Courtesy (pronounced kur-tuh-see or kurt-see (now rare))
(1) Excellence
of manners or social conduct; polite behaviour.
(2) A respectful
or considerate act or expression.
(3) Indulgence,
consent, or acquiescence; something granted or extended in the absence of any
specific right.
(4) Favor, consent,
help, or generosity.
(5) An
alternative spelling of curtsy (archaic and probably obsolete).
(6)
Something done or performed as a matter of politeness or protocol.
(7)
Something offered or provided free by the management.
(8) In law,
the life interest that the surviving husband has in the real or heritable
estate of his wife.
1175–1225:
From the Middle English curteisie (courtly
ideals; chivalry, chivalrous conduct; elegance of manners, politeness (also “a
courteous act, act of civility or respect”)), from the Old French curteisie & cortoisie (courtliness, noble sentiments; courteousness; generosity)
(which in modern French endures as courtoisie),
from curteis (courteous). The construct was courteo(u)s + -y (the abstract noun suffix). From
the late thirteenth century the word was used and understood as “good will,
kindness” but it gained the sense of “a reward, a gift” an echo of that enduring
in the modern term “by courtesy of” (something received without payment or
other consideration). By the mid-fourteenth
century courtesy was part of etiquette in the sense of “refinement, gentlemanly
conduct” and related to that is the development of curteisie (source of the English “curtsy”. The noun discourtesy (incivility, bad
manners, rudeness) was in use by at least the 1550s and may have been influenced
by the fifteenth century Old French discourtoisie,
from discourtois although other
forces in English construction were anyway by then prevalent. The idea of a discourtesy being an “an act of
disrespect” emerged late in the sixteenth century. There is in polite society the notion of “common
courtesy” which means the obligation to afford a certain respect to all, regardless
of their status and courtesy is thought a good quality and a marker of
civilization. Clearly however, one can
have “too much of a good thing” because some style and etiquette guides note
the rare noun “overcourtesy” (excessive courtesy) which can suggest obsequiousness,
sycophancy, or needless, time-consuming formalism. Courtesy is a noun, verb & adjective,
courtesying is a noun & verb, courtesied is a verb; the noun plural is
courtesies.
The noun curtsy seems to have appeared in the 1540s with the sense of “an expression of respect (ie a variant of courtesy) while the specific meaning “a bending the knee and lowering the body as a gesture of respect” dates from the 1570s and the gesture was not then exclusive to women, the convention “men bow; women curtsy” not (more or less) standardized in England until the 1620s. Predictably, it was the Victorians who coined “courtesy call” to refer to “a visit made for the sake of politeness”, in use by at least 1898. The term was adopted as part of the language of diplomacy, describing the (usually symbolic) formal visits an ambassador or other emissary of a state makes to a head of state or other local official “out of courtesy” (ie with no substantive purpose). That notion vaguely was related to the admiralty practice of the “courtesy flag”; a visiting vessel by convention and as a mark of respect flying the flag of the host nation (as well as that of her own) when entering port. Perhaps opportunistically, in commerce, “courtesy card” is used as the alternative name for the “customer loyalty card” while the “courtesy clerk” was the employee who “bagged customers' purchases”; they were also called the “bagger” and the species is believed now functionally extinct, even in Japan where, until the “lost decade” (the 1990s although many economists claim that epoch has yet to end), they were once an established part of “shop culture”. Probably the most memorable use of the word is in the term “courtesy flush” which is the “mid-sitting flush” (of a toilet) performed by men thoughtful enough to wish to avoid inflicting on others: “unpleasant odours”.
1973 Imperial LeBaron Four-Door Hardtop (left) and 1978 Chrysler New Yorker Brougham Coupe (right). In cars, courtesy lamps (or lights, seen illuminated in the left-rear door kick panel (left)) are located where light may be needed (start buttons, where a passenger is about to put their feet etc) and they differ from “specific purpose” lights such as “map reading” lights (seen illuminated, right). The significance of the name was in the “courtesy” the fittings exercised by automatically switching on when a door was opened. By contrast, a map-reading light manually was activated as required. Map-reading lights were fitted on more expensive vehicles because before maps migrated to glowing screens, they were on paper and to be read in a low-light environment, an external light source was needed.
