Wine's naturalistic fallacy

[William_Kelley]

Especially “youthful patina” sounded very contradictory to my ears. Do the French really use the term this way?

You are right that “patine” often comes from the effect of time. But not necessarily. A good example comes from a shoemaker that will stress or otherwise treat a pair of leather shoes to give it a given patina. It could be debated that giving something patina is to replicate what would be the effects of time but that is not always the case. The Larousse defines it as both:
Patine: “Transformation de la surface d’un objet, d’une sculpture, se produisant avec le temps ou sous l’effet de certains traitements de surface.”

In that context it makes some sense. However, even in that definition I’m understanding it that the transformation in question means something that appears aged, not just any transformation. Even in French Wikipedia article (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patine_(aspect)) all the definitions on artificial patina seemed to describe processes in which make a new object appear aged and/or weathered.

In French, it is used in the sense of characteristics acquired during élevage, rather than bottle age. And remember, élevage is the process of bringing wine to a sort of “maturity” - let’s say, since the French use the same word for raising children, getting the wine as far as graduation. As I point out in the essay, it’s not a conventional usage, but I like what it captures: something imparted but also acquired, if you like, and something both literally superficial (in the case of a painting or piece of silverware) but also very important to shaping how the object is perceived and imparting personality.

[Michael_H2]

William, thanks for the link to the essay. Very well said.

I know your essay and this discussion has focused mainly on the decisions made in the cellar, but I’m reminded of the posts you had this past fall of the stark differences in viticulture between different producers within the same vineyard. It seemed that they point you were trying to make with those pictures was similar to what you are making here - that it can’t just be terroir that is responsible for the differences if the clusters look that different between different producers within the same vineyard in Burgundy.

So I guess my question is, when we talk about terroir and the transparency of the winemaker, is it not important to include the choices they make in the vineyard in the discussion?

As an aside, I’ve always had difficulty with the term “transparent”. I think it is far too dependent on frame of reference to mean a whole lot, although I do admit I generally love the wines that people consider to be “transparent”. I don’t doubt that winemakers aspire to make wines that reflect the terroir the best as possible, but to me it seems like the term “transparent” is more a reactionary term to describe what it is not rather than what it is.

[William_Kelley]

I don’t trick or deceive others.

Implying that “naturalistic” process is a more subtle version of artifice, can only be argued regarding the marketing of wine.

As opposed to the making of wine.

Every winemaker at the beginning of vintage, is like a downhill skier atop the hill. You’re going down the hill one way or the other. What route you take is a combination of choice, logistics, training, gear, and conditions. But whatever that route is, the run is in the bottle. If you go down without skis or poles…that’s still your run, and some people may love that version. And some may go down on a snowmobile. Some are people are impressed by that.

The artifice is in the talking about what a great skier you are after the run is over.

But the run is in the bottle, and the bottle will tell you what the mountain was like just as much as it will show exactly what type of skier someone is as well.

All the rest of it is talk.

That said, if you hang to 30 Brix, cold soak for 15 days, water back 15%, add a bunch of enzymes, hammer through ferment with a high tolerance commercial yeast, slap 50 gallons of Mega-purple into the back end of ferment, then hit barrique for 7-14 months, fine with egg whites, gelatin, and casein, then add a custom blend of finishing tannins, RO the alcohol down to 14.0%, and drop in a coconut before bottling…then it’s likely that any story you tell about your run will be marketing horse manuer. And the terroir of your wine will definitely be about the winemaker…

I think you might not be reading the words “artifice” and “deception” in the sense that I intended them. I used “artifice” in the sense that everything not occurring in nature is “artificial”, the product of art/agency; and “deception” in the sense that, for example, a perspective drawing creates the deceptive perception of depth on a flat page. There was no pejorative implication.

One of the stimuli to write this essay was a discussion with a winemaker who’s my age and whom I admire a lot. He told me that he wanted his wines to taste “raw” (“cru”) and totally unprocessed in the way that sushi is “raw” (he used this as his rationale for doing very short macerations for his red wines). Yet the analogy struck me as only superficially compelling, because in reality, sushi is about much more than the best products presented with the least artifice: the fish is raw, yes, but the best Japanese sushi chefs dry age the fish, and technique from the cooking and (intense, if you taste it before preparation) seasoning of the rice, cutting the fish, and so on, is actually hugely artful and deliberate. The best sushi gives the illusion of being artless, precisely because it’s so incredibly finessed at every stage.

I very much like you skiing analogy, however, as it concedes more ground to the site, something that I don’t think I adequately integrated into the essay. But, I will have another attempt in part two. A friend got at something similar recently with a sailing analogy - wind and currents, but also a destination and intention - which I thought worked well.

