and transported to Siberia where he wrote a treatise on Russian economic development in which he claimed that capitalism was already the country’s dominant mode of production, quite a startling assertion given the state of things.  He found himself on a sounder intellectual footing as a political tactician, his 1902 pamphlet What Is to Be Done? advocated a rigid centralism in party structure, the vetting of members and a tightly enforced discipline.  Later, comrade Stalin would find this sound advice.

Comrade Stalin agitprop.  The caption Капитан страны Советов ведёт нас от победы к победе! “The captain of the Land of Soviets leads us from victory to victory!”  Depicting the wheel of the Soviet ship of state being in the safe hands of comrade Stalin was a metaphor for his leadership and guidance and, implicitly, a hint other comrades gratefully should be obedient.  In what became a multi-media exercise, the same messaging continues to be used in personality cults in many places, a classic example the Kim dynasty in the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea).

Lenin actually borrowed the title from Nikolay Chernyshevsky's (1828-1899) pro-revolutionary novel What Is to Be Done? (1863), a book not without critics but one which exerted a still often underestimated influence on those who would in the years to come build the political movements which culminated in the events of 1917.  It also drew the attention of Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) who in 1886 wrote his own What Is to Be Done? although it’s a work more of moral theology and was published sometimes as (the probably more accurate) What Then Must We Do? and (in English) as What to Do?  Lenin knew what to do.  A brief work of stark clarity, his pamphlet was quite a change from the verbose and discursive stuff of the era and attracted much attention although its uncompromising tone was too much for many, the second party congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party in 1903 ending in acrimony although Lenin did secure one pyrrhic victory, his faction winning a majority in the congress vote, enabling him to label his group the Bolsheviki (Majoritarians), the opposition responding, with some implied irony, that they were therefore the Mensheviki (Minoritarians).  The Bolsheviki accused the Mensheviki of being anti-revolutionaries and the Mensheviki labelled the Bolsheviki (and especially Lenin) dictatorial and intolerant.  Had the word fascist then existed, both sides would have used it.  As things soon transpired, defections meant Lenin didn’t long have the numbers and the Mensheviki became the majority (although both sides kept their names), prompting Lenin to damn them as usurpers and it was in this spirit the congress ended, the two factions setting up their own newspapers and network of spies, little time devoted to revolution because of the internecine conflict.  The outbreak of revolutionary protest in 1905 was thus a surprise to both Mensheviki and Bolsheviki and neither side was sufficiently organized to take advantage of the situation which the Tsar’s forces soon suppressed with a mixture of carrot and stick.

Agitprop redux.

The techniques of agitprop are often seen in the twenty-first century, either as political critique or humor.  Although the motifs of the school of Soviet Realism continue to appear in Western art, in its pure form it's probably agitprop which is the enduring Bolschevik style.  Whether the revolution was to be in than hands of the Mensheviks or Bolsheviks was decided in the war-time chaos of 1917.  Without the war, the Tsarist regime might have endured but when in February it became clear the army were either unable or unwilling to act against the strikes and demonstrations, it became apparent to all the Tsar must abdicate which he did on 15 March (under the Gregorian calendar or 2 March under the Julian calendar then used.  The “administration” which formed in the wake of the revolution (of which the Mensheviks were a part) was from the start beset with problems, some of its own making and few were responsive to the methods adopted, the factionalized and quasi-democratic structures adopted ill suited to deal with the multiple crises of the time.  Strikes and other industrial disruptions may not have made the subsequent Bolshevik insurrection inevitable but the failure to extricate Russia from the war and the not unrelated shortages of food and medical supplies probably did.  What’s remembered as the October revolution (on 7 November (Gregorian calendar) or 25 October (Julian calendar)) was organized by the Bolsheviks, having seized power, it wasn’t for decades relinquished.  Were there any doubt about the methods and morality of the Bolsheviks, the Tsar and his family, under house arrest since March 1917, were on 16 July 1918 murdered although historians continue to debate whether Lenin personally ordered the shootings, documentary evidence impossible to assess because comrade Lenin ordered it all burned.

