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.