Artistic and Inartistic Proofs

   In Dan Neils review of the 2012 BMW M1 there were several examples of both artistic and inartistic proofs, both of which I felt strongly added to his description of the car.  Neil uses artistic when he describes he describes the car as "...quick, playful, aggressive and laugh out loud fun to drive."  We have reason to believe that this description is derived from personal experience as later in the article he describes a day with the M1 at the Leguna Seca race track with the car.  Neil uses an inartistic proof when he quotes the engine of the vehicle as being a "Twin-turbo 3.0-liter in-line six cylinder with variable valve timing."  He likely derived this knowledge from factory literature.  Because this is a hard fact obtained through outside information it is an inartistic proof.  Both the artistic and inartistic proofs add to his description of the vehicle.  Neil's article lacks much information about seating and cabin noise.  These aspects would be necessary in a description of a car that one would be taking long drives in, though this car is specifically designed for those who value performance and the sheer feel of the car when driven hard, which Neil's article centers around.  The use of artistic proofs is significantly more prevalent than his use of inartistic proofs.  This is because much of what the M1 was designed around was what you could feel rather than what you can measure.  The M1 was designed to immulate the feel of the early E36 M3 in terms of handling, and is a car designed for those who appreciate the E36 or the aspects that the E36 is so praised for.  These aspects are highly subjective and are why Neil uses so much subjective and descriptive language rather than fact.

Bryan Powell - Artistic and Inartistic Proofs

Artistic vs. Inartistic Proofs

Littered throughout the review posted by Dan Neil are bright, shining examples of inartistic proof. He spends a significant amount of time discussing a car that he drover over 15 years ago.  I don't know if he had a specific word count he was trying to achieve, but I felt that his review missed the mark. Neil tried several times to compare the two cars both based on specifications as well as his personal feelings towards the two. He discussed how much heavier the 1M Coupe is than the 1996 M3. While this could be taken at it's inartistic, literal "this car weighs 400 pounds more" point, I feel that this was the basis for much of his artistic proof as well. Neil discussed the way the 1M handles and accelerates through turns. He talked about the way the car felt as if it were a "buttaface, one of the ugliest, most disturbingly wrong car designs..." as well as "Serene and smooth at low speeds...". This kind of language can be seen throughout the column, but offers little substance or value to someone in the market to purchase a car.

While this sort of language is viewed by some as necessary and valuable, I personally do not care for it. I prefer to see facts. Aesthetics do appeal to me, but rarely has the words of others sold the argument to me in the case of intangible details. After reviewing the article the inartistic proofs, such as the specifications like horsepower and fuel economy, are lightly peppered in and do not contribute (nor detract) from the overall impression of the vehicle. Maybe I am too practical, or maybe I do not care what a professional (and payed) critic thinks about the intangible details of a product; they're wide and colorful use of language is not going to sell the product to me based on the lofty, highbrow-ed rhetoric of their review.

Monique StCyr blog entry-1

2. "Unfortunately, most of what the up-and-coming generation knows is pertinent to technology, whereas the older generations (older than mine) were well versed in a plethora of knowledge. I'm jealous."

         I agree and disagree with this statement. I agree with it because the older generation does have more knowledge about overall life than the younger generation. Like the saying “the older you get, the wiser you become”. They have been through more changes in technology than we have. However, the younger generation has more knowledge on the new changes in technology. I feel as though technology is changing rapidly and the older generation believes in the old ways to get things done so they are not open to change in the technology. The younger generation love change. We love learning how to make technology newer and better. For example, when you give a teenager an IPhone, they can figure out anything you need. However, if you give an IPhone to someone from the older generation, they will have no idea what to do with it. They have no knowledge on how to work the device. The younger generation has the knowledge that’s more important in modern society. Even though the older generation does not have as much knowledge as us in modern technology, they have more knowledge about the past. They have lived through the most important moments in American history. The younger generation has only the books and the websites to tell them about past events. The older generation can give us real facts, and help us have more knowledge about certain events.

Sam Boatright- Blogg entry 1

1. "Given the proclivity of the younger generations to text rather than talk to one another, I am waiting for the app that lets you say something truly radical with your iPhone, iPad (or other device)..use the app to talk to somebody. Whoever invents this one will make a bazillion dollars."