Ultracrepidarian

Ultracrepidarian (pronounced uhl-truh-krep-i-dair-ee-uhn)

Of or pertaining to a person who criticizes, judges, or gives advice outside their area of expertise

1819: An English adaptation of the historic words sūtor, ne ultra crepidam, uttered by the Greek artist Apelles and reported by the Pliny the Elder.  Translating literally as “let the shoemaker venture no further” and sometimes cited as ne supra crepidam sūtor judicare, the translation something like “a cobbler should stick to shoes”.  From the Latin, ultra is beyond, sūtor is cobbler and crepidam is accusative singular of crepida (from the Ancient Greek κρηπίς (krēpís)) and means sandal or sole of a shoe.  Ultracrepidarian is a noun & verb and ultracrepidarianism is a noun; the noun plural is ultracrepidarians.  For humorous purposes, forms such as ultracrepidarist, ultracrepidarianish, ultracrepidarianize & ultracrepidarianesque have been coined; all are non-standard.

Ultracrepidarianism describes the tendency among some to offer opinions and advice on matters beyond their competence.  The word entered English in 1819 when used by English literary critic and self-described “good hater”, William Hazlitt (1778–1830), in an open letter to William Gifford (1756–1826), editor of the Quarterly Review, a letter described by one critic as “one of the finest works of invective in the language” although another suggested it was "one of his more moderate castigations" a hint that though now neglected, for students of especially waspish invective, he can be entertaining; the odd quote from him would certainly lend a varnish of erudition to trolling.  Ultracrepidarian comes from a classical allusion, Pliny the Elder (circa 24-79) recording the habit of the famous Greek painter Apelles (a fourth century BC contemporary of Alexander the Great (Alexander III of Macedon, 356-323 BC)), to display his work in public view, then conceal himself close by to listen to the comments of those passing.  One day, a cobbler paused and picked fault with Apelles’ rendering of sandals and the artist immediately took his brushes and pallet and touched-up the errant straps.  Encouraged, the amateur critic then let his eye wander above the ankle and suggested how the leg might be improved but this Apelles rejected, telling him to speak only of shoes and otherwise maintain a deferential silence.  Pliny hinted the artist's words of dismissal may not have been polite.

So critics should comment only on that about which they know.  The phrase in English is usually “cobbler, stick to your last” (a last a shoemaker’s pattern, ultimately from a Germanic root meaning “to follow a track'' hence footstep) and exists in many European languages: zapatero a tus zapatos is the Spanish, schoenmaker, blijf bij je leest the Dutch, skomager, bliv ved din læst the Danish and schuster, bleib bei deinen leisten, the German.  Pliny’s actual words were ne supra crepidam judicaret, (crepidam a sandal or the sole of a shoe), but the idea is conveyed is in several ways in Latin tags, such as Ne sutor ultra crepidam (sutor means “cobbler”, a word which survives in Scotland in the spelling souter).  The best-known version is the abbreviated tag ultra crepidam (beyond the sole), and it’s that which Hazlitt used to construct ultracrepidarian.  Crepidam is from the Ancient Greek κρηπίς (krēpís) and has no link with words like decrepit or crepitation (which are from the Classical Latin crepare (to creak, rattle, or make a noise)) or crepuscular (from the Latin word for twilight); crepidarian is an adjective rare perhaps to the point of extinction meaning “pertaining to a shoemaker”.

The related terms are "Nobel disease" & "Nobel syndrome" which are used to describe some of the opinions offered by Nobel laureates on subjects beyond their specialization.  In some cases this is "demand" rather than "supply" driven because, once a prize winner is added to a media outlet's "list of those who comment on X", if they turn out to give answers which generate audience numbers, controversy or clicks, they become "talent" and may be asked questions about matters of which they know little.  This happens because some laureates in the three "hard" prizes (physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine) operate in esoteric corners of their discipline; asking a particle physicist something about plasma physics on the basis of their having won the physics prize may not elicit useful information.  Of course those who have won the economics gong or one of what are now the DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) prizes (peace & literature) may be assumed to have helpful opinions on everything.