[William_Kelley]

William, thanks for the link to the essay. Very well said.

I know your essay and this discussion has focused mainly on the decisions made in the cellar, but I’m reminded of the posts you had this past fall of the stark differences in viticulture between different producers within the same vineyard. It seemed that they point you were trying to make with those pictures was similar to what you are making here - that it can’t just be terroir that is responsible for the differences if the clusters look that different between different producers within the same vineyard in Burgundy.

So I guess my question is, when we talk about terroir and the transparency of the winemaker, is it not important to include the choices they make in the vineyard in the discussion?

In short, absolutely, and that will be in part two - along with some illustrations.

Thanks for the kind words!

[m_ristev]

There are lots of examples of producers who make wines from multiple sources (or terroirs, if you prefer). In some cases, tasting through those wines you can perceive noticeable differences across the wines, and in some cases you first notice the winemaking stamp, then the source differences at almost a more background level.

I think—and this was really the argument of the piece—that this is a false choice. We notice some winemaking “artifacts” because we have been trained to recognize them, and we ignore others that have become (to repurpose your formulation) part of the “background”. But this is all about context. Most of Chablis is vinified in stainless steel; most Meursault is vinified in oak barrels. Meursault vinified in stainless steel would taste very, very different, and by contrast Meursault vinified in wood would reveal a strong “winemaking stamp”. To prove the point in the other direction, Chablis vinified in wood often tastes totally disorienting (even Raveneau and Dauvissat, remember, ferment in steel before they age in mostly used wood).

So, to my mind, it is really a fruitless task to start trying to parse where the terroir ends and the winemaking begins. It’s more interesting to talk about how compelling a producer’s chosen aesthetic is—with, certainly, a strong case to be made for understatement, elegance etc by all means. Is this mere semantics, you might ask? And I would reply that, no, I see producers making less characterful, personal wines because they are so anxious to efface any kind of winemaking “signature”. Herwig has given one example above, for his palate, and I can think of others. This is a very personal thing, which is why I permitted myself to use to first person in my essay, but I am happy to learn about the winemaker as well as the vineyard when I drink a bottle of wine, and I don’t believe these are mutually exclusive. To be clear, I am not saying it’s great if Nuits-Saint-Georges tastes like over-oaked, but rather that I’m happy for it to taste, diversely, like Chevillon, Mugneret-Gibourg, or Mugnier.

To take approach, and to make things more concrete, which are the producers you have in mind where you feel that the winemaking takes a backseat to the site?

have you read roger scruton before? it appears he has some writings about wine that could be relevant here. perhaps it is a certain degree of romanticism, or lack therefore of, which colors ones view of the role of a winemaker and the ensuing artifact of the production.

[William_Kelley]

I was more addressing what seemed to be your point that some of what you consider to be the “best” or most interesting wines have quite a strong winemaking stamp, or did I misinterpret your thoughts? My own experience says that can be the case, but that it’s far more the case that the strong winemaking stamp is a detraction, not an addition. So, for me, the highs can be higher, but the average is lower. It’s why I find myself gravitating toward producers with less of an (apparent) winemaking stamp. It’s also partly that most of the truly great “stampers” are pretty well known, and command a price premium, so there is a strong economic factor as well in my own case.

Well, I don’t think a wine has to be crudely or obviously marked by the hand that made it to be nonetheless strongly marked. Making a bit of wine myself, I am acutely aware of how difficult it is to achieve the illusion (for that is what it is) of transparency. And I think we admire a lot of the same produces, in fact.

[David_Bu3ker]

I’m probably headed into analogy overload, but this morning I started thinking about Federer, Djokovic and Nadal. Each of them is a spectacular player. Each is attempting to achieve the same thing. They have very different techniques/styles. Forgetting personalities (always advisable when Djoker is involved) one can prefer a particular player and his style, even see it as “best,” but it in no way delegitimizes the others.

[Jayson_Cohen]

I find so little to argue with here that I am torn between admiring the brilliance of the argument and the beauty of the writing, and dismissing it as syllogistic.

Same. But my follow-on thought was that sometimes an argument needs to be put into writing. When done well, as here, by a voice with an audience, as William has, it stakes a claim and allows discourse. Especially when the counterintuitive notion that “wine of terroir makes itself if one farms well” is so prevalent now.

[William_Kelley]

I find so little to argue with here that I am torn between admiring the brilliance of the argument and the beauty of the writing, and dismissing it as syllogistic.

