Fake & Faux

Fake (pronounced feyk)

(1) To prepare or make something specious, deceptive, or fraudulent.

(2) To conceal the defects of or make appear more attractive, interesting, valuable etc, usually in an attempt to deceive.

(3) To pretend; simulate; emulate.

(4) To accomplish by trial and error or by improvising:

(5) To trick or deceive.

(6) In jazz music, to improvise (non pejorative).

(7) To play music without reading from a score (usually non pejorative).

(8) Anything made to appear otherwise than it actually is; counterfeit.

(9) A person who fakes; faker.

(10) To lay (a rope) in a coil or series of long loops so as to allow to run freely without fouling or kinking (often followed by down).

(11) Any complete turn of a rope that has been faked down; any of the various ways in which a rope may be faked down.

(12) In German, a male given name.

1350–1400: From the Middle English faken (to coil a rope) of unknown origin.  The nautical adoption fake (one of the windings of a cable or hawser in a coil) was from the Swedish veck (a fold) and probably entered English from exchanges between English and Scandinavian sailors.  The more familiar modern meaning is documented from 1775 as an adjective meaning “to counterfeit”.  It’s attested from 1812 as vagrants' slang meaning “to do for, rob or kill someone” but was also, in an echo of the earlier form, used to mean “shape something”.  It’s thought to have been either (1) a variant of the obsolete feak & feague (to beat), akin to Dutch veeg (a slap) & vegen (to sweep, wipe) or (2), a part of the lingua franca via Polari from the Italian facciare (to make or do).  Fake is a noun, verb & adjective, faked is a verb, fakement is a noun, faking is a noun & verb and faker is a noun & adjective; the noun plural is fakes.

The rarely convivial Hjalmar Schacht, standing right behind Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945).  Dr Schacht was a confessed Freemason.

It’s documented from 1851 as a noun (a swindle) and from 1888 was applied to a person (a swindler), but most etymologists assume it had for some time been in oral use.  The most likely source is thought to have been feague (to spruce up by artificial means), from the German fegen (polish, sweep) which, in colloquial use was used to mean "to clear out, to plunder".  In English, much of the early slang of thieves is from German or Dutch sources, dating from that great linguistic melting pot, the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) and until the nineteenth century, was largely un-documented although the fragmentary evidence available does suggest use was constantly shifting.  While preparations were being made for the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946), the defendants had been interviewed by a number of specialists including a psychologist who, among a battery of tests, included relatively simple mental arithmetic and one who might have been expected to display great proficiency with numbers was confessed Freemason Horace Greeley Hjalmar Schacht (1877–1970; president of the Reichsbank 1923-1930 & 1933-1939, general plenipotentiary for war economy 1935–1937 and reichsminister without portfolio 1937-1943).  However, the tester was “amazed at Schacht’s inability to do mental arithmetic; he had expected great things from a financial wizard.”  This Schacht explained as a virtue rather than an inadequacy, claiming: “Any financial wizard who is good at arithmetic is probably a swindler.”  Schacht was acquitted by the IMT (International Military Tribunal) though that didn't stop the German courts subsequently sentencing him to eight years in prison (essentially on the basis of "being a Nazi").  On appeal, he was released in 1948.

Fake news (journalism deliberately misleading), although popularized in the 2016 US presidential campaign (and following the lead of Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) subsequently applied used by just about anyone to describe any source of which they disapprove), was actually first attested in 1894 although, as a device, fake news is probably about as old as news itself.  Faker as an agent noun from faker the verb is from 1846 and the noun fakement (forgery) is from 1811.  To “fake (someone) out” is a description of applied gamesmanship in sport and noted from 1941.  To jazz musicians, “to fake” was merely oral slang for improvising and the “fake book” is attested from 1951.  Interestingly, the adjective "jivey" was sometimes used as a pejorative (phony, fake) unlike "jive" which, in a musical context, was always purely descriptive.  Synonyms include ersatz, fake, false, imitation, imitative, unreal, counterfeit, fabricated, factitious, spurious, substitute, affected, contrived, feigned, insincere, plastic, synthetic, unnatural, bogus, affected, forged, fraudulent, mock, phony, spurious, deception, forgery, hoax, scam, sham, trick, put on, assumed, fraud, impostor, quack, charlatan, deceiver, substitute, contrived, feigned, insincere, & unnatural.