Jackson Pollock (1912-1956): Blue Poles

Number 11 (Blue poles, 1952), oil, enamel and aluminum paint with glass on canvas.

In 1973, when a million dollars was a still lot of money, the NGA (National Gallery of Australia), a little controversially, paid Aus$1.3 million for Jackson Pollock’s (1912-1956) Number 11, 1952, popularly known as Blue Poles since it was first exhibited in 1954, the new name reputedly chosen by the artist.  It was some years ago said to be valued at up to US$100 million but, given the increase in the money supply (among the rich who trade this stuff) over the last two decades odd, that estimate may now be conservative although the suggestion in 2016 the value may have inflated to as much as US$350 million was though to be "on the high side".  Blue Poles emerged during Pollock’s "drip period" (1947-1950), a method which involved techniques such throwing paint at a canvas spread across the floor.  The art industry liked these (often preferring the more evocative term "action painting") and they remain his most popular works, although at this point, he abandoned the dripping and moved to his “black porings phase” a darker, simpler style which didn’t attract the same commercial interest.  He later returned to more colorful ways but his madness and alcoholism worsened; he died in a drink-driving accident.

Alchemy (1947), oil, aluminum, alkyd enamel paint with sand, pebbles, fibres, and broken wooden sticks on canvas.

Although the general public remained uninterested (except in the price tags) or sceptical, there were critics, always drawn to a “troubled genius”, who praised Pollock’s work and the industry approves of any artist who (1) had the decency to die young and (2) produced lots of stuff which can sell for millions.  US historian of art, curator & author Helen A Harrison (b 1943; director (1990-2024) of the Pollock-Krasner House and Study Center, the former home and studio of the Abstract Expressionist artists Jackson Pollock and Lee Krasner in East Hampton, New York) is an admirer, noting the “pioneering drip technique…” which “…introduced the notion of action painting", where the canvas became the space with which the artist actively would engage”.  As a thumbnail sketch she offered:

Number 14: Gray (1948), enamel over gesso on paper.

“Reminiscent of the Surrealist notions of the subconscious and automatic painting, Pollock's abstract works cemented his reputation as the most critically championed proponent of Abstract Expressionism. His visceral engagement with emotions, thoughts and other intangibles gives his abstract imagery extraordinary immediacy, while his skillful use of fluid pigment, applied with dance-like movements and sweeping gestures that seldom actually touched the surface, broke decisively with tradition. At first sight, Pollock's vigorous method appears to create chaotic labyrinths, but upon close inspection his strong rhythmic structures become evident, revealing a fascinating complexity and deeper significance.  Far from being calculated to shock, Pollock's liquid medium was crucial to his pictorial aims.  It proved the ideal vehicle for the mercurial content that he sought to communicate 'energy and motion made visible - memories arrested in space'.”

Number 13A: Arabesque (1948), oil and enamel on canvas.

Critics either less visionary or more fastidious seemed often as appalled by Pollock’s violence of technique as they were by the finished work (or “products” as some labelled the drip paintings), questioning whether any artistic skill or vision even existed, one finding them “…mere unorganized explosions of random energy, and therefore meaningless.”  The detractors used the language of academic criticism but meant the same thing as the frequent phrase of an unimpressed public: “That’s not art, anyone could do that.”

Number 1, 1949 (1949), enamel and metallic paint on canvas. 

There have been famous responses to  “That’s not art, anyone could do that” but Ms Harrison's was practical, offering people the opportunity to try.  To the view that “…people thought it was arbitrary, that anyone can fling paint around”, Ms Harrison conceded it was true anybody could “fling paint around” but that was her point, anybody could, but having flung, they wouldn’t “…necessarily come up with anything” by which she meant the wouldn't necessarily come up with anything of which the critical establishment (a kind of freemasonry of the art business) would approve (ie could put a price tag on).

Helen A Harrison, The Jackson Pollock Box (Cider Mill Press, 96pp, ISBN-10:1604331860, ISBN-13:978-1604331868).

