Thoughts on "Wine is just a beverage"

[Cris_Whetstone]

I wish more people treated it like a beverage. At least here in the states. Drinking anything with alcohol in it makes a lot of people raise an eyebrow or assume there is more to it. But I wish more people saw it as something to accompany their dinner with.

It can also be the other things. The mark of celebration or an excuse to explore the terroir and all the trappings therein. Many people think it’s only about those things which I find a bit sad. You should be able to pop a bottle just to enjoy it on it’s own terms without dragging everything else along for the ride. That’s why we spend a lot for these containers of fermented fruit.

[G_D_y_e_r]

And, yeah, I do consider wine to be art. People will travel the world to see a painting from someone who died hundrerds of years ago - does that not also apply to people who spend money on (ever-decreasing) bottles of wine made by a master who may have died? I’m sure 1945 Lafite is never going to be considered a ‘commodity’, and for me personally, being one of the limited number of people who would ever be able to taste such a wine (especially in its limited prime window) is a potentially other-wordly experience. (Not that I’ve ever had a 45 Lafite, just as an example)

This is where I disagree.

I struggle in particular with the idea that something that must be destroyed to observe and appreciate can be (fine) art. That makes wine much more similar to a quantum state than art, in my opinion. Like Schrodinger’s cat, wine is in a superposition of states until the measurement of popping the cork and tasting is performed.

The closest analogy would be live performance, but still live performances can be recorded, shared and repeated by the same forces. The performers are certainly not destroyed after the performance as a consequence of the event.

A boilerplate definition of fine art is “a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic and intellectual purposes and judged for its beauty.” As wine is concerned, the visual aspect is very much secondary or tertiary, and the motivation for most wine, especially the most collectible, is primarily economic. Culinary and social purposes tend to eclipse the aesthetic and intellectual aims, which are introduced by association and not directly inferred from the wine itself.

I do think that cult wines, not simply the wine itself, but the entire package, can meet key criteria as fine art. The wine is stylized, the presentation is stylized, the OWC is stylized, and there is usually some underlying intent or message. Whether it is qualitatively good art, I’ll leave that to art critics, but certainly cult wines like Sine Qua Non encompass more of the traditional aspects of art based on intent.

Thus, by the above criteria, an exquisite cocktail or an immaculately plated meal has equal if not greater claim to being fine art.

[HenryB]

I dont think I suggested art must be destroyed to be appreciated, but in the same way that theatres are typically limited runs, so are wines.

Art doesnt have to be visual - I dont go to (most) plays for the visuals. Music is definitely art, and it’s not visual. At many fine restaurants the visuals ARE there, dont get me wrong, but I’m going for flavourful food first, visuals are secondary. If things were bland but looked good, I wouldnt have any interest in going to that restaurant.

I think fine art is a very narrow definition that does apply to primarily, e.g. painting, but its different to fine wine.

My point is just that these are quite limited runs, and the pool of people who will get to experience it is limited. Many wines are commodity or near-commodity, but thre are definitely some at the high end which are art, both in terms of the skill and mastery that crafts it, and the profound experiential impact it could deliver someone.

[TimF]

Put me firmly in the wine is art camp. But I think everything is art and I’d much rather have this conversation over a bottle of wine.

200 years ago performances had to be consumed live. Maybe there’s some technology in the future where a wine can be recorded and reproduced? People thought heavier than air flying machines would never be produced.

[RichardFlack]

I will take the ‘no’ side of the debate.

What differentiates wine from ‘just a beverage’ is that it stimulates multiple senses via aroma, flavor, texture and appearance. In terms of flavors, excellent wines can effectively span the sweet, sour, bitter, and umami spectrum well. And let’s not forget it has alcohol. So for those who are inclined/interested, wine at its best is very experiential.

Add in the history, geography, climate and vintage aspects, and there’s another layer of intellectual interest to accompany the liquid. Collecting is also somewhat of an instinctual behavior, which fine wine enables due to its aging arc.

On the other hand, it is not art, nor is it some kind of treatise on the relationship between man and nature. Nor is it the only consumable liquid that checks the boxes I mentioned above.