  What does it mean to be an app that allows you to say something truly radical?  An app would imply that everyone has access to it, and for something to be truly radical it must be unique and different than what everyone else is saying, given this, it would seem that this app would just be a social forum with a bunch of people talking passionately about different social subjects.  For something to be radical it also must have an impact on others.  The most effective way of accomplishing this would be for the app to contact world leaders, like presidents and equivalent government officials of other countries, because they are the individuals who have the ability to make the greatest impact on the social issues that we would be addressing.  Perhaps the world leaders would have to address each of the issues brought up in discussion by the app.  Which would be totally impractical.  Perhaps the app would be set up like the modern University social app, Yik Yak, where everyone would have the option to post on the app and you could vote on which statements you liked.  At the end of the day the political official to whom the statement was addressed would have to respond to the statement.  The response then perhaps would be voted on (whether it was acceptable or unacceptable).  In this day and age where social media and electronics have enveloped our lives, I feel an app like this would raise awareness of political issues, encourage a large percentage of the population to be more involved in the direction of the world and bypass a lot of the hoops that an individual would have to go through to have their voice herd.

Hi, writers!

And thank you for inviting me to your blog, where I hope you'll be very comfortable "thinking through" this course together. 

Tiffani Gentry - Blog Entry 1

2. "Unfortunately, most of what the up-and-coming generation knows is pertinent to technology, whereas the older generations (older than mine) were well versed in a plethora of knowledge. I'm jealous."

     
      I'm very divided about this argument; on one side I want to agree with this but on the other I want to disagree. For many years I've believed that the older generation has been, or is, more knowledgeable than the younger generation, but thinking into this a bit more I slightly disagree. Our education system is changing, more history and facts are being added into our textbooks, we are spending more time dedicating ourselves to school, the curriculum is more difficult, and I quite believe the younger generation is more knowledgeable than the older one now. I also believe that technology is a huge benefactor to this "plethora of knowledge" that we, the younger generation, have now. We can learn new things every day from social media sites, education sites, and others with just a click of the finger, and I can personally say that it's true because I learn so many new things everyday through the internet (though you must sometimes dig to see if they're factual or not).

-Reply-Sam Boatright
      I agree with you.  Yes as the world ages we are discovering more and more about it and about the people on it.  Because of this the accuracy of the knowledge has increased.  Because of technology our access to the knowledge has increased as well, though a problem with this increase in ease of access to the technology is that because of this people are beginning to forget the reason why we learn things in the first place.  If the knowledge is right at our fingertips why bother to take the time to learn it at all?  The reason is control.  When you rely on whats put on the internet for your information your mind is at the mercy of who ever is putting the information there to begin with.  If misinformation is put up you will not know the difference until it is too late.  World, take control of your mind and educate yourself.

Bryan Powell - Blog 1 Entry

1. "Given the proclivity of the younger generations to text rather than talk to one another, I am waiting for the app that lets you say something truly radical with your iPhone, iPad (or other device)..use the app to talk to somebody. Whoever invents this one will make a bazillion dollars."

     It would be easy for a lot of people to write this off, and assume that communication and social media have already hit their peak. Originally, I wanted to disagree with the point this statement makes. After further thought though, there really is a payday on the horizon for the next Xanga, Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Voxxer, Pinterest, Tumblr, Tinder, OKCupid, etc. I list all of these different sites and mediums to highlight that new products are constantly being released, despite the feeling that communication platforms have achieved their maximum potential -- that there is literally no more innovation to introduce to this field. This thought however begs the realization that all great innovations came in a field that was already assumed to be tired and beaten to death. Wearable technology is on the rise, and there are already gadgets with direct interfaces to the human brain. Wearable technology and nano-machines are the future of the technology industry. Maybe we have not reached the peak of communications platforms; perhaps "a bazillion dollar"-invention is already in the prototype phase. The next "radical"mode of communication could possibly allow us to communicate thoughts directly from our minds to the minds of others with no environmental stimulus -- no pictures, no words, no sounds, simply transmitting thoughts and ideas by literally thinking about it. It has been said before, and it will be said again: It is a brave new world.