Engagement

Engagement (pronounced en-geyj-muhnt)

(1) The act of engaging or the state of being engaged.

(2) A mutual pledge of marriage, betrothal.

(3) An appointment or arrangement.

(4) A pledge, obligation, agreement or other condition that binds.

(5) Employment, or a period or post of employment, now especially in the performing arts.

(6) In military use, an encounter, conflict, or battle.

(7) In mechanics, the act or state of interlocking.

(8) In contract law, a promise (archaic).

(9) In economics (usually in the plural), financial obligations (archaic).

(10) In obstetrics, the entrance of the foetal head or presenting part into the upper opening of the maternal pelvis.

1615: The construct was engage + -ment.  Engagier was from the Middle English, from the Old French engagier (under pledge), via Frankish from the Proto-Germanic wadiare (pledge).  The word spread widely in European languages in cluding the Frankish anwadjōn (to pledge), from Proto-Germanic wadjōną (to pledge, secure), wadją (pledge, guarantee).  It was cognate with the Old English anwedd (pledge, security) & weddian (to engage, covenant, undertake), the German wetten (to bet, wager) and the Icelandic veðja (to wager); the word illustrating the general, common evolution of Germanic to French (eg Guillaume from Wilhelm).  The -ment suffix was from the Middle English -ment, from the Late Latin -amentum, from -mentum which came via Old French -ment.  It was used to form nouns from verbs, the nouns having the sense of "the action or result of what is denoted by the verb".  The suffix is most often attached to the stem without change, except when the stem ends in -dge, where the -e is sometimes dropped (abridgment, acknowledgment, judgment, lodgement etc), with the forms without -e preferred in American English.  The most widely known example of the spelling variation is probably judgment vs judgement.  In modern use, judgement is said to be a "free variation" word where either spelling is considered acceptable as long as use is consistent.  Like enquiry vs inquiry, this can be a handy where a convention of use can be structured to impart great clarity: judgment used when referring to judicial rulings and judgement for all other purposes although the approach is not without disadvantage given one might write of the judgement a judge exercised before delivering their judgment.  To those not aware of the convention, it could look just like a typo.  The meaning "attract the attention of" is from 1640s; that of "employ" is from 1640s, derived from "binding as by a pledge."  Specific sense of "promise to marry" is variously cited as dating from between 1610 and 1742 and the military meaning emerged in 1664.  Related forms are the nouns non-engagement and re-engagement, now almost always hyphenated.  Engagement is a noun, engage is a verb, engaging is a noun, verb & adjective and engaged is a verb & adjective; the noun plural is engagements.

A long tradition

The western concept of engagement is derived from the Jewish law (Torah), codified in the last Talmudic tractate of the Nashim (Women) order in which the marriage process is defined in two parts, the erusin (or kiddushin), a betrothal ceremony of sanctification and the nissu'in (or chupah), the formal act of marriage.  This is wholly analogous with the modern tradition of (1) the engagement which reflects a change of relationship between the couple and (2) the marriage which changes their legal status under either, or both, state and church law.  In antiquity, both Hellenic Greece and Rome borrowed and adapted the Hebrew practice with little change.

In the West, canon lawyers proved more exacting, secular lawyers more avaricious and engagements assumed an increasingly contractual form.  While either party could break a betrothal, it was once possible for the spurned partner to sue the other for breach of promise, which, in some jurisdictions, was called heart-balm.  In Australia, these actions were rendered obsolete when Lionel Murphy's (1922–1986; attorney-general of Australia 1972-1975) Family Law Act (1975) replaced the old Matrimonial Causes Act, a matter of some regret to bishops, Liberal Party lawyers and other moralists.  Also affected were publications like Melbourne’s now sadly defunct Truth which, in its divorce reports, published not only salacious details of infidelity but also the photographs produced as evidence, shots taken typically through the windows of St Kilda hotel rooms.

In Australia, in the narrow technical sense, engagements are compulsory in that one month must elapse between the submission of the Notice of Intended Marriage form and the marriage proper although a prescribed authority may approve a shorter notice time in some limited circumstances (such as when former Governor-General Sir John Kerr (1914-1991) wished rapidly to marry his second wife Anne (aka Nancy (née Taggart, previously Robson)).  Engagements in Australia thus, generally, have a statutory minimum duration of one month.  There's no maximum, but there’s no record of one matching the longest known engagement, a sixty-seven year arrangement between a Mexican couple; there may have been commitment issues.