In 2010, Ms Harrison released The Jackson Pollock Box, a kit which, in addition to an introductory text, included paint brushes, drip bottles and canvases so people could do their own flinging and compare the result against a Pollock.  After that, they may agree with collector Peggy Guggenheim (1898-1979) that Pollock was “...the greatest painter since Picasso” or remain unrepentant ultracrepidarians.  Of course, many who thought their own eye for art quite well-trained didn't agree with Ms Guggenheim.  In 1945, just after the war, Duff Cooper (1890–1954), then serving as Britain's ambassador to France, came across Pablo Picasso (1881–1973) leaving an exhibition of paintings by English children aged 5-10 and in his diary noted the great cubist saying he "had been much impressed".  "No wonder" added the ambassador, "the pictures are just as good as his".

Dresses & drips: Three photographs by Cecil Beaton (1904-1980), shot for a three-page feature in Vogue (March 1951) titled American Fashion: The New Soft Look which juxtaposed Pollock’s paintings hung in New York’s Betty Parsons Gallery with the season’s haute couture by Irene (1872-1951) & Henri Bendel (1868-1936).

Beaton choose the combinations of fashion and painting; pairing Lavender Mist (1950, left) with a short black ball gown of silk paper taffeta with large pink bow at one shoulder and an asymmetrical hooped skirt best illustrates the value of his trained eye.  Critics and social commentators have always liked these three pages, relishing the opportunity to comment on the interplay of so many of the clashing forces of modernity: the avant-garde and fashion, production and consumption, abstraction and representation, painting and photography, autonomy and decoration, masculinity and femininity, art and commerce.  Historians of art note it too because it was the abstract expressionism of the 1940s which was both uniquely an American movement and the one which in the post-war years saw the New York supplant Paris as the centre of Western art.  There have been interesting discussions about when last it could be said Western art had a "centre".

Blue Poles, upside down.

Although the suggestion might offend the trained and discerning eyes of art critics, it’s doubtful that for ultracrepidarians the experience of viewing Blue Poles would much be different were it to be hung upside down.  Fortunately, the world does have a goodly stock of art critics who can explain that while Pollock did more than once say his works should be interpreted “subjectively”, their intended orientation is a part of the whole and an inversion would change the visual dynamics and gravitational illusions upon which the abstraction effects depend would be changed.  It would still be a painting but, in a sense, not the one the artist painted.  Because the drip technique involved “flinging and poring paint” onto a canvas spread across a studio’s floor, there was not exactly a randomness in where the paint landed but physics did mean gravity exerted some pull (in flight and on the ground), lending layers and rivulets what must be a specific downward orientation.  Thus, were the work to be hung inverted, what was in the creative process a downward flow would be seen as “flowing uphill” as it were.  The compositional elements which lent the work its name were course the quasi-vertical “poles” placed at slight angles and its these which are the superstructure which “anchor” the rest of the drips and, being intrinsically “directional”, they too have a “right way up”.  There is in the assessment of art the “eye of the beholder” but although it may be something they leave unstated, most critics will be of the “some eyes are more equal than others” school.

Mondrian’s 1941 New York City 1 as it (presumably correctly) sat in the artist's studio in 1944 (left) and as it was since 1945 exhibited (upside-down) in New York and Düsseldorf (right).  Spot the difference.

So although ultracrepidarians may not “get it” (even after digesting the critics’ explanations) and wouldn’t be able to tell whether or not it was hung correctly, that’s because they’re philistines.  In the world of abstract art however, even the critics can be fooled: in 2022, it was revealed a work in Piet Mondrian’s (1872-1944) 1941 New York City 1 series had for 77 years been hanging upside down.  First in exhibited in 1945 in New York’s MOMA (Museum of Modern Art), the piece was created with multi-colored adhesive paper tape and, in an incorrect orientation, it has since 1980 hung in the Düsseldorf Museum as part of the Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen’s collection.  The decades-long, trans-Atlantic mistake came to light during a press conference held to announce the Kunstsammlung’s new Mondrian exhibition and the conclusion was the error may have been caused by something as simple as the packing-crate being overturned or misleading instructions being given to the staff.  1941 New York City 1 will remain upside because of the condition of the adhesive strips.  “The adhesive tapes are already extremely loose and hanging by a thread” a curator was quoted as saying, adding that if it were now to be turned-over, “…gravity would pull it into another direction.  And it’s now part of the work’s story.”  Mondrian was one of the more significant theorists of abstract art and its withdrawal from nature and natural subjects.  “Denaturalization” he proclaimed to be a milestone in human progress, adding: “The power of neo-plastic painting lies in having shown the necessity of this denaturalization in painterly terms... to denaturalize is to abstract... to abstract is to deepen.”  Thanks to the curator, now even ultracrepidarians can understand.