Same. But my follow-on thought was that sometimes an argument needs to be put into writing. When done well, as here, by a voice with an audience, as William has, it stakes a claim and allows discourse. Especially when the counterintuitive notion that “wine of terroir makes itself if one farms well” is so prevalent now.

In fact, I tend to agree that it’s somewhat syllogistic. A producer I admire a lot actually commented on a draft that it was extremely conventional in its conclusion. But it did seem to me worth saying, not only for the reason Kevin gives, but also because I see winemakers—mainly in Burgundy given that’s where I work—who are trying entirely to efface themselves from the wines they are making; and their rationale for doing so is actually rather abstract and philosophical—but, I think, fallacious. See my anecdote above about the producer who is inspired by sushi as an example. So I think it’s an important discussion to have, even if, when one actually thinks about it with some degree of rigor, the conclusions are indeed rather obvious and conventional.

[Fred_Scherrer]

Nice discussion.

This makes me think there are essentially four kinds of winemakers which are often are confused:

1. Those who work to preserve the character of the grape material and interpret it in their own consistent way.
2. Those who work to create a product that fits a market niche, using the grape as a starting ingredient.
3. Those that are #2 but claim to be #1.
4. Those that worship procedure over result.

Something I’ll ponder while doing menial labor…

F

[Jayson_Cohen]

I find so little to argue with here that I am torn between admiring the brilliance of the argument and the beauty of the writing, and dismissing it as syllogistic.

Same. But my follow-on thought was that sometimes an argument needs to be put into writing. When done well, as here, by a voice with an audience, as William has, it stakes a claim and allows discourse. Especially when the counterintuitive notion that “wine of terroir makes itself if one farms well” is so prevalent now.

In fact, I tend to agree that it’s somewhat syllogistic. A producer I admire a lot actually commented on a draft that it was extremely conventional in its conclusion. But it did seem to me worth saying, not only for the reason Kevin gives, but also because I see winemakers—mainly in Burgundy given that’s where I work—who are trying entirely to efface themselves from the wines they are making; and their rationale for doing so is actually rather abstract and philosophical—but, I think, fallacious. See my anecdote above about the producer who is inspired by sushi as an example. So I think it’s an important discussion to have, even if, when one actually thinks about it with some degree of rigor, the conclusions are indeed rather obvious and conventional.

Yes. Last week, while the thread on Joly was active, I listened to a couple of his interviews for the first time in years. I was thinking about those as I finished your article and posted my comment here. But the idea that the wine makes itself is much broader now than proponents of “natural” wine and/or biodynamie, and it needs rational counter-voices that understand it’s not a simple dichotomy between the natural and industrial.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

My signature on the Cellartracker discussion forum is, “Terroir is not a flavor.” It seems germane here.

There is something to be said for varietal, or site-specific, “typicity”; but it’s not the end-all be-all. And that’s said without even touching the third rail of “defining “typicity”.”

Had a discussion with someone just recently, they’re free to identify themselves, and this person knows napa wines and said basically “I’m coming to the conclusion that barrel selection/toast levels are the most important factor”. It’s a interesting take in the face of terroir because french/american oak is anything but terroir.

But those oak barrels do have the potential to reflect terroir!

[ScottL]

William,

To your point about sushi, I’ve been lucky enough to eat at a few of the most highly celebrated sushi restaurants in Japan. One that particularly stands out is Sushi Kimura–Kimura is noted for pushing and extending dry-aging as much as possible. In talking with Kimura he mentioned that he hasn’t taken a day off basically since he opened the shop (I can’t remember but it had been many years) and essentially puts in 20 hour days managing everything related to his fish and rice for his shop. If he’s just presenting some pure vision of nature he must be really wasting his life away.

I also appreciate–as if you don’t mind me saying, a fellow pedant- that your article, and this subsequent discussion, is one about clarification and precision, not necessarily criticism and denigration. In that spirit, one of the things I find most fascinating about the concept of “terroir”, is that the more I learn about the history of wine production, the idea of “terroir” cannot simply be reduced to the given climate or land (say the general weather pattern, soil type, topography, surrounding habitat etc etc). In fact, any wine region or terroir is at least just as much defined by the historical development of humans working that land and developing specific wine making practices that become associated with that terroir. Those practices (from my understanding) are sometimes even codified by law but at minimum they are passed down through familial or communal relations (you would be more of the expert on exactly how this takes place in it’s specifics for various regions during the relevant time periods, I unfortunately don’t actually have that much expertise on wine history specifically). Really where things specifically start to get interesting is investigating the interplay between the specifics of the terroir provided to human beings (the natural/material) and their decisions about how to manage it to create wine (the social basis of material practice) and how that changes overtime (a very simple example but that sparkling wine in champagne was not a feasible product until the British developed a way to make stronger glass, yet the most definitional think about Champagne as a region is that the wine is sparkling). There are seemingly infinite possibilities but the nature of a particular area certainly provides certain limits and nudges (or sometimes even forces us) in certain directions. I notice in your work, whether you are conscious of it or not, you often bring this relationship to the fore which I really appreciate. But back to the concept of terroir itself, it seems to me that when you are drinking a particular wine and referencing terroir what you are referencing is that relationships between human practice and nature as it has developed over time. It is nearly impossible to say you are referencing nature directly, and often what you are likely talking about is just as much the congealed cultural and social practice of winemaking associated that region (or the rejection of that practice if it stands out as different from what is “the norm”).