On Sunday 28 November 2021, Lindsay Lohan announced her engagement to her boyfriend of two years, Bader Shammas (b 1987), a Dubai-based vice-president with Credit Suisse.  The announcement was made in the twenty-first century way: Instagram.

Otrovert

Otrovert (pronounced ott-roh-vert)

A person unable to feel a connection to social groups or collectives; despite being welcomed and included in social settings, they feel like outsiders.

2025: A coining by US psychiatrist Dr Rami Kaminski (b 1954), who first used the word in his book his book The Gift of Not Belonging (2025), the construct being the Spanish otro (other; another) + -vert.  Otro was from the Latin alter, altera & alterum (the other), ultimately from the primitive Indo-European hélteros (the other of two); it may be compared with the Portuguese outro (from the Old Galician-Portuguese outro, from the Latin alterum (the other)) and the French autre (from Old French autre (another), from the Latin alterum).  The –vert suffix was from the Latin vertere (to turn) and was used to refer to a person with a particular personality which manifests when in the presence of others.

Otrovert is a noun; the noun plural is otroverts.  Because otrovert is a “hot word” (newly coined or an adaptation of an existing word and one which has in a short time become popular), most lexicographers are tagging it as “provisional”, the majority of “hot words and phrases” (think “six-seven”) fading from use and never gaining critical mass.  Even the idea of “popular: had (in this context) shifted because whereas once it could take months or years for a word or phrase to spread into general use, on the various platform on the internet, proliferation can be close to instant.  However, the tools used to assess “use” are rather brute-force and often are counting appearances in “lists” rather than “general use”.  For those reasons, in the technical sense, derived forms really don’t (yet) exist but if constructed the list (based on the model of other “-verts”) might include the nouns otrovertist, otroverting & otrovertness, the verb & adjective otroverted, adjectives otrovertish & otrovertesque & otrovertive and the adverbs otrovertedly & otrovertly.

Google ngram (a quantitative and not qualitative measure): Because of the way Google harvests data for their ngrams, they’re not literally a tracking of the use of a word in society but can be usefully indicative of certain trends, (although one is never quite sure which trend(s)), especially over decades.  As a record of actual aggregate use, ngrams are not wholly reliable because: (1) the sub-set of texts Google uses is slanted towards the scientific & academic and (2) the technical limitations imposed by the use of OCR (optical character recognition) when handling older texts of sometime dubious legibility (a process AI should improve).  Where numbers bounce around, this may reflect either: (1) peaks and troughs in use for some reason or (2) some quirk in the data harvested.

An ambivert is a person neither clearly extroverted nor introverted, but has characteristics of each, the construct being ambi- +‎ -vert.  Ambi- was from the Latin ambo (both) and was a doublet of the New Latin amphi-, from the Ancient Greek ἀμφί (amphí) (on both sides).  The dexter element in the Medieval Latin meant “right” and ambidexter thus was understood as “both hands being like a right hand”.  In English, the ambi- prefix is most familiar in “ambidextrous” (possessing an equal or functionally comparable ability to handle objects with both hands (in writing, music, sport etc) although it has from time to time been used figuratively (not taking sides in conflicts or being equally adept in more than one medium, genre, style etc) and even as a humorous synonym for “bisexual”.  When used in psychology, historically, ambiversion described someone with characteristics of both extroversion and introversion and thus suggested a “balanced personality”, the subject choosing to manifest the different characteristics according to what the circumstances seemed to demand.  Ambivert thus does not imply some sort of split personality or the existence of a condition like bi-polar disorder (the old manic depression) but simply reflects an individual able to undertake their social interactions in an appropriate manner.

Because the “vert words” are not really part of academic or clinical physiology, the definitions can be “elastic” and while centovert (being in the middle between introvert and extrovert) may be a synonym of ambivert, it may also be nuanced in that it suggests someone unable (or at least unwilling) to engage in introverted or extroverted behaviour, regardless of the circumstances.  A variant of the ambivert is the omnivert (someone fits into both extremes of the extroversion-introversion personality spectrum), the construct being omni + -vert.  Omni- ultimately was from the Latin omnis (all).  Again, because the “verts” are pop-psychology words there’s little to be gained from attempting to “parse the overlaps” (ie where one ends and another begins) and seems likely omniversion is simply an “enabling pre-condition” for one to possess if one is to attain the desirable “balanced state” of ambiversion.  Nobody seems yet to have coined ultravert, hypervert or ubervert but one need not spend long on social media to see the why such labels might be handy.

A self-described introvert: Lindsay Lohan explains she's an introvert; 2019 interview by broadcaster Howard Stern (b 1954).