Faux (pronounced foh)

Artificial or imitation and admitted or understood to be so.

1676: from the twelfth century French faux (feminine singular fausse, masculine plural faux, feminine plural fausses), from the Old French fals, from the Latin falsus (false), perfect passive participle from fallō (deceive, trick; mistake).  The origin of fallō is uncertain.  It’s thought either from the Proto-Italic falsō, from the primitive Indo-European (s)whzel (to stumble) or from the primitive Indo-European ǵhwel- (to lie, deceive) but etymologists note structural problems with the latter.  A doublet of false.  The word fake almost always carries negative connotations, the idea of something that is not real, an imitation designed to trick someone into thinking it is real or original.  A fake might be a forgery or copy which is (certainly with many digital fakes) indistinguishable from whatever is the real or original thing it imitates, indeed it might even be an improvement but it remains fake.  Faux is a noun & adjective; the noun plural is fauces.

Lindsay Lohan in faux fur, amfAR gala, New York City, 2013.

Faux has since the 1980s been used in English (with French pronunciation) to describe anything that is imitative without attempting to deceive.  Prior to this, the only frequent use in English was the faux pas (breach of good manners, any act that compromises one's reputation (literally "false step")), noted since the 1670s.  Faux tends not to convey the negative association of fake because it so blatantly an alternative rather than an attempt to deceive, indeed, it can be positioned as having positive connotations, such as was was done with faux fur.  Faux fur is still at least quasi-respectable and in certain circles, there’s long been a micro-industry devoted to turning into social pariahs anyone wearing the real thing.  Sometimes, supporters of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) use direct action, the flinging of red paint onto the offending coat or stole a favorite tactic.  In the twenty-first century, it’s probably not possible to “announce something” without some sort of adverse reaction on social media, the objections (often condemnations) including environment impact, cultural appropriation, microaggressions, racial or gender stereotyping, cultural insensitivity, the carbon footprint, various phobias and other transgressions.  It’s just the way what’s deemed “acceptable” and what’s not is now thrashed out.  Historically, because faux fur was a product of the petro-chemical industry (by any standards a dirty business) the criticism for faux fur centred on the environmental impacts but there were also concerns about the ethics of “deceptive” supply chains and the perpetuation of fur as a desirable fashion item.

While it’s true no animal usually directly is harmed in the production of faux fur, critics maintain wildlife has nevertheless suffered because of the industry’s environmental impact and although the methods used in the argument do sometimes seem abstract with some remoteness between cause and effect, the case is not without foundation, the reliance of on plastics obviously not without cascading costs.  Even now, most faux fur is made from synthetic polymers like acrylic, modacrylic, and polyester, all from non-renewable fossil fuels and emerging from processes with a significant carbon footprint.  Of increasing concern too is the heighted awareness that merely by existing (and especially when being laundered), faux fur garments shed tiny plastic particles into the environment including waterways, contributing to marine pollution (and entering the human-food chain) in a way once underestimated.  Unlike natural animal pelts, plastics can take at least hundreds of years to decompose and some include “forever chemicals”; they do what’s on the tin.  There’s also in commerce some cheating with products labelled “faux fur” found to contain natural product (including that of domestic cats & dogs), an approach tempting because the mass-production of even cheap synthetic fur can be more expensive than that obtained from animals slaughtered in unregulated “factory farms”.  PETA objects to the sale and use of faux fur because it “normalizes the aesthetic” of wearing animal pelts, something that can contribute to sustaining demand for real fur and that critique applies to more recent innovations such as faux fur produced from a plant-base using material like hemp or wool (harvested without slaughtering the creature).

Actor Pamela Anderson (b 1967), mostly real.

