No criticism here, just observation.
I see much on these boards when ‘users’ of wine love discussing the science of it. Brix this, acidify that, yadda yadda and while I sometimes find interest in these postings I have come to realize that as one of those users, I prefer to discuss wine as an art instead (btw, I have never believed it to be a collectible either, more consumable).
I liken it to going to the museum and seeing that Chirico, Pissarro or Picasso up close and I don’t dwell on its science, oil smoil, I would rather stand further and say what a beautiful piece it is. Admired from afar I guess. That’s exactly how I love wine, (just closer ); I open it, smell it and amaze in it and never do I ask it’s brix. Ever.
Another part of me thinks that the science behind such things can actually eat away at the art of it. Think Ansel Adams and when his best work was done, earlier in his career. I think once he became embroiled in the science of photography his work suffered a bit, but that’s just me.
Maybe you appreciate the science or maybe like me, the art. Maybe you can appreciate both. That’s cool.
Understanding the science of wine is as important as the understanding of biology in sex, which is to say not at all. I feel the same about food, going against the current trend to want to be informed about all the minutia of both ingredients and techniques. With all three, while reflection can add to the visceral experience, analysis is more likely to be a distraction to full pleasure.
I guess what I failed to compartmentalize that, yes that combined knowledge is all too important, and I think on the novice level we tend to gather more of it just by the company we keep, but my point was on a bottle by bottle approach. Do I really need to know the specifics of each to enjoy it?
I think both elements are complementary. On the production side they need to be in balance (like a good wine!). Ignoring the science (using the term broadly) can lead to dire results. Ignoring the art cal lead to ugly or soulless wines.
On the consumer side we each have our own bias: interest in the science / stats vs enjoyment of the wine as a thing in itself. We do not need to be so balanced, and can happily enjoy wine ignorant of science.
One thing that bedevils the scientific aspect is that ultimately wine is consumed by people. And peoples’ tastes are highly subjective and varied. The discussion on decanting illustrates that in spades.
If you want to appreciate wine, art or food, you probably don’t have to know anything about its science. If you want to produce it, you will have to know at least something about it. And of course, people with expertise will naturally feel comfortable applying that expertise to things they are enthusiastic about. Thus chemists will have ways to speculate about say the way wine ages then the rest of us do and we should be thankful for that.
Jonathan makes a good point. Think about all the artists whose works are falling apart.
Of course, what galls me is incomplete understanding of the science. Something I hear from wet behind the ears somms is, I don’t like malo-lactic in my chardonnays…that’s why I drink white Burgundies. And don’t get me started about terroir.
Mike, I can appreciate what you’re saying. But you sound just like Ray Walker. Having more understanding of how wine is made, what it’s flaws are, how to recognize those, how treating wine in various ways affects (or doesn’t affect) it, is a good thing - as long as one can enjoy wine for what it is when the time comes.
I don’t get the distinction between art and science. It’s like the distinction between ham and refrigeration.
Science is an approach; it’s an attempt to learn and to know. We have developed protocols and experimental procedures, but fundamentally the purpose is to learn and to know. When I was a child I watched cartoons on TV. I thought if there was some way I could get into the TV, I could play with Bugs Bunny and all the other characters that were living in there. Eventually I learned that they weren’t really living inside the TV. It doesn’t mean I liked them less - in fact I still like those old cartoons. How I appreciate them may differ from the way I appreciated them as a child.
Same with wine. Every time you drink a wine and reflect on it, you add to the database inside your head. You can distinguish between Merlot and Freisa because you’ve had them and have acquired some knowledge to draw on. What you’ve learned and what you know informs what you experience today and where you fit today’s experience into the overall history of your experiences. It adds to your knowledge. Maybe it’s not disciplined and maybe it’s not done with an eye to replication and to understanding a specific phenomenon, but it’s still learning and ultimately, that’s what science is about.
Oils stick to canvas. I am not sure of the polymer that is in play or the chemistry needed to make it so, yet I can get lost in the finished product which is THE art.
Not following your thought process here but after 13 years of knowing you why would I even expect to start now. Hope you are well.
I’m not sure knowing the science is essential to knowing why you like something. It may help in some cases, but not in others. It’s not a matter of science if, say, one abhors / loves malo in chard (as cited above). Knowing the details of the fermentation process, chemicals etc doesn’t really affect the simple liking or disliking of the taste.
Maybe there’s a little confusion of terminology … being able to identify and name the taste from malo is not science it’s just being organised (tasting versus drinking) - it’s obviously helpful in finding further wines one likes.
![[swoon.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f425e8dac3e7344bee264da02e55428971be23a9.gif "swoon"){kind=small}
); I open it, smell it and amaze in it and never do I ask it’s brix. Ever.
![[winner.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/07ec25c9fd71159fe15d7f1ba5fad64e91238d0e.gif "winner"){kind=small}