Like other “-verts” of this ilk, otrovert was built on the model of the familiar introvert & extravert, the construct being intro + -vert.  An introvert (pronounced in-truh-vurt) is an individual who prefers (sometimes actively seeks) tranquil environments, limits social engagement and tends to a greater than average preference for solitude.  In anatomy & zoology there’s a technical meaning “a part (typically a hollow, cylindrical structure) that is or can be introverted, or turned in on itself (ie invaginate)) but the most commonly used is the psychological sense: a person characterized by concern primarily with their own thoughts and feelings.  Introverts are noted often for having a disposition that finds social engagement at least tiresome (and sometimes threatening), thus the preference for quiet solitude.  Introvert seem first to have appeared in print in the 1660s and was from the New Latin intrōvertere, the construct being intrō (within) + vertere (to turn).  The prefix intro- was from the Latin intro- (inwards) & intrā (within) + -ō (used as a verbalizer).  Although it’s not infrequent for introvert to be used as a synonym for “shy” (and in terms of observed behaviour the two phenomena can appear indistinguishable), they are definitionallly distinct.  While shyness is associated with timidity and social anxiety, introverts have a lack of interest in interpersonal engagement and a limited endurance for social contact; what that means is while the behaviours can often be the same, the underlying motivations differ.

Slaughterhouse-Five (1969) by Kurt Vonnegut.

Introvert & extrovert are popular terms of self-description but they can also be aspirational and while the classic stereotype is of the introvert who “wishes they were more outgoing” there are other types.  The US pediatrician Dr Mark Vonnegut (b 1947) wrote short stories and in one he described his father’s (the author Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007)) desire to be a cynical, grumpy old man who despaired of humanity but could never quite manage it because of his “inherent optimism”.  As Dr Vonnegut put it, he was “…like an extrovert who wanted to be an introvert, a very social guy who wanted to be a loner, a lucky person who would have preferred to be unlucky. An optimist posing as a pessimist, hoping people will take heed.”  Explaining the difference, he added: “Introverts almost never cause me trouble and are usually much better at what they do than extroverts.  Extroverts are too busy slapping one another on the back, team building, and making fun of introverts to get much done.  Extroverts are amazed and baffled by how much some introverts get done and assume that they, the extroverts, are somehow responsible.”  On the basis of his clinical experience, he observed: “I understand perfectly why some of my autistic patients scream and flap their arms--it's to frighten off extroverts.”

An extrovert (pronounced ek-struh-vurt) is described typically as an outgoing, gregarious person who thrives in dynamic environments and seeks to maximize social engagement; in the jargon of psychology, it refers to someone characterized by extroversion; a person concerned primarily with the physical and social environment, thus the usual presentation as a person with a disposition energized through social engagement who tends to languish or chafe in solitude.  The word extrovert (the alternative spelling extravert (an example of the influence of German on psychology) is now rare) also emerged in the 1660s, the construct being extro- + vert.  In this case, extro- was a pseudo-Latinism prefix based upon the Latin extra- (outside, beyond), under the influence of the distinction between the Latin intro- (inwards) & intra- (inside; within).  In English, formations using the prefix tend to be restricted to words formed as antonyms of terms formed with intro-.

Introvert & extrovert (in their literal senses) were since the late seventeenth century used in science and medicine but both in the twentieth century entered general use when certain works by the Swiss psychiatrist, Carl Jung (1875–1961) were translated from German into English.  What seems to have given the words their greatest impetus was the appearance of commentaries on Jung written for a general audience and for these purposes binary concepts like “introvert” and “extrovert” were useful devices to encapsulate layers of meaning although the trigger may have been the 1918 paper Psycho-Analytic Study of August Comte [1798-1857; a seminal figure in sociology] by psychologist Dr Phyllis Blanchard (1895-1986).  Being a woman, Dr Blanchard has been neglected by history but, like the Austrian psychiatrist Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Jung became what would now be called a “celebrity” psychoanalyst and that happened because advances in their field (and neurology) had made the public fascinated with the human mind and its processes (especially dreams).  Reflecting what may possibly be a professional distaste at their jargon ending up in pop-psychology texts, technical papers often use the spelling “extravert”, following Jung and his contemporaries.

The Gift of Not Belonging (2025) by Dr Rami Kaminski (b 1954).  Psychiatrist Dr Kaminski is the founder and director of the Institute for Integrative Psychiatry in New York City.