People do however seem unforgiving of fake boobs which, even if admitted (apparently sometimes even "boasted of") as being fake (which really should make them faux), seem forever doomed to be called fake.  The preferred form appears to be "fake tits".

Faux also blends well; there are "fauxhemians" (an individual who affects a Bohemian lifestyle while staying within social conventions), "fauxmances" (bogus romances, conducted for reasons good & bad), "fauxgasms" (simulated orgasms (often in the form "she's faking it")), "fauxlanthropists" (individuals who engage in charitable activities out of self-interest), "fauxpologies" (a non-apology), "fauxminists" (an individual presenting as a feminist but judged insincere), "fauxmosexuals" (heterosexual individuals who adopts fashion and mannerisms traditionally associated with the "L" & "G" factions in the LGBTQQIAAOP aggregation in order to gain social and/or financial advantage) & "fauxtatoes" (low-carb, keto-friendly alternatives to traditional mashed potatoes, typically made by blending steamed or roasted cauliflower).  Donald Trump dubbed Elizabeth Warren (b 1949; US senator (Democrat) for Massachusetts since 2013) Pocahontas because her claim to Native American ancestry proved dubious but allies of her predecessor (Scott Brown (b 1959; US senator (Republican) for Massachusetts 2010–2013)), referred to her as Fauxcahontas.  That was an incorrect use necessitated by the need of rhyme and word formation; technically she was a "Fakecahontas" but as a word it didn't work as well.  People anyway seemed to get the point: as a Native American, she was fake, bogus, phoney.

Christ with the Woman Taken in Adultery by Han van Meegeren (1889–1947) following Vermeer (1632-1675).

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; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945).  His defense strategy 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 because he had traded the fake for over a hundred other Dutch paintings seized earlier by the Reich Marshal, he was thus a national hero rather than a Nazi collaborator.  With a practical demonstration (a canvas and paints brought into the courtroom) of his skill, added to his admission of 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 judges 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. 

Justice might better have been served by the judges imposing a small, symbolic fine and requesting Mr van Meegeren to undertake not again to forge the work of others because, in the circumstances, swindling Hermann Göring seems more a community service than a crime.  His skills with brush and paint aside, Van Meegeren was able successfully to pass off his 1930s fakes as those of the seventeenth century painter of the Dutch baroque, Johannes Vermeer (1632–1675), because of the four years he spent meticulously testing the techniques by which recent painting could be made to appear appropriately aged.  The breakthrough was getting paints thoroughly to harden, a process that in an oil-based mix occurs naturally over 50-odd years; his solution was to mix the pigments not with oil but the synthetic resin Bakelite.  For his canvas, he used a genuine but worthless seventeenth-century painting and removed 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 measured mix of ink and dust into the edges of the cracks, emulating the dirt that over centuries would have accumulated.

Guilty as sin: A slimmed-down 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 that no doubts were expressed and the dubious Christ with the Woman Taken in Adultery became Göring's most prized acquisition, quite something considering the literally thousands of pieces of art he looted from occupied Europe.  One of the Allied officers who interrogated Göring in Nuremberg prison prior to his trial before the IMT (International Military Tribunal, 1945-1946) recorded 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".  For his crimes, Göring was sentenced to be hanged, a fate doubtless he believed the forger deserved to share.

Where demand exceeds supply, the market will respond: 2013 Mercedes-AMG G 63 6×6 (left) and 2014 Brabus B63S (right).