Both “uncourtesy”
and “discourtesy” have at times been in use and the difference primarily is one
of usage frequency, historical development, and semantic nuance. Discourtesy is the established, idiomatic
noun in modern English and is used variously to denote rudeness, a lack of
courtesy, an impolite act and such. The
form emulated a use in the Old French and it has been in continuous, standard
usage since the Middle English period; in contemporary English, it remains the correct
and expected form. Uncourtesy literally
means “absence of courtesy” but has for centuries been rare and now is close to
obsolete, appearing only in historic references or as a literary device. That reflects the way English evolves because
although the word adhered to the use of the un- prefix pattern (as in
unkindness), people for whatever reason settled on the dis- form for this
lexeme. In structural linguistics, it’s true
that because of the Latin origin of the “dis-” prefix, that would imply “reversal-negation-deprivation”
whereas the Germanic “un-” would suggest “simple negation, but English lexical
convention matters more than morphology and the pattern of use has made “discourtesy”
the standard noun. Probably that was a
consequence of the Latin-influenced forms gaining sociolinguistic prestige over
those words with a Germanic core from the native, Old English vocabulary. After the Norman Conquest (1066 and all
that), what came later to be known as the “Romance superstratum” (the massive influx of words and
elements from Norman French and Latin) rapidly undertook a form of linguistic
colonialism and words which entered
English through French or Latin often arrived morphologically pre-packaged with
Romance affixes; English did not build discourtesy from scratch; either it was inherited
or imposed, depending on one’s views of such processes and that history is the
reason disloyal & dishonest emerged and endured while unloyal & unhonest
did not. Pragmatically though, speakers
settled, on a case-by-case-basis on whichever worked best: thus untruth, unlikely
and such prevailing because they were the most pleasing pure negations, something
more significant than the tendency for native Germanic bases to take “un-”,
however a robust morphological bias this may describe.
Barack Obama (b 1961; POTUS 2009-2017) was known
carefully to choose his words (indeed, he’d complain he thought himself a
better speech-writer than those hired to do the job) and he used “courtesy”
when issuing something of a lament at the depiction of him and his wife (Michelle
Obama (b 1964; FLOTUS 2009-2017) as “digitally altered” apes in a video shared
by Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) on his Truth
Social platform. Although President
Obama’s artful text only “indirectly addressed the racist video”, few
would have failed to draw the connection between the two and for students of
the technique, his response was a fine example of Michelle Obama’s “when they go low,
we go high” school of thought.
While not mentioning the president, Obama observed there seemed no
longer “…any
shame about this among people who used to feel like you had to have some sort
of decorum and a sense of propriety and respect for the office” but
“that’s been
lost”, adding “there's this sort of clown show that's happening in social
media and on television.”
While he understood the political value in such a post because “it gets attention”
and is “a
distraction”, his feeling was “it's important to recognise that the majority of the American
people find this behaviour deeply troubling” and that when
travelling around the nation, he would meet people who “still believe in decency, courtesy, kindness.”
Behind the famous lectern: Karoline Leavitt (b 1997; White House press secretary since 2025) who also has retreated a little from previously well-established standards of courtesy.
For a
president to have reposted such an obviously racist trope would even a year ago
have been unthinkable and a major political scandal but so rapidly has the
culture shifted that within barely 48 hours, it had fallen from the news cycle,
relegated to just another footnote in the history of Trump 2.0 (which
definitely is not Trump 1.1). Although
there was widespread, if remarkably muted criticism from both Republicans and Democrats,
the White House initially defended the video, calling the backlash “fake outrage”
before noting the volume and deleting the video, blaming the sharing on an
(unnamed) member of staff. Citing the
actions by the staffer, Mr Trump said “I didn't make a mistake” and thus would not be
issuing an apology, adding he’d not watched the whole clip so didn’t see the
offensive image. Analysts of such things
were divided on whether the fact the posting happened “in the middle of the night” made
the “staffer cover story” less or
more plausible but all that information attracted renewed interest when, a
couple of days, from the famous lectern, Karoline Leavitt asserted everything
posted on President Trump’s social media account comes “directly” from him: “It’s coming
straight from the horse’s mouth” as she put it. “When you see it on Truth Social, you know it’s directly
from President Trump. That’s the beauty of this president, his transparency in
relaying the administration’s policies to the rest of you and the world.” Trumpologists were left to make of that what
they could.
