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.