Portrait of Dora Maar (1937), oil on canvas by Pablo Picasso, Musée Picasso, Paris, France.  The image to the right, still recognizably a human figure, obviously is “upside down”.  

One of the early surrealists, Dora Maar (Henriette Theodora Markovitch, 1907–1997) was associated with the artists in the inter-war years opposed to fascism; her relationship with Picasso would last a decade and produce a number of portraits but her attitude to them was ambivalent.  Still, as Picasso's best remembered muse, she gained a kind of immortality.

Although there’s a tendency to divide art into the “abstract” and “realistic”, both categories encompass wide variations and probably the only truly useful binary is between “photo-realism” (ie close to indistinguishable from a HD (high definition) photograph and everything else.  The cubists, futurists and impressionists definitely were abstract artists but their works often could be recognized as distortions of reality (the straddling orphists a bit of a “gray area”) while the nature of the subject was unambiguous.  By contrast, Action Painting (the “drippers” and beyond), Color Field Painting, Geometric Abstraction, Expressionism, Neo-plasticism, Informalism, Op Art and such often wholly was disconnected from anything immediately recognizable as being physical reality and a useful test is compare depictions on the works side-by-side, one hung as the artist intended, the other “upside down”.  Ultracrepidarians and others can then be asked to judge which is which and it’d be interesting to see if professionals are any more accurate than amateurs.  Unfortunately, AI (artificial intelligence) can’t be used as a sort of “control” if well-known works are part of the test because in digitized form their “correct” aspect would be “known” to the bots.

Eye of the beholder: Portrait of Lindsay Lohan in the style of Claude Monet (1840–1926) at craiyon.com and available at US$26 on an organic cotton T-shirt made in a factory powered by renewable energy.

Whether the arguments about what deserves to be called “art” began among prehistoric “artists” and their critics in caves long ago isn’t known but it’s certainly a dispute with a long history.  In the sense it’s a subjective judgment the matter was doubtless often resolved by a potential buyer declining to purchase but during the twentieth century it became a contested topic and there were celebrated exhibits and squabbles which for decades played out before, in the post modern age, the final answer appeared to be something was art if variously (1) the creator said it was or (2) an art critic said it was or (3) it was in an art gallery or (4) the price tag was sufficiently impressive.

So what constitutes “art” is a construct of time, place & context which evolves, shaped by historical, cultural, social, economic, political & personal influences, factors which in recent years have had to be cognizant of the rise of cultural equivalency, the recognition that Western concepts such as the distinction between “high” (or “fine”) art and “folk” (or “popular”) art can’t be applied to work from other traditions where cultural objects are not classified by a graduated hierarchy.  In other words, everybody’s definition is equally valid.  That doesn’t mean there are no longer gatekeepers because the curators in institutions such as museums, galleries & academies all discriminate and thus play a significant role in deciding what gets exhibited, studied & promoted, even though few would now dare to suggest what is art and what is not: that would be cultural imperialism.

Eye of the prompt 1.0: An AI generated portrait of Lindsay Lohan by ChatGPT imagined in "drip painting style", this one using an interpretation which overlaid "curated drips" over "flung paint".  This could be rendered using Ms Harrison's Jackson Pollock Box but would demand some talent.

