But Is It Art?

Recently, journalism — perhaps even cultural — history was made when Dan Neil, a writer who joined the Los Angeles Times only last year, won the top Pulitzer Prize for newspaper critics after the paper reportedly submitted about ten of his finest pieces. But as soon as Neil’s win was announced, it immediately sparked a flurry of debate. That’s because Neil is an automotive writer, and his car reviews — particularly from his weekly column "Rumble Seat" — were apparently deemed by some in the intellectually highbrow crowd as an insult to the Pulitzer Prize, if not criticism writing in general.

To put that fact in a local context, let’s assume the Manila Critic’s Circle, for instance (or any critic’s award-giving body for that matter), lumps all criticism writing in just one category instead of the usual separate awards for essay, scriptwriting, etc. Now imagine a car review winning over all those other pieces.

Not surprisingly then, Neil’s award earned the ire of a number of critics who discern the good from the bad, the mediocre from the sublime, in such lofty areas like theater, books, film and other fine arts — ranks where previous Pulitzer winners traditionally came from. The first Pulitzer for criticism was handed out in 1970 and went to Ada Louise Huxtable of the New York Times for her writings on architecture, and until Neil, the only other Pulitzer criticism winner whose writings weren’t exactly about the arts was David Shaw, a media critic of the Los Angeles Times.

Little wonder Neil’s Pulitzer win is decried by some as the end of culture. And ironically, it may be Neil himself who can drive that point home better: He was once fired from a newspaper job for a column about sexual activities in the back of a Ford Expedition.

In a recent New York Times article written by David Carr (no pun presumably intended), some lines from Neil’s works were cited, which included calling the 2004 Acura TL sedan as "Botox for the brain box" and referring to a Bentley that "eats Porsches like Emeril eats shrimp."

Reviewing the Cadillac CTS-V sedan in his column, Neil said the car possesses "lunging acceleration that will stuff you into the leather seats like Tony Soprano stuffs bodies in trunks". He also wrote that "In steady-state cornering it has more grip than a tree frog".

Moreover, in the aforementioned NYT article, Neil had made some statements that seem to make his detractor’s arguments against him only stronger. "I see myself primarily as an entertainer," Neil was quoted as saying. "You can’t tell anybody anything unless you get them to read. People have noted my rhetorical excesses, and I just see it as a way to keep people involved long enough to tell them what I want to tell them."

An "entertainer"?

John Simon, a theater critic of the New York Times, is one of those who have openly, well, criticized Neil’s works. "It is not criticism. Cars are utilitarian things. You might as well be a critic of kitchen utensils," Simon derided Neil in the same article.

Neil, however, is quick to defend himself. "Criticism is about expectations and the fulfillment of expectation. I write about what kind of expectations are created and whether something meets those expectations. That’s the job of the critic," he said.

Surprisingly though, Neil reportedly found some allies who are critics themselves, and even those who have long fought for their particular discipline to be taken seriously. Robert Christgau, one of the first rock music journalists who lobbied for the legitimacy of their craft, said "criticism is about cultural objects or phenomena, and I think cars qualify on both counts. There is a lot of great writing about architecture, and how different, really, are cars from buildings?"

For their part, members of the Pulitzer jury like Donald H. Forst, who is editor-in-chief of The Village Voice, obviously regards Neil’s work as exemplary. He said Neil "made very good points about the cars, and the culture as well".

"Once his stuff is put in front of you, you couldn’t help but laugh," Forst said, apparently amused.

Some, though, prefer to concentrate the argument on just what exactly criticism is. Adam Gopnik, a writer from The New Yorker, a publication renowned for its criticism articles, asserted that a critic’s mastery over a certain subject is more important that the subject itself.

"If someone who is writing about cars embodies all the good values of good criticism, then it doesn’t matter what category it falls into. We often find literary value in the strangest places, which is what makes reading interesting and exciting to begin with," Gopnik was quoted in the NYT article.

Clearly, what remains debatable are whether Neil deserves the Pulitzer and if automotive reviews should qualify as criticism. Or if rubber-and-steel-and-plastic contraptions should be included in cultural discussions.