I’m aligned with you on this one. When a similar topic came up a while back, I wrote a version of the following, which remains my view:

Wine is not “just a beverage.” One way to look at it is that there are categories of things, or pursuits, the enjoyment of which is greatly enhanced by greater knowledge and experience. Certain topics are amenable to deep–perhaps endless–analysis, discussion, and study. There’s a reason people have been writing about Mozart for centuries and are not going to stop any time soon. There is a lot of depth of material to discuss; the more one listens to Mozart, the more one learns. There is enough material to captivate interest for more than a lifetime. There’s also a reason people don’t (and won’t) write scholarly articles about the work of Vanilla Ice, except to the extent he’s indicative of a cultural phenomenon. Mozart’s music rewards study. You may find it nice at first, but digging deeper yields greater treasures, and digging deeper still yields greater treasures still. This is how cultures develop their canons of work and why aesthetic choices aren’t totally random.

Great wine doesn’t rise to the level of great music or literature in terms of being amenable to scholarly study and analysis–but it’s not Vanilla Ice either. Really learning about wine will lead to a categorically richer experience–and it’s a mistake to think that greater wine knowledge is only snobbery and navel-gazing without any added value of deeper understanding and enjoyment.

Put very briefly, there is a reason people obsess more over wine than any other beverage, and have for a very long time. It has more depth to it and thus rewards obsession in ways that obsessing over grape juice, or vodka, does not.

Unless it’s an Aussie chard from previous decade. )

[Arjan_Stavast]

Maybe the closer analogy is that of food. In theory, we could all happily live of powdered food that contains all essential elements. Yet people go great lengths to procure nice ingredients to cook something different every day themselves, or leave this to the pros in a restaurant. Irrational maybe from a nutritional perspective, but it maybe reveals that food is about more than simply nutrition.

For me, it’s the same with wine. If I were drinking to replenish liquids, I’d just take water. If I drank it for the alcohol buzz, I’d take vodka. Those would be the rational choices, like the powdered food.

But I guess I drink wine partly to be stimulated at multiple sensory levels (different tastes, impressions, associations and even textures), partly as a way to communicate with the person I’m sharing this experience with. And I guess partly also out of intellectual stimulations as well. It just tickles an intellectual curiosity unlike any other beverage.

[Jonathan_Jetter]

I think that statement is both simultaneously true and not true, and it’s ok to hold both interpretations at once.

It’s helpful to think of it that way when, for example, the financially responsible thing to do is buy more '89 Raffault Les Picasses (which, really, is among my very favorite wines ever), and not start developing a taste for, say, Musigny. Ultimately, we’re gonna drink it, and there are diminishing returns relative to my financial status, and I’m not sure the enjoyment from a $10k bottle would materially surpass the enjoyment of a $90 bottle, and I should probably just keep funding my 401k instead.

And/or, also helpful to think of it that way so it’s not off-putting or mystifying to my friends who don’t much care about the details. I want to put my enthusiasm for my hobby sufficiently on hold to where I can still drink $15 rose with my friends in the summer and we all have a good time.

But then, it’s also helpful to think of it not as just a beverage: There are definitely certain moments where drinking certain wines was a transcendent experience, heightened further by sharing with friends and family. The first time I tried aged Coulee de Serrant- I had no idea someone could make Chenin Blanc taste like that.

I work in an artistic field (music production), I work with musicians day in and day out, and I absolutely believe that wine can be artistic expression too. Much like recorded music, wine exists along a spectrum from art to commerce, with each winemaker aiming for a certain proportion of each. Some Bordeaux is produced in large amounts, and I still love it, just as I love certain Top 40 records. Other wines, of course, are in much smaller production, and I love them too, the same way I love some very unknown independent music. And, also, as with music, I am gradually able to learn more, refine my taste, and get very specific about what I like and don’t like.

[Greg_K]

Like anything subject to the vagaries of personal taste, wine is what you make of it. If, to you, it’s just a beverage to get you drunk or to make social circumstances more lubricated (or to impress someone with an expensive bottle) then sure, it’s just a beverage. If you’ve imbued wine with more significance - whether because of your appreciation of its history, your ability to taste the same vineyard over 30 years, your fascination with techniques or various other reasons, then certainly it means much more to you than that. And both views are equally valid.

I think people struggle with granting wine added significance because it’s by it’s nature ephemeral, whereas other similar pursuits (like art, which it has been compared to in this thread), are usually not. So it feels wasteful. But if viewing the Sistine Chapel cost as much as a bottle of Mugnier Musigny, would it be worth it?