In the twentieth century, it seemed to depend on artistic intent, something which transcended a traditional measure such as aesthetic value but as the graphic art in advertising and that with a political purpose such as agitprop became bigger, brighter and more intrusive, such forms also came to be regarded as art or at least worth of being studied or exhibited on the same basis, in the same spaces as oil on canvas portraits & landscapes.  Once though, an unfamiliar object in such places could shock as French painter & sculptor Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) managed in 1917 when he submitted a porcelain urinal as his piece for an exhibition in New York, his rationale being “…everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice.”  Even then it wasn’t a wholly original approach but the art establishment has never quite recovered and from that urinal to Dadaism, to soup cans to unmade beds, it became accepted that “anything goes” and people should be left to make of it what they will.  Probably the last remaining reliable guide to what really is "art" remains the price tag.

Eye of the prompt 1.1: An AI generated portrait of Lindsay Lohan by ChatGPT imagined in "drip painting style", this one closer to Pollock’s “action painting” technique.

His drip period wholly non-representational, Pollock didn’t produce recognizable portraiture so applying the technique for this purpose demands guesswork.  As AI illustrates, it can be done but, in blending two incompatible modes, whether it looks much like what Pollock would have produced had he accepted a “paint Lindsay Lohan” commission, is wholly speculative.  What is more likely is that even if some sort of hybrid, a portrait by Pollock would have been an abstraction altogether more chaotic and owing little to the structure on which such works usually depend in that there probably would have been no central focal point, fewer hints of symmetry and a use of shading producing a face not lineal in its composition.  That’s what his sense of “continuous motion” dictated: no single form becoming privileged over the rest.  So, this too is not for the literalists schooled in the tradition of photo-realism but as a work it’s also an example of how most armed with Ms Harrison's Jackson Pollock Box could with "drip & fling" produce this but not necessarily would produce this, chaos on canvas needing talent too.

1948 Cisitalia 202 GT (left; 1947-1952) and 1962 Jaguar E-Type (1961-1974; right), Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), New York City.

Urinals tend not to be admired for their aesthetic qualities but there are those who find beauty in stuff as diverse as math equations and battleships.  Certain cars have long been objects which can exert an emotional pull on those with a feeling for such things and if the lines are sufficiently pleasing, many flaws in execution or engineering can be forgiven, sometimes to the point they become part of the charm.  New York’s MoMA in 1972 acknowledged such creations can be treated as works of art when they added a 1948 Cisitalia 202 GT finished in “Cisitalia Red” (MoMA object number 409.1972) to their collection, the press release noting it was “…the first time that an art museum in the U.S. put a car into its collection.”  Others appeared from time-to-time and while the 1953 Willys-Overland Jeep M-38A1 Utility Truck (MoMA object number 261.2002) perhaps is not conventionally beautiful, its brutish functionalism has a certain simplicity of form and in the exhibition notes MoMA clarified somewhat by describing it as a “rolling sculpture”, presumably in the spirit of a urinal being a “static sculpture”, both to be admired as pieces of design perfectly suited to their intended purpose, something of an art in itself.  Of the 1962 Jaguar E-Type (informally sometimes as XKE or XK-E in the US) open two seater (OTS, better known as a roadster and acquired as MoMA object number 113.996), there was no need to explain because it’s one of the most seductive shapes ever rendered in metal.  Enzo Ferrari (1898-1988) attended the 1961 Geneva International Motor Show (now defunct but, on much the same basis as manufacturers east of Suez buying brand-names such as MG, Jaguar and such, the name has been purchased for use by an event in staged in Qatar) when the E-Type made its stunning debut and part of folklore is he called it “the most beautiful car in the world”.  Whether those words ever passed his lips isn’t certain because the sources vary slightly in detail and il Commendatore apparently never confirmed or denied the sentiment but it’s easy to believe and to this day many agree just looking at the thing can be a visceral experience.  The MoMA car is finished in "Opalescent Dark Blue" with a grey interior and blue soft-top (there are those who would prefer it in BRG (British Racing Green) over tan leather) and although as a piece of design it's not flawless (indeed, at some angles (notably three-quarter, rear), the two variants of the coupé can look gawky), anyone who can't see the beauty in a Series 1 E-Type OTS truly is ultracrepidarian.