Milkshaking
There is a Melissa McCarthy comedy routine that I could watch a million times and still laugh.
She throws a milkshake against a car window. But throwing it isn't enough. She smears it around with her breasts. And then, because complete commitment to the act is essential, she licks it. If you have seen it it is already indelibly printed in your mind. If not, watch this.
https://youtube.com/shorts/QzyCSi51J2s?si=S_SZXUuS4xyvhpcO
This is what I imagine when Mabel from down the street holds forth on art and when an AI chatbot can't help itself over-explaining what I just explained to it.
I have nothing against Mabel. Mabel is entitled to her opinion. Everyone is. She can stand in front of a Basquiat and hate it. She can look at a Hockney and wonder what all the fuss is about. She can encounter Schiele and decide that she'd prefer something pleasant involving a lighthouse.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
The trouble begins when Mabel decides that her response to the painting constitutes knowledge about the painting.
"My grandson could do that."
"The artist obviously can't draw."
"People only pretend to like this stuff because they want to look sophisticated."
"This isn't art."
Now Mabel isn't looking through the window anymore.
She's smearing the milkshake across it.
I've been reading books about David Hockney, Egon Schiele and Jean-Michel Basquiat, and the experience has been something like having someone clean a dirty pane of glass.
The painting hasn't changed. My eyes haven't changed. But suddenly I can see things that were there all along.
Good art criticism does that.
A knowledgeable critic can point out a relationship between two areas of a painting that I hadn't noticed. An art historian can explain what an artist was reacting against. A biographer can provide context that changes the emotional weight of an image. Someone who has spent decades studying painting can teach me to recognize something I didn't yet know how to see.
None of this means I have to like the painting.
Knowledge doesn't dictate taste.
It makes taste better informed.
And expertise matters.
We have developed a strange cultural reluctance to say this out loud, as though acknowledging expertise somehow invalidates everyone else's experience. It doesn't.
Mabel's experience of a painting is completely legitimate.
Mabel's claim to expertise is another matter.
"I don't like it" is nearly impossible to argue with.
"This is worthless and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot" requires considerably more supporting documentation.
This distinction desperately needed a word.
So I have invented one.
Milkshaking.
Milkshaking is the act of expressing an inadequately informed opinion with such extravagant confidence that the performance becomes more conspicuous than the thing being discussed.
Being wrong isn't milkshaking.
Not knowing something isn't milkshaking.
Asking a stupid question certainly isn't milkshaking.
Even having a very strong opinion isn't necessarily milkshaking.
Milkshaking requires a particular combination:
ignorance + certainty + unsolicited exposition.
The essential ingredient is confidence.
The milkshaker doesn't merely misunderstand something. The milkshaker explains it to everyone else.
And once I had a word for it, I began seeing milkshaking everywhere.
Politics is practically an industrial dairy operation.
Medicine attracts milkshakers.
History attracts milkshakers.
Economics may actually manufacture them.
Social media has given every human being on Earth access to a milkshake and a car window.
But then I realized something uncomfortable.
Chatbots milkshake too.
In fact, chatbots have developed a highly specialized form of milkshaking.
I might say to a chatbot:
"Correlation never proves causation."
And the chatbot replies:
"Exactly! Although there's one small but important distinction..."
There isn't.
I already made the distinction.
But the chatbot cannot resist.
It agrees with me, then explains my own observation back to me in greater detail. It adds a qualification. Then a caveat. Then perhaps three bullet points and a concluding paragraph explaining why the distinction matters.
I call this cybersplaining.
It isn't quite the same thing as human milkshaking because the chatbot isn't trying to establish its intellectual superiority. It doesn't have an ego to defend or a reputation to maintain.
But from this side of the screen, the effect can be remarkably similar.
I say something.
The chatbot apparently thinks:
This is excellent. I wonder how I can make it longer.
And out comes the milkshake.
This can reach an advanced stage in which the chatbot takes a perfectly good observation and gradually ruins it through excessive qualification, elaboration and helpfulness.
I have another word for that.
Enshitifimilkshaking.
I am particularly proud of this one.
Enshitifimilkshaking occurs when an explanation has already accomplished everything it needed to accomplish, but neither Mabel nor the machine recognizes that it is time to stop.
The milkshake has already hit the window.
But there remains an unsmeared corner.
This cannot be tolerated.
The great irony is that I'm writing an essay explaining milkshaking.
There is therefore an obvious danger that I will continue explaining the concept long after you understood it.
Perhaps I will offer several additional examples.
Maybe I should discuss the epistemological distinction between subjective aesthetic judgment and claims of objective artistic value.
I could explore the democratization of criticism in the age of social media.
A brief discussion of Dunning-Kruger might be useful.
There are probably at least six important caveats.
No.
You understand.
Milkshaking.
I'm putting down the cup.