[HenryB]

if viewing the Sistine chapel cost as much as a nice bottle of wine, I’d do the Sistine chapel one, but I’d probably buy the nice bottle of wine a few times…

[David_Glasser]

Spending $3000 on a bottle of Petrus is never going to happen in our household either. But spending $50 or $100 on a classed growth Bordeaux is not that uncommon, and puts those wines solidly beyond the realm of “just a beverage.” The same can be said for a $100 bottle of Scotch.

To me, “just a beverage” defines a thirst-quenching drink that may be pleasant or even excellent but does not demand or provoke a deeper appreciation of its nuances, complexities, and/or interactions with food. Some wines are just a beverage, but you won’t see me spending $50 a bottle or wasting the opportunity for a more intense experience on them.

Where you draw the line, dollar-wise, will vary depending upon one’s disposable income and level of passion.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

“Wine is just a beverage” is a great saying for keeping things grounded.

[GregT]

It is just a beverage.

And all of the attention people pay to wine can and should be paid to whatever they eat. Many people will eat fast food, Lay’s potato chips, Oreos, etc., and will drink diet sodas and other weird concoctions. All has to be consumed without really tasting and without appreciating what you’re eating and drinking. And then people will stop everything for a glass of wine.

That is why wine people are ridiculed. If they REALLY cared all that much about what they’re putting inside themselves, they wouldn’t isolate one single thing. All of the sensory inputs are there when you put something in your mouth, and if you’re sharing with friends and family, even better. You catch a fish and grill it. Delicious? Sure. I picked an orange earlier today and ate it. Delicious? Of course.

Just like wine. We drink it every night. And we enjoy it. But it’s no more or less important than anything else we’re eating or drinking.

[Rauno_E_NZ]

“Thing A is just a [insert reductionist description]”

This is useful at a personal level - as you already highlighted, to keep ourselves grounded, to be able to see the lighter side of things, to make us think about whether we’re doing enough to address child poverty. But I doubt there will be many on the Board for whom it actually holds because, well, we’re here because we’ve decided it’s far more important to us that coffee or Badoit. Anything can be similarly reduced no matter what the sphere of hobby, or art, or endeavour. Diamonds are just compressed Carbon. Gold is just an unreactive metal, which happens to have some good uses. Beethoven is really just a bunch of noises, sometimes one after another, sometimes together.

[Chris_Foley]

It’s my favorite beverage.

[Marc_Hauser]

It all depends on what you want it to be. You can say that for just about any hobby/interest, no? Nothing wrong with that.

Reminds me of an old Letterman joke. Carpet is neither a car nor a pet.

[Vince_T]

and
Put me firmly in the wine is art camp. But I think everything is art and I’d much rather have this conversation over a bottle of wine.

200 years ago performances had to be consumed live. Maybe there’s some technology in the future where a wine can be recorded and reproduced? People thought heavier than air flying machines would never be produced.

This. To me, the best analogy of wine is classical music.

• For many people, it’s worse than other music, it’s a form to actively dislike.
• Then there’s those who consume it passively, when it’s around, but would never seek it out.
• Then there’s those who enjoy it often (e.g. as background music or while studying or working), but don’t invest energy into understanding it.
• Then there’s those who actively think about it, and can generally discern between good and bad, and maybe Bach from Brahms, but not Schumann from Brahms. Likewise, you might know Bordeaux from Burgundy, but not have a good sense of new vs. used oak, and stem inclusion means nothing to you.
• Then there’s those who invest real time and energy into understanding the mechanisms behind a good or bad performance - the attack, the phrasing, the harmonization, the energy, the interplay between the voices. You can articulate the difference between a modern and a classic take on St Emilion. In a flight of '03, '13 and '16 Bordeaux, you can probably call which is which.
• Then… there’s the equivalent of Berserkers. You argue ceaselessly online about which of Mozart’s piano concertos is the pinnacle of the form (or take the stance that they’re objectively different and so no pinnacle; or you take the stance that Mozart is lame and it’s all about the Russians Rachmaninov and Prokofiev), and your stance on Mitsuko Uchida vs. Alfred Brendel as the best version of Schubert devolves into grouchy ad hominem attacks.
• Last, but not least, there’s the performers, who actually make the music and interpret the materials they’re given. Some years, performances are better than others, and some musicians are naturally more gifted than others. Generally, they have a mutual respect for one another, but they may also have bitchy disagreement about stylistic interpretation, or harbor either true appreciate or secret disdain for other winemakers who get more attention than them. But you pretty much all get exasperated at all the armchair experts (ie. your customers) who consume your product and make comments critical about your product.