In literature, the “courtesy book” was a “book of etiquette” but many of the early editions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries went beyond the merely prescriptive in that they embodied a philosophy of the art of living (elegantly and with virtù (Italian for “virtue)) and provided a guide to help. The ones which survive are noted for their high literary standard and are of great interest to historians because they’re an invaluable source for the history of education, ideas, customs and social behaviour of certain classes. While the readership of some originally would have been the “upper middle class” or those who aspired to attain that status or at least emulate their manners, there were also courtesy books written for servants going to work in the houses or on the estates of the gentry; these existed so they’d know “how to behave”. From the fifteenth century, changes in society were profound as the mass production of gunpowder and books exerted their respective influences and it was in this era the concept of “the gentleman” can be said to have emerged in a recognizably modern form, best understood in the most refined version in the term “Renaissance man”; from this point, culture and education really became courtesy's companion terms. In earlier times, there had been what were known as “conduct books” but the emphasis in these was on morality deportment, manners and religion; they were very much in the “thou shall not” tradition of repressive Christianity. Reflecting the way the Renaissance spread north and west, among the most influential of the courtesy books were those publish in Venice in the 1520s & 1530s, some of which began to appear in English translation by the mid-1570s.
Woodcut illustration for Book II (Cantos VII-XII) of The Faerie Queene (1590) by Edmund Spenser (circa 1552-1599).
Although The Faerie Queene was an epic-length poem recounting tales of knightly exploits and written in a deliberately archaic style, it merged history and myth, drawing especially on the Arthurian legends with each of the books an allegorical following of a knight who represents a particular virtue (holiness, temperance, chastity, friendship, justice and courtesy) which will be tested by the plot. It’s long been of interest to scholars of the work of William Shakespeare (1564–1616) because Book Two appears to be a source for much of King Lear (circa 1605) (and has drawn the ire of some feminists) but some critics have suggest it can (almost) be described as the “Bible of Renaissance anthropocentric humanism, which, in its most idealistic form, was a sort of apotheosis of man.” That may seem a little “purple” but in The Faerie Queene, with its depictions of the Renaissance conceptions of knightly and chivalrous conduct, the author’s purpose was clear. Indeed, in the dedication he wrote: “The generall end therefore of all the booke is to fashion a gentleman or noble person in virtuous and gentle discipline.” In scope and literary form, it’s regarded still the “most ambitious courtesy book of all.”
In 2008, Gordon Brown (b 1951; UK prime-minister 2007-2010), for reasons understandable if not admirable, granted Mandy a barony (the lowest step on the UK's five-rung peerage system), thereby "ennobling" him with a seat in the House of Lords. The peerage entitled him (for life) to use the title "Lord" and, as one of His Majesty's privy counsellors (appointed in 1998), he may (again for life) add a post-nominal "PC" and be styled "the Right Honourable". The membership of the Privy Council (essentially, members of the UK cabinet and a select few others) is unusual in that even if members cease to hold the role which justified their appointment, they don't cease to be a member; they just are "not summoned".
However, unlike the removal of a peerage (which requires an act of parliament), any member may at any time resign from the council as would be expected in the case of a scandal which can't be "swept under the mat" as in the preferred practice in Westminster, one famous example being John Profumo (1915–2006) who in 1963 (while aged 56, "happily married" and serving as Secretary of State for War (ie minister of defence)) was found to be having an affair with a young lady of 19 who simultaneously also was enjoying the affections of a KGB spy attached to the Soviet embassy in London. That scandal played a part in dooming a Tory (Conservative Party) government which had been in office 13 years but never has Mandy been accused of sleeping with women who are in some state of concubinage with the Kremlin's spies so that's one transgression of which he'll never be accused. Mandy since 2008 has for most purposes been styled as “Lord Mandelson” and that is not a courtesy title because as a “life peer” Mandy enjoys the same privileges (other than not being able to pass the barony to an eldest son) as one who inherited his barony and were he to have children, they would be entitled to style themselves “the honourable”. It’s believed he does not plan to have children.
