Mike, how about some of both and a whole lot more. When faced with this inquiry, I like to think about (1) the history of wine, and (2) how I’d respond to this question in other situations involving consumables.
First, wine making and the product we actually consume have come a long way from heavy chaptalization, ultra high acidity, and piss poor wine that would undoubtedly become oxidized before most was consumed. So is what we consume today all about science? In large part, yes. Grapes are an agricultural commodity. They are farmed. Over the past two hundred years, and especially during the past 70 years, we’ve made great advancements in genetics, farming practices, climate effect mitigation, managing ripeness, managing sun exposure, managing sugar and acid concentrations, and managing yields to ensure the highest possible quality from vineyard to winery. Much of that is directed by winemakers, but also vineyard managers and farmers, and backed largely by science (and anecdotal evidence).
Once the grapes come from vineyard to winery, the winemaker typically takes over and manipulates the raw materials into a final product based on a series of decisions. Is that part of the artistry? Sure. It’s the crafting of annual recipes, blends, acid management, etc. All of those decisions result in something that often carries the winemaker’s signature. Or at least we like to think it does. Can a winemaker save a bad vintage? At times, yes. Is that artistry or science, or some combination of science-driven artistry? Probably the latter. Science is undoubtedly party of the process. Artistry, of some sort, probably is too. Much like Clayton Kershaw shows artistry during the regular season in baseball, using his preparation, knowledge, and prowess to routinely craft games head and shoulders above his peers. Is that really art, though? And that question leads me to my second response.
Is wine making art? Is craft beer making art? How about the skill it requires to make every budweiser taste exactly the same. A number of cicerones have told me that the best brewers in the world work for Anheiser Busch. They’ve got to take somewhat different materials every year and impart on those materials their brewery’s exact, world famous signature. Do we consider those folks artists? Is their job much harder, perhaps, than Villaine’s? They have inferior materials and are forced to produce a mass-acclaimed beer. Who is really the artist? Can a baseball player, a dancer, a painter be an artist? Presumably, art is about the implementation of interpretation. Presumably, then, a winemaker can be an artist by deciding, wine should taste like this from here, and making that happen. So I’d say that art is part of it, though perhaps the artist would be incapable of implementing his or her interpretation without science first providing the necessary materials and know-how.
In the end, however, I think that wine is a consumable for which we should have some appreciation solely due to the fact that (1) it is hard to make right, (2) we drink elite wines, (3) and it takes years for a wine to come to fruition during which time any number of things could go wrong. As a result, each great bottle is a luxury. Is it to be coveted? I don’t think so. It’s a conduit to great times. Go have your mass tasting, or go spend 4 hours alone in a corner with your prize possession. But enjoy it, or the stories that go with it, or the people that go with it, or the sensations that go with it. Because once it’s gone, it’s gone, and we’re off to the next bottle of science-based artistic interpretation of a simple agricultural commodity.
![[winner.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/07ec25c9fd71159fe15d7f1ba5fad64e91238d0e.gif "winner"){kind=small}
But thanks ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}