Dr Kaminski describes The Gift of Not Belonging as “…the first book to explore the distinct personality style of the otrovert - someone who lacks the communal impulse and does not fit in with any social group, regardless of its members - and to reveal all the advantages of being an otrovert and how otroverts contribute to the world.”  He explained that while otroverts enjoy deep and fulfilling one-on-one relationships, within groups they feel alienated, uncomfortable, and alone.  Unlike introverts, who crave solitude and are easily drained by social interactions, otroverts can be quite gregarious and rarely tire from one-on-one socialising; unlike loners, or people who have been marginalised based on their identity, otroverts are socially embraced and often popular - yet are unable to conform with what the group collectively thinks or cares about.  Dr Kaminski positions all this as “the great gifts of being an otrovert” by which he means someone with no affinity for a particular group is not constrained by their sense of self-worth being conditioned on the group's approval.  A champion of the otrovert, Dr Kaminski suggests they “must not be harassed to take part, but allowed to revel in their glorious difference.”

Despite vying with “psychopath” for the title of “most popular” words from psychology, neither introvert and extrovert have ever been used as diagnostic terms in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); that doesn’t mean they’re not used by clinicians, just that they’re not part of the formal jargon.  That might seem curious given their not infrequent appearances in the published history of personality psychology including Jung’s original typology (codified in their most refined form in the 1920s), the ubiquitous MBTI (Myers–Briggs Type Indicator) and the Big Five model, where Extraversion is one of the five major personality traits.  These frameworks are however psychological, not psychiatric.  The DSM does of course have an extensive section on personality disorders and many of the traits related to introversion & extraversion appear including in (1) Avoidant Personality Disorder (social inhibition—links superficially to introversion but is not the same thing) and Histrionic or Narcissistic Personality Disorders (social boldness—superficially “extraverted” traits).

However, what the DSM’s editors have in recent decades done is to avoid the use of potentially ambiguous labels and focus instead on behavioural criteria that may indicate impairment or pathology.  Especially since the 1970s, the DSM has acknowledged (even championed) the idea that many “things” once classified as deviant are really part of the “normal” human condition; reflecting that paradigm, introversion & extraversion came to be understood as “normal-range” personality traits, not indicators of disorder.  As a general principle, the DSM appears to restrict the use of terms to instances where they relate to clinically significant impairment (the emphasis on the effect on the patient rather than the mechanics of process).  This approach was institutionalized with the release of DSM-5 (2013) in which the model clearly had become one of trait-based personality assessment.

To make the point, there exists in DSM-5 & DSM-5-TR (2022) the “Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders, Section III” which describes personality traits that (more or less) correspond to what popular culture calls extraversion and introversion.  The editors however avoid the two popular words and instead breaks personality into trait domains with pathological versions of ordinary traits.  What general readers think of a “introversion” now appears in the DSM as “Detachment” although this is not pathologized unless it manifests in maladaptive extremes (chronic or persistent withdrawal; avoidance of social interaction; intimacy avoidance; a reluctance to form close relationships; anhedonia (inability to experience pleasure); mistrust of others; restricted affectivity (limited emotional expression)).  So, introverts can to some degree be “happy” with their state and just prefer frequent solitude and what the DSM calls “detachment” is invoked only when the trait is causing significant impairment or distress.

In the popular imagination, “extraversion” is associated with sociability, talkativeness, outgoing behaviour, enthusiasm (ie someone who is the “life of the party”).  That’s also obviously a “spectrum condition” and the DSM has never listed a single domain which could be classed as “high extraversion” which is good because high sociability isn’t intrinsically pathological.  Rather, should extraversion becomes maladaptive or extreme, the DSM classifies it across several domains:

(1) Attention-seeking (a facet of Antagonism) which manifests especially in Histrionic Personality Disorder.  Symptoms include an excessive need for approval, dramatic or provocative behaviour and an Intense desire to be the centre of attention.

(2) Grandiosity (a facet of Antagonism) which is characteristic of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, the symptoms including social boldness (masking fragile self-esteem) and entitlement and arrogance (which, in many cases, doesn’t manifest)

(3) Impulsivity & Risk Taking (a facet of disinhibition).  This is outgoing, sensation-seeking behaviour in its pathological form and is associated with thrill-seeking, poor impulse control and a tendency to act without considering the consequences

(4) Low Detachment: This is acknowledged as the “adaptive end of Detachment” but the editors seem to list it only to “close the circle”; it’s there because logically it has to be but is certainly not treated as a disorder.