As a footnote, for everyone except royalty, some of the the five notches in the UK's peerage system now exist only for historic reference or to keep track of the still extant holders of the titles no longer or rarely created. All the life peers are barons while since the mid-1960s the creation of viscounts (rung 2) & earls (rung 3) as hereditary titles has been rare and restricted to a handful of (mostly Tory) political party grandees. No marquess (rung 4) has been created since 1936 and that may be symbolic because while it had become something of a convention to grant retiring prime ministers an earldom, a returning Viceroy of India had come to expect a marquessate. Dukedoms (rung 5) have not been awarded to non-royal personages since the nineteenth century and the last recipient with no connection to a royal household by marriage enjoyed their elevation in 1874. Within the family, the palace continues to dole-out dukedoms, earldoms & viscountcies to themselves, none of which appear to be merit-based awards but merit is hardly a concept the royal family would much like to intrude into any conversation involving them. In truth, for those few who ponder such things, the practice probably is thought a harmless quaintness with even the most ardent monarchist likely to struggle to suggest exactly what Prince Edward (b 1964) has achieved to deserve being also Earl of Wessex (created 1999), Earl of Forfar (created 2019) and Duke of Edinburgh (granted 2023) although he might point out he’s not as bad as his brother Andrew so there’s that.
The photograph was released by the US DoJ (Department of Justice) in one of the tranches of files related to convicted paedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein (1953–2019). It was shot in Epstein's New York City apartment when asked about the circumstances, his lordship responded by saying he “did not recall”. About that (lack of) recollection, some were uncharitably cynical but it does seem plausible given (1) Mandy doubtless spent much time meeting folk while wandering Epstein’s apartment in his underpants and (2) because Epstein had so many “acquaintances”, Mandy could hardly be expected to remember them all.
There are many “courtesy titles”, a class of address loosely defined as those governed by social convention, long-established practice or even administrative convenience. In the UK’s intricate peerage system, courtesy titles are those used by certain relatives of peers, even though they do not themselves hold a substantive peerage and are not in law members of the peerage so thus never conferred with any right to sit in the House of Lords. Although almost universally acknowledged, the courtesy titles are sustained only by convention rather than letters patent. The interaction of the multi-tiered structure of the UK’s peerage system and the distinctions between (1) elder & younger sons and (2) daughters means there are a number of “rules” for courtesy titles but collectively they mean, for most purposes, depending on which rung on the peerage their father stands, sons commonly are styled either “Lord” or “The Honourable” and daughters “Lady” or “The Honourable”. Wives also gain a honorific with them being granted a style based on the peerage held by their husband although other than the wives of dukes (who are “duchesses”), for most purposes, the convention follows calling non-ducal male peers “Lord” in that the wives are styled “Lady”. Complicating all this is there are now also female peers so while, for example, the wife of a baron usually would be styled “Lady”, if a woman in her own right holds a barony, the most pedantic would use “baroness”. All this may sound arcane but when moving in certain circles the official Order of Precedence can be socially consequential because, when attending events, it can dictate things like where one gets to sit and (more significantly), with whom. So, the significance of the element “courtesy” in “courtesy title” is that use is “a courtesy extended” and not “a right acknowledged”. That’s why Mr Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (b 1960, formerly Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Admiral etc) was not deprived of being styled “Lord” (something usually attached to the younger son of a duke) because, in the legal sense, the title never existed, such use a mere (though widely observed) convention. Of course, anyone can if they wish call him “Lord Andrew” though it seems unlikely many will bother. Maybe his ex-wife will grant him that one final courtesy.
Winston
Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) coveted
medals and decorations but had little interest in titles; although the grandson
of a Duke of Marlborough, his self-image was that of “a great House of Commons
man” and one peer once lamented: “The House of Lords means nothing to him”,
another noble noting: “he thinks us a collection of disreputable old gentlemen”. In opposition in 1946 he’d been offered a KG
(Knight The Most Noble Order of the Garter (1348), the oldest and most senor
knighthood in the UK’s orders of chivalry) but declined because he didn’t like
the idea of receiving something recommended by a socialist prime minister. In 1953, back in office, he accepted because
“now only the
queen decides” but did regret having to become “Sir Winston” rather
than the plain “Mr Churchill” he claimed to prefer, observing to the cabinet
secretary: “I
don’t see why I should not have the Garter but continue to be known as Mr
Churchill. After all, my father was
known as Lord Randolph Churchill, but he was not a lord. That was only a courtesy title. Why should I not continue to be called Mr
Churchill as a discourtesy title?”