Aimed at the Middle East market and manufactured between 2013-2015, a run of 100 units was planned for the Mercedes-AMG G 63 6×6 and it was advertised on that basis, exclusivity part of the attraction.  However, such was the interest that dealers prevailed on behalf of a few influential "good customers" so some additional units were built but not many and within months, used models were selling for well above the US$550,000 (€379,000) list price.  That encouraged imitations and probably not since the DEMAG Sd.Kfz half-tracks of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel's (1891–1944) Africa Corps ranged across Cyrenaica in 1941-1942 has there been a vehicle so suited to the open desert although progress meant the experience was able to be enjoyed at higher speed while listening to hi-fidelity recordings in air-conditioned comfort.  Of course the gas (petrol) consumption was, by twenty-first century standards, epic but for the demographic in the Middle East attracted by such things, fuel is a minor cost of their hobbies.  The German tuning house Brabus, noted for catering to the small but lucrative market of those who like the AMG cars but think they need more power, released the B63S, its 700 horsepower quite a chunk above the 536 offered by AMG.  In the narrow technical sense the B63S certainly was imitative but few would call was Brabus does "faux or a fake; being in some sense a manufacturer lends the brand a certain validity although Greta Thunberg (b 2003) would not have been impressed, thinking distinctions between terms like "real", "faux" & "imitation" tiresome distractions from the issue of "environmental thuggery".

1938 Mercedes-Benz G4 (W31, left) and an after-market conversion (right) of 2017 Mercedes-AMG G63 (W463) to a 6×6 configuration.

The factory's G63 6x6 anyway had its own hint of the imitative.  Although making much of its status as having produced the world's "first car" and maintaining in Stuttgart a museum with exhibits stretching back to the company's roots in 1886, Mercedes-Benz prefers to not much to dwell on the details of its activities between 1933-1945 but some of the output during those troubled years was remarkable, including the triple-axle G4.  The factory had developed similar cross-country vehicles for military use during the 1920s but, after testing a number of the prototype G1s, the army declined to place an order, finding them too big, too expensive and too heavy for their intended purpose.  Adolf Hitler however, as drawn to big, impressive machines as he was to monumentalist, representational architecture, ordered them adopted as parade vehicles and the army soon acquired a fleet of the updated G4, used eventually not only on ceremonial occasions but also as staff and command vehicles, two even specially configured, one as a baggage car and the other a mobile communications centre, packed with radio-telephony.

1937 Mercedes-Benz G4.

Hitler’s entry in Vienna following the Anschluss (the absorption of Austria into the Reich), 14 March, 1938 was "warmly welcomed" by the assembled crowds.  It was in the post-war years the project to recast Austria's image as "the Nazi's first victim" rather than "willing companion" was undertaken by the government; elsewhere in Western Europe, eyes anxiously looking east, governments were anxious to lend their support.  The statue in the background is of the Archduke Charles Louis John Joseph Laurentius of Austria, Duke of Teschen (1771–1847) and often referred to as “Archduke Karl”, mounted on the Heldenplatz.

Eventually, between 1934-1939, 57 G4s were built, originally exclusively for the OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (Armed Forces High Command)) and OKH (Oberkommando des Heeres (Army High Command)) but one was gift from Hitler to Generalissimo Franco (1892-1975; Caudillo of Spain 1939-1975).  The Spanish G4, one of few which still exists, was restored and remains in the royal garage in Madrid.  According to factory records, all were built with 5.0, 5.3 & 5.4 litre straight-eight engines but there is an unverified report of interview with Hitler’s long-time chauffeur, Erich Kempka (1910-1975), suggesting one for the Führer’s exclusive use was built with the 7.7 litre straight-eight used in the 770K Grosser (W07 (1930–1938) & W150 (1938–1943)).  Some of the 770s were supercharged so, if true, it's a tantalizing prospect but the story is widely thought apocryphal, no evidence of such a one-off ever having been sighted.