So the DSM intentionally avoids the introvert/extrovert dichotomy which is how starkly it’s understood in popular use.  This “either-or” approach obviously doesn’t map onto the way the DSM treats personality traits as spectrums with only the margins (ie the dysfunctional extremes) described.  What that does is acknowledge there is introversion & extraversion which part of the “normal” human condition and not pathological.  Additionally it’s acknowledged the behavior which in one subject may indicate “significant impairment or distress” might in another not be of concern.

Ultracrepidarian

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jackson Pollock (1912-1956): Blue Poles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blue Poles, upside down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indefatigable

Indefatigable (pronounced in-di-fat-i-guh-buhl)

Incapable of being tired out; not yielding to fatigue; untiring.

1580-1590: From the French indefatigable, from the Latin indēfatīgābilis (untiring; that which cannot be wearied).  The construct was in (in the sense of "not") + defatigare (to tire out) from de- (utterly, down, away) + fatigare (to weary).  A dictionary of 1656 has an entry for defatigable which does seem to have been used in the seventeenth century before going extinct; a revival in 1948 was a jocular back-formation (a la "gruntled" or "combobulated") from indefatigable and one which never caught on.  Indefatigable is an adjective, indefatigableness & indefatigability are nouns and indefatigably is an adverb; the noun plural is indefatigabilities.  It seems indefatigable may have been a back-formations of the adverb indefatigably, the latter recorded as being in use in the mid-sixteenth century.

HMS Indefatigable, a Royal Navy battlecruiser launched in 1909 and sunk while part of Vice-Admiral Sir David Beatty's (1871-1936) battlecruiser fleet in the 1916 Battle of Jutland.  Santa Cruz Island, the most populous and second-largest island in Ecuador's Galápagos Islands is also known as Indefatigable Island, the Admiralty bestowing the name in honor of HMS Indefatigable, a ship of the line with a distinguished battle record during Napoleonic Wars and later saw service in the Royal Navy's South America squadron.

Battlecruisers were essentially battleships with less armor, therefore gaining speed at the cost of greater vulnerability.  The theory was they would have the firepower to out-gun all but the battleships and those they could out-run with their greater speed.  The concept seemed sound and in December 1914, at the Battle of the Falkland Islands, two Royal Navy battlecruisers vindicated the theory when they chased and destroyed the German East Asia Squadron.  However, in 1916, the performance of the battlecruisers in the Jutland engagement forced the Admiralty to re-consider.  Jutland was the closest thing to the great battle of the fleets which had been anticipated for decades but proved anti-climatic, both sides ultimately choosing to avoid the decisive encounter which offered the chance of victory or defeat.  What it did prove was that the naval theorists had been right; the battlecruiser could not fight the battleship and if their paths threatened to cross, the less-armored vessel should retreat and rely on greater speed to make good her escape.  There were technical deficiencies in the British ships, without which perhaps three of their battlecruisers wouldn’t have been lost, but what happened at Jutland made it clear to the admirals that uneven contests between the big capital ships were to be avoided.

For naval architects, warship design was a three-way tussle between speed, firepower and armor; to add to one was to detract from at least one of the others.  That was difficult enough when constrained only by physics and economics but after the First World War, international agreements limited the maximum tonnage of the big ships so the choice became either to compromise the design or cheat.  Some countries did the former, some the latter but all seemed to agree the battlecruiser was extinct and indeed, after Jutland, no battlecruiser was laid down for over sixty years.  The pocket-battleships of the 1930s, although similar, were a different breed.

Before the fall: Soviet nuclear-battlecruiser Kirov at anchor in the Baltic, a Krivak I-class guided-missile frigate in the background, December, 1989.  Later re-named the Admiral Ushakov, she and the Admiral Lazarev (ex-Frunze) are now in the throes of being scrapped.

It was thus a surprise when the Soviet navy announced the commissioning of five Kirov class battlecruisers, four of which were built, launched during the 1980s and 1990s.  Although the official Russian designation of the ship-type is heavy nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser (тяжёлый атомный ракетный крейсер), admiralties in the West, still nostalgic about the big ships, choose to revive the old name "battlecruisers".  They’re the largest conventional warships launched since World War II; only aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships have been of greater displacement.  Expensive to operate, only the Pyotr Velikiy (ex-Yuriy Andropov) remains in operational service and, according to recent NATO bulletins, she has been at sea as part of a fleet exercise as recently as mid-2021.  Although the Admiral Nakhimov (ex-Kalinin) is currently undergoing a refit and is now scheduled to re-enter service in 2023, the re-commissioning date has shifted many times and NATO sources remain sceptical she will ever return to the active list.

Many adjectives have been applied to Lindsay Lohan; indefatigable is probably under-used.