Sir Winston he became although his wife (1885-1977) would have preferred
he not accept. Other wives have been
keener, the New Zealand trade union leader Sir Tom Skinner (1909–1991;
President of the NZ FoL (Federation of Labour) 1959-1979) explaining to
colleagues that while he had no wish to be Sir Tom, he didn’t fancy going home
to tell his wife she wouldn’t soon be “Lady Skinner” although, given the darkly
comic possibilities in that moniker, some women might have had second thoughts.
In the US, south of the Mason-Dixon Line,
there have been many “captains” and “colonels” who had little or no military
experience and some became well known including the Dutch-born impresario
Colonel Tom Parker (1909–1997) who managed the singer Elvis Presley (1935-1977)
and Colonel Edward House (1858–1938) who was for years the most influential of
the camarilla in the White House of Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924; POTUS 1913-1921). Colonel House had been a king-maker in Texas
politics but during World War I (1914-1918) it was his advice in international
relations Wilson often preferred and, despite lacking any background in matters
of European politics, was appointed the US’s senior diplomat at the Paris Peace
Conference (1919). Disappointed by the
outcome of the conference and feeling deceived by House who had, during the
president’s absence in Washington DC, made certain decisions on his behalf,
Wilson sundered their relationship; after House returned to the US, they would
never meet again. To the president it
had been simply a matter of the colonel “getting
ideas above his station” but, to his dying day, House believed the
estrangement was engineered at least in part by the second Mrs Wilson
(1872-1961), the “blame the wife”
theory a recurrent theme in dynastic and political history. There was of course also Colonel Harland
Sanders (1890–1980) who was 1935 was created a member of the HOKC (Honorable
Order of Kentucky Colonels) by Ruby Laffoon (1869–1941; governor of Kentucky
1931-1935) and his memory lives on in the fast food KFC (Kentucky Fried
Chicken), a culinary institution now with more international recognition than
the HOKC despite “Kentucky Colonel” being the highest honor bestowed by the
state and the nation’s best-known colonelcy.
The title became
much associated with Texas and many of the Southern States. It was Texas
Governor Jim Hogg (1851–1906; governor of Texas 1891-1895) who in 1893 appointed
Edward House as a member of his gubernatorial staff, granting him the honorary
rank which recipients were entitled to keep for life. It was something that carried no military
command or responsibilities and no federal commission, operating at the “social
and political” level something like a Rotary Club membership in that while it
conferred a certain perception of status, there was also an expectation
(sometimes honoured, sometimes not) the member would fulfil some philanthropic
or other worthy public services.
Legally, the basis for the practice dated from the historic rights of
governors to appoint officers in their state’s militias and after federation,
as the US evolved, the use was extended to non-military use, titles there quite
sought after because with no honors systems granting them (knighthoods,
peerages and such), those who attain some elected or appointed office
(governor, admiral, judge, mayor, senator, ambassador etc), tend for life so to
be styled; those who have several get to choose which they prefer. South of the Mason-Dixon Line, there was an
attachment to the tradition because of the cultural significance of the Antebellum
Militias which, before the US Civil War (1861-1865) had enjoyed great social
prestige, officers drawn often from the (obviously white) elites, plantation
owners, lawyers, merchants and such; the granting of a colonelcy didn’t confer community
authority: it acknowledged it. Although
much of what was “Southern culture” passed into history, the system remained
and proved handy in the way knighthoods and peerages fulfil the function in the
UK: (1) rewarding political supporters, (2) providing a quid pro quo to party
donors, (3) cementing patronage networks and (4) “paying off” debts or “hushing
up” those with troublesome knowledge. By
the early twentieth century, so numerous and associated with unsavoury politics
had the colonelcies become that the title became a popular device for
satirists.