The white G63 6x6 (above) was a “conversion” of a 2017 G63 by G Wagon Car Technology GmbH (Austria), a operation with a high-reputation, derived at least in part from their work being undertaken wherever possible with the use of factory part-numbers.  Given their high standards, "fake" or "faux would seem harsh and all but the most obsessive of the originality police likely would settle on "clone", "replica" or "recreation".  One thing that tends to set the factory’s original G63 6x6’s apart from most of the after-market conversions is the latter tend to use the standard G63’s axles while the former were built with more expensive portal axels.  Portal axles include at each wheel hub an off-set gearbox, raising the axle tube above the wheel centre-line, increasing the ground clearance under the differentials (vulnerable to damage in extreme conditions) without incurring the disadvantages (higher centre of gravity, additional structural stress) induced by conventional suspension-lift techniques.  Portal axles provide also built-in gear reduction, reducing stress on drive-trains and off-setting power losses if larger tyres are fitted.  Because of what they do internally, there are also weight-saving benefits because with the “twisting effect” on axle shafts and CV (constant-velocity) joints reduced, components need not be so heavy.  While not a simple installation, portal axles also allow the suspension’s original geometry to be maintained, even if larger wheels and tyres are used.  However, for everything one does there’s a price to be paid and in engineering that’s expressed as “trade-offs”, the advantages gained by the use of portal axles accompanied by the drawbacks of increased complexity and higher maintenance, each unit requiring regular oil-changes.

Walmart chic for a half-million-odd US$.

In places like Turin or Cannes, there wouldn’t have been many who thought Chrysler’s RAM TRX was “too small” but Texas-based operation Hennessey knew there was in the US sufficient demand to schedule an annual production of 12 Mammoth 1000 6×6 TRX trucks, the base price listed at US$449,950 (before options).  Rated at 1,012 HP and measuring some 23½ feet (7.2 metres) end-to-end, in addition to the usual specifications sheet, the company provided a succinct explanatory paragraph: “Everything we do at Hennessey Performance is turned up to 11, but the Mammoth 1000 6×6 is definitely turned up to 12!  Everything on the Mammoth 6×6 is bigger, badder, and more imposing – plus, it’s still super-fast, while being a total powerhouse off-road. It’s the undisputed king of the road.”

Amusingly whether or not fitted with the portal axles making them more suited to use off-road, most of the G63 6x6s were bought not for their rough terrain capabilities but as status symbols, few drivers ever venturing far from the smooth surfaces of urban life that, paradoxically, proved their native environment.  Additionally, the fate of many seems to be as "collectables" carefully to be stored in a climate-controlled garage, awaiting the next venture onto the auction circuit, owners hoping to "flip" their investment for a profit.  Because all that can be guaranteed about the market is that "it will fluctuate", as might have been predicted for such a niche item, results have been mixed.  The concept is though a niche with obvious appeal because in the US a number of suppliers have entered the market to offer similar three-axle conversions on the platforms of the big Chevrolet, Ford and RAM pick-up trucks; impressionistically, most of these also seem to have been purchased for urban use and although their sheer size would seem to mitigate against use in cities, in the US the size differential between them and much else of what's on the roads is not so stark as in other places and for those who really do value functionality, their load-carrying and towing capabilities would be appreciated.  Additionally, among the MAGA (Make America Great Again) crew, such machines have become political statements; that's an abstract kind of functionally.

Ferrari GTO production numbers 1961-1964.  The most fastidious insist only what happened in 1962-1963 counts and there are thus 36 Ferrari 250 GTOs.

There are however fake cars and they're considered bogus if represented as a factory original but are really a modified version of something else.  Even if a functionally exact copy indistinguishable from what the factory did, without disclosure that’s fake because it's not "authentic" yet exactly the same machine modified in the same way is instead a “clone”, “tribute”, “recreation” or “replica” if represented as such; it's all in the transparency of the disclosure.  Clone, recreation & replica do imply a exact copy but some leeway does seem to be granted given mechanical exactitude is sometimes simply not possible.  A vehicle substantially a replica of something but includes modifications to improve safety, performance or some other aspect of the dynamics is usually styled a “tribute” or “restomod” (a portmanteau word, the construct being resto(red) + mod(ified)).  The improvements can be transformative and, in certain cases, increase value but in others, the changes might detract.  Whether clone, replica or tribute, if what’s being referenced is something rare and desirable, the difference in value can be a factor of more than fifty-fold.  Originality can trump improvement.  The differential exists even if what’s created is for all practical purposes an exact a copy of something such as the various replications (the best word) of 1930s Bugattis, Mercedes-Benz and such by Pur Sang of Argentina.  While a common approach by those making “replicas” of things like the Ferrari 250 GTO is to take the chassis and drive-train of a mechanically similar but less valuable Ferrari of the era and “modify as required”, what Pur Sang does is, with exquisite attention detail, craft just about every part from scratch.  Nuts & bolts they buy “off the shelf” but not much else.  The result is extraordinary and, for what one gets, their prices seem reasonable.

1962 Ferrari 250 GTO recreation by Tempero of New Zealand.

As an extreme example there is the fabled Ferrari 250 GTO, of which usually it's accepted 36 were built although those prepared to cast the definitional net a little further claim there were 41: (2 x (1961) prototypes; 32 x (1962–63) Series I 250 GTO; 3 x (1962–1963) “330 GTO”; 1 x (1963) 250 GTO with LM Berlinetta-style body & 3 x (1964) Series II 250 GTO).  The GTOs in the hands of collectors command extraordinary prices, chassis 4153GT in June 2018 realizing US$70 million in a private sale whereas an immaculately crafted replica of a 1962 version by Tempero (New Zealand) was listed for sale at US$1.3 million (no NFT required).  The Tempero cars are acknowledged to be better built than any original GTO although that is damning with faint praise, those who restore pre-modern Ferraris wryly noting that while the tough drive-trains were built with exquisite care, the assembly of the coachwork could verge on "shoddy".  Indeed, when the head of one restoration company was asked if a vintage Ferrari exactly could be replicated the answer was it was doubtful "...because none of our staff can weld that badly.",   Even less exalted machinery, though actually more rare still, like the 1971 Plymouth Hemi Cuda convertible (only 12 of which were built) also illustrate the difference for there are now considerably more clones / replicas / recreations etc than ever there were originals with the price difference typically a factor of ten or more.

Basic

Basic (pronounced bey-sik)

(1) Of, relating to, or forming a base; fundamental.

(2) In chemistry, pertaining to, of the nature of, or containing a base; alkaline.

(3) In metallurgy, noting, pertaining to, or made by a steelmaking process (basic process) in which the furnace or converter is lined with a basic or non-siliceous material, mainly burned magnesite and a small amount of ground basic slag, to remove impurities from the steel.

(4) In geology, descriptor of a rock having relatively little silica.

(5) In military use, the lowest or initial form of anything (chiefly US).

(6) Of things elementary in character, essential, key, primary, basal, underlying.

(7) As a computer industry acronym, (BASIC and its forks, QBASIC, BASICA etc), a long-lived programming language: B(eginner's) A(ll-purpose) S(ymbolic) I(nstruction) C(ode).

(8) As "basic bitch", a subset of females deemed uninteresting on the basis of their tastes in pop culture being wholly mainstream.  It began as a derogatory term but was also adopted (as a form of "inverse snobbery") by some as their "group identifier".  The use seems to date from circa 2005.

1832:  The word came originally from chemistry, the construct being base + ic, but has since been adopted by or applied in just about every field imaginable.  Base in this sense (something from which other things extend; a foundation; a supporting, lower or bottom component of a structure or object) was from the Middle English base, bas & baas, from the Old French base, from the Latin basis, from the Ancient Greek βάσις (básis).  In scientific use there exists a wealth of derived technical forms including gnathobasic, heptabasic, hexabasic, macrobasic, mesobasic, microbasic, monobasic, multibasic etc.  The -ic suffix was from the Middle English -ik, from the Old French -ique, from the Latin -icus, from the primitive Indo-European -kos & -ḱos, formed with the i-stem suffix -i- and the adjectival suffix -kos & -ḱos.  The form existed also in the Ancient Greek as -ικός (-ikós), in Sanskrit as -इक (-ika) and the Old Church Slavonic as -ъкъ (-ŭkŭ); A doublet of -y.  In European languages, adding -kos to noun stems carried the meaning "characteristic of, like, typical, pertaining to" while on adjectival stems it acted emphatically; in English it's always been used to form adjectives from nouns with the meaning “of or pertaining to”.  A precise technical use exists in physical chemistry where it's used to denote certain chemical compounds in which a specified chemical element has a higher oxidation number than in the equivalent compound with a name ending in the suffix -ous; (eg sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄) has more oxygen atoms per molecule than sulphurous acid (H₂SO₃).  The programming language was created in 1964 by two US-based computer scientists, Thomas Kurtz (1928-2024) and Hungarian-born John Kemeny (1926-1992).  Basic is a noun & adjective, basicity & basicness are nouns, abasic, basical & bibasic are adjectives and basically is an adverb; the noun plural is basics.