While in the last decade-odd the engineering has mostly been good, Jaguar has yet to find a way to create a design language to match the distinctive “look” which for more than half-a-century underpinned its success after World War II (1939-1945). The most recent attempt met with derision although that was a reaction more to the unsubtle DEI (diversity, equity & inclusion) “messaging” in the images used, the approach about as heavy-handed as the lines of the “concept EV” (electric vehicle) later shown. Because what came to be understood as “a Jaguar” was so defined by what was done in the post-war years, there seems no obvious path for the designers so the company is left in a crowded field, competing on the basis of dynamic qualities and price-breakdown, able no longer to summon the intangible (but real) emotional appeal of old.
In the US,
the medical degree qualifying a graduate to seek to practice the profession is
the MD (Doctor of Medicine) but elsewhere in the English speaking world the
standard award is MB BS (Bachelor of Medicine & Bachelor or Surgery). Despite that, most of the latter routinely are
styled “doctor” despite not holding a doctorate (MD in the UK and Commonwealth (like
a PhD (doctor of philosophy)) awarded as a higher degree after submission of a
thesis rather than a course of instruction).
Historically, for medical practitioners, the use of the title “doctor”
comes from many layers, dating from antiquity, medieval university practice,
professional licensing traditions and later social conventions. “Doctor” did originally denote “a doctorate”
though not in the modern academic sense. So, for those appropriately qualified in
medicine (whether MD or MB BS) “doctor” really isn’t a “courtesy title” but a
job title although, of late it’s been adopted also by dentists and vets and
some insist that in such cases it should be thought of exactly that. Doctor was from the Middle English doctor & doctour (an expert, authority on a subject), from the Anglo-Norman doctour, from the Latin doctor (teacher), from doceō (to teach). It displaced the native Middle English lerare (teacher), from the Middle
English leren (to teach, instruct)
from the Old English lǣran & lēran
(to teach, instruct,
guide) which may be compared with the Old English lārēow (teacher, master) and lǣċe (doctor, physician). In
the US the MD evolved into a professional doctorate and the title “Dr” thus
followed yet among US lawyers, although many qualify with the analogous JD (Doctor
of Jurisprudence), not only is it though bad form for such graduates to use the
title “doctor”, professional associations actively discourage use although the
legal basis of any attempt at enforcement may be dubious. As a general principle, the only lawyers in
the US styled as “Dr” are those with a doctorate in law (which may be a PhD,
DPhil etc).
In the
great Medieval universities (Bologna, Paris etc), the three higher faculties
were Theology, Law and Medicine, graduates of each receiving the degree of Doctor
which meant one was a licensed teacher of their discipline. Thus, a “Doctor of Medicine” was someone
qualified to teach medicine at a university, not merely practice it. In pre-modern medicine (often a gruesome
business) there was also distinct social and educational difference between physician
and surgeons, especially in England where things became institutionalized. The physicians were university-trained, held
an MD and thus correctly were styled “Dr” whereas the origins of the surgeons
lay in the old trade of barber-surgeons; trained by apprenticeship, they did
not hold degrees and were styled “Mr”.
In the pre-anaesthetic age, surgical techniques tended to be primitive,
often involving cutting or sawing off body parts so for the barbers, skilled in the use of razors and scissors, it was a natural evolution. This division was in England institutionalized
by the formation of the RCP (Royal College of Physicians (1518)) and RCS (Royal
College of Surgeons (1843)).
The surgeons
had anyway been schematic, guilds existing in London as early as the 1360s and
a demarcation dispute between the “surgeons” and “barber surgeons” dragged on until
1540 when a “coming-together” between the “Worshipful Company of Barbers” and the
“Guild of Surgeons” was engineered, creating the “Company of Barbers and
Surgeons of London”. However, while
papering over the cracks (perhaps “bandaging the wound” might work better), the
tensions remained and in 1745 the surgeons departed to form “Company of
Surgeons” a royal charter (as Royal College of Surgeons in London) granted in 1800,
extended in 1843 to become the “Royal College of Surgeons of England”. Through all that, even after the early
nineteenth century when a university education was made a condition of a
licence to practice as a surgeon, the tradition endured and doctors, upon
qualifying as members or fellows of the RCS revert from Dr to Mr. In that context, “Mr” really is not a
courtesy title but a professional equivalent and the because of the long
history, the field is littered with linguistic quirks, “physician” both a
generic term for all qualified to practice medicine and a specialist in
internal medicine. One perhaps once
unexpected twist in the history of the history of the barber surgeon is that to
this day there appear to be people who get medical advice (or at least a
“second opinion”) from their hairdresser, presumably on the basis they’re a
proven good source for fashion tips, relationship counselling and such.