The Basic Bitch

Basic bitch, often clipped to the (sometimes affectionate) basic, is a pop-culture term of US origin.  Although use outgrew the origins, it was intended as a pejorative descriptor of white, middle class females with boringly predictable, mainstream tastes in consumer goods and culture.  Although basic's comparative is "more basic" and the superlative "most basic", English users are imaginative and when needing emphasis coined "uber basic" and "ultrabasic", the latter a repurposing from geology where it's a synonym for ultramafic (igneous rocks containing magnesium & iron with only ting quantities of silica, such as those found in the Earth’s mantle).  The most pleasing collective for was "basic bitch brigade although Urban Dictionary helpfully fleshes out some alternatives.  Variously interpreted as a variation on the earlier airhead, a general expression of misogyny and another unsuccessful attempt to invent a term white people would find offensive, basic bitch briefly generated a sizable critique.  Although expressions of disapproval of materialist consumer culture had became common even before publication of Canadian-born US economist J.K. Galbraith's (1908–2006) The Affluent Society (1958) made it a bit of a thing, "basic bitch" appears to have offended just about all the usual suspects in the grievance industry.  Feminists found it misogynistic and weren’t at mollified by the emergence of a term of male equivalence (basic bro), their general position probably demanding the cancelling of all cultural feminine signifiers.  To them, the specifics were tiresomely irrelevant; "basic bitch" just another way to demean women.  The left generally agreed, arguing it was unhelpful to target a stereotype of late capitalist femininity rather than adhere to their critique of consumer culture.  Western capitalism, neutral on the squabble, soon commodified:

Basic Bitch Palette Kit by M·A·C Cosmetics, one of six in the M·A·C Girls collection (the companion products including Mischief Minx, Prissy Princess and Power Hungry).

Less predictable was the race-based criticism.  Basic bitch was considered yet another attempt to create a term of disparagement to describe the white folk which they would find actually offensive and in that, like all previous attempts, it didn’t work.  However, it clearly made sense only if applied to white, middle-class females so had the effect of creating yet another exclusive enclave of white privilege and one which, by definition, excluded other ethnicities, even if becoming a basic bitch was their aspiration.  First noted in 2005 in a sub-set of popular music, "basic bitch" entered mainstream use circa 2009 and use appears to have peaked in 2014 although term may persist because it references a mode of behavior rather than anything specific to a time or place; it’s thus adaptable and generationally transferrable.  It’s also an amusing example of one aspect of how Sisyphean battles in the pop-culture wars are waged.  Really, all those who used alliterative "basic bitch" were asserting was: “our taste in pop music is better than their taste in pop music”.

In the matter of Judge Eugene Fahey

Lindsay Lohan v Take-Two Interactive Software Inc et al, New York Court of Appeals (No 24, pp1-11, 29 March 2018) was a case which took an unremarkable four years from filing to reach New York’s highest appellate court; Lindsay Lohan’s suit against the makers of video game Grand Theft Auto V was dismissed.  In a unanimous ruling in March 2018, six judges of the New York Court of Appeals rejected her invasion of privacy claim which alleged one of the game’s characters was based on her.  The judges found the "actress/singer" in the game merely resembled a “generic young woman” rather than anyone specific.  Unfortunately the judges seemed unacquainted with the concept of the “basic white girl” which might have made the judgment more of a fun read.