Three galleries at the Lindsay Lohan Retrospective by Richard Phillips (b 1962), Gagosian Gallery, 555 West 24th Street, New York, 11 September-20 October 2012.
Described
by the artist as an installation, the exhibition was said to be "an example of the
way Phillips uses collaborative forms of image production to reorder the
relationship of Pop Art to its subjects, the staging and format of these lush,
large-scale works said to render them realist portraits of the place-holders of
their own mediated existence."
The curator explained the retrospective was conducted as an example of
the way collaborative forms of image production can reorder the relationship of
Pop Art to its subjects, the staging and format used to render them realist
portraits of "...the
place-holders of their own mediated existence." That seemed to explain things.
Vimeo's hosting of Lindsay Lohan, courtesy of Richard Phillips and Gagosian Gallery.
Historically,
the term “courtesy of” implied “something provided by its owner to another
party without payment or other consideration” and that’s presumably the way
Vimeo is using the phrase although it’s likely the file was provided with
certain limitations of use (such as “may not be edited”). However, although for generations used in
that way by the print media, on the internet “courtesy of” appears often to be
used as a synonym of “attributed to” in cases where explicit permission for use
has being neither sought or granted.
Owners of the rights (which may include copyright) can of course seek to
have such content “taken down” regardless of any baseless assertion the use is
by their “courtesy” but because of the volumes, such actions are by necessity
limited and were, for example, some nihilistic psychopath to use on their blog
an image of a 1961 Jaguar from the company’s website to illustrate some arcane
aspect of a word’s etymology, JLR (Jaguar Land Rover, the corporate identity
since 2013 when JLR was created by Tata Motors) likely would neither notice
nor care.
Lindsay Lohan (2011) by Richard Phillips, hosted by Vimeo by courtesy of Richard Phillips and Gagosian Gallery.
Screened in conjunction with the 54th international exhibition of the Venice Biennale (June 2011), Lindsay Lohan was a short film the director said represented a “new kind of portraiture.” Filmed in Malibu, California, the piece was included in the Commercial Break series, presented by Venice’s Garage Center for Contemporary Culture and although the promotional notes indicated it would include footage of the ankle monitor she helped make famous, the device doesn't appear in the final cut.
Directed by: Richard Phillips & Taylor Steele
Director of Photography: Todd Heater
Costume Designer: Ellen Mirojnick
Creative Director: Dominic Sidhu
Art Director: Kyra Griffin
Editor: Haines Hall
Color mastering: Pascal Dangin for Boxmotion
Music: Tamaryn & Rex John Shelverton
A variant
on the idea is when an owner provides something “as a courtesy” and there are
neither rules nor conventions governing this aspect of use. First appearing in version 1.1 (1982) of PC-DOS (1980-1995), the obscure
file EXE2BIN.exe was a command-line utility (it appeared also in other DOS (disk operating system) forks) that could be used to convert .EXE (executable) files into .COM or BIN
(binary executables) files. In the
manuals, Microsoft noted “EXE2BIN is included with MS-DOS as a courtesy to software
developers. It is not useful for general users.” So it was a thoughtful gesture but MS-DOS
grew at a faster rate than the capacity of the floppy diskettes which were then
the only generally available medium for software distribution. So, needing space for the essential stuff,
when in 1987 MS-DOS 3.3 was released, EXE2BIN was no longer included, relegated
to the Technical Reference Pack (available at extra cost). That didn’t mean the decision was a discourtesy,
just that space was needed and it was almost certain anyone likely to use
EXE2BIN for its intended purpose anyway purchased the pack. By the time MS-DOS v6.00 was released in
1991, EXE2BIN was thus no longer described as “a courtesy” and was included on one
of the “Supplemental Disks” (US$5.00), which were also part of the “Resource
Kit” (US$19.95).