Beware of imitations: The real Lindsay Lohan and the GTA 5 ersatz, 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, 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 (b 1951) wrote in his ruling.  Judge Fahey's words recalled those (in another context) of Potter Stewart (1915–1985; associate justice of the US Supreme Court 1958-1981) who in Jacobellis v Ohio (378 U.S. 184 (1964) 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.

First published in 1930, “Basic English” was a “subset language” devised by linguist Charles Ogden (1889–1957) and literary critic Ivor “I.A.” Richards (1893-1979).  A much reduced version of English, the selected vocabulary contained only 830 words; 600 nouns & 150 adjectives with the remainder being styled “operators” (verbs, adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions).  Given what was omitted, the range of expression was limited but was serviceable for most everyday (non specialist or technical) discourse and more complex ideas or topics could be discussed were there some assumption of knowledge between the parties.  In this case, “basic” was a backronym for British Academic Scientific International and Commercial [English] which, given the extent of the simplification, was a bit misleading and its true purposes were (1) to operate as an aid to those learning the language and (2) be an international auxiliary language, allowing people to communicate “what most needed to say, most of the time”; it was thus not a true lingua franca but a kind of low-level communication tool, what might now be called a “universal micro-language”.  It first appeared in Ogden's Basic English: A General Introduction with Rules and Grammar (1930).  Ogden & Richards’ “Basic English” faded into history but the term “basic English” lived on and has flourished at the title of at least hundreds of introductory-level books and courses teaching the language.

In truth, literally all English speakers use a form of “basic English” because nobody (even occasionally) uses all available words.  It’s not even certain how many words are in the English vocabulary; depending on how liberal is one’s definition of “real” & “current”, there may be close to a million although not even a fifth of those are in regular use.  By the time these paragraphs are read, the total is likely to have increased, the churning offsetting things to some degree by other words falling from favour to the point of functional extinction.  Despite the apparent simplicity, the process that produced Basic English relied much on the complexities of semiotic theory Ogden & Richards had discussed in The Meaning of Meaning (1923), a work containing concepts later much expanded upon (for better or worse) by the deconstructionists and postmodernists.  Although the pair may sound something like the idealists who developed Esperanto, Basic English was a kind of linguistic imperialism, albeit with good intentions.  Especially after World War II (1939-1945), the notion was a permanent world-wide peaceful co-existence might better be attained were “minority languages” gradually to be eliminated from use and there was a global adoption of English (various in the basic or complete forms).  Doubtlessly that rationale made sense to a linguist and literary critic but while it’s a charming idea the conflicts in somewhere like the Balkans would vanish if everyone spoke Basic English, history would suggest otherwise.  Now, in an age of hand-held AI (artificial intelligence), real-time translation devices, much of the alleged need for Basic English has vanished (at least for the sub-set of the population able to afford such devices) but there seems little hope such advance will in any way solve the sources of conflict.  Were members of the Israeli cabinet and the ayatollahs in Tehran to speak a common language, that medium of exchange would not influence their sentiments.

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.

In literary use, the related concept was known as similitude, from the Old French similitude, from Latin similitūdō ((1) likeness, resemblance, similarity; imitation, (2) a comparison, simile, analogy; parable or (3) sameness, uniformity, monotony).  In English, similitude remained essentially true to the Latin source in meaning (1) a similarity or resemblance to something else, (2) a way in which two people or things share similitude, (3) someone or something that closely resembles another; a duplicate or twin or (4) a parable or allegory.  The special (5) technical mean in geometry, referenced a particular similarity: a transformation of Euclidean space that preserves angles and the ratios of distances.  For modern literary purposes, similitude is now used as a synonym for parable and allegory, best understood in the sense “in the guise of” used in that sense by the eighth century prophet Hosea in the Hebrew Bible: “I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes.”  However, although now rare, it has been used as a simile and the historian Thomas Macaulay (1800-1859), in his venomous commentary on the poetry of Robert Montgomery (1807–1855) derided one especially clumsy comparison: “We take this to be, on the whole, the worst similitude in the world.”

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.