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

I don’t trick or deceive others.

Implying that “naturalistic” process is a more subtle version of artifice, can only be argued regarding the marketing of wine.

As opposed to the making of wine.

Every winemaker at the beginning of vintage, is like a downhill skier atop the hill. You’re going down the hill one way or the other. What route you take is a combination of choice, logistics, training, gear, and conditions. But whatever that route is, the run is in the bottle. If you go down without skis or poles…that’s still your run, and some people may love that version. And some may go down on a snowmobile. Some are people are impressed by that.

The artifice is in the talking about what a great skier you are after the run is over.

But the run is in the bottle, and the bottle will tell you what the mountain was like just as much as it will show exactly what type of skier someone is as well.

All the rest of it is talk.

That said, if you hang to 30 Brix, cold soak for 15 days, water back 15%, add a bunch of enzymes, hammer through ferment with a high tolerance commercial yeast, slap 50 gallons of Mega-purple into the back end of ferment, then hit barrique for 7-14 months, fine with egg whites, gelatin, and casein, then add a custom blend of finishing tannins, RO the alcohol down to 14.0%, and drop in a coconut before bottling…then it’s likely that any story you tell about your run will be marketing horse manuer. And the terroir of your wine will definitely be about the winemaker…

I think you might not be reading the words “artifice” and “deception” in the sense that I intended them. I used “artifice” in the sense that everything not occurring in nature is “artificial”, the product of art/agency; and “deception” in the sense that, for example, a perspective drawing creates the deceptive perception of depth on a flat page. There was no pejorative implication.

One of the stimuli to write this essay was a discussion with a winemaker who’s my age and whom I admire a lot. He told me that he wanted his wines to taste “raw” (“cru”) and totally unprocessed in the way that sushi is “raw” (he used this as his rationale for doing very short macerations for his red wines). Yet the analogy struck me as only superficially compelling, because in reality, sushi is about much more than the best products presented with the least artifice: the fish is raw, yes, but the best Japanese sushi chefs dry age the fish, and technique from the cooking and (intense, if you taste it before preparation) seasoning of the rice, cutting the fish, and so on, is actually hugely artful and deliberate. The best sushi gives the illusion of being artless, precisely because it’s so incredibly finessed at every stage.

I very much like you skiing analogy, however, as it concedes more ground to the site, something that I don’t think I adequately integrated into the essay. But, I will have another attempt in part two. A friend got at something similar recently with a sailing analogy - wind and currents, but also a destination and intention - which I thought worked well.

Hi William,

Thanks for your thoughtful answer. Your essay is, as always, thought provoking.

I feel like your friends comment incline that he should be selling grapes, at keast as compares to sushi. Dry aging is a treatment, and there are many, many techniques in sushi but fermentation is cooling. If he likes his wines seared, then that’s really his fashion(not truth). Even if the wines are dynamite.

The truth is in, “he wanted his wines to taste…”
That’s no different than Henri Jayer wanting his wines to have more depth of fruit and less tannins. Almost every person I have seen begin making wines wants to define the wines by their own vision. It’s a natural, no pun intended, aspect of getting to take the helm of a formative process.

Generalizing, I think a lot of winemakers as they achieve success in executing a specific fashion will start to explore other fashions and slowly become more broadly experienced. If they work with the same fruit throughout their career there will be choices that work out specific to that fruit, rather than a generalized wanting of a style, like raw. As specific wines in the cellar make an impact on the winemaker, they slowly moderate their process to be less about theory (raw, naturalistic, rockstar, stems, traditional, etc.) and more a direct but still subjective biofeedback. Which may still align with their original theoretically driven choices. For me that was and remains the use of whole cluster.

Or they may find that something along the way becomes compelling for them and becomes a driving force in their processes. For me that has become getting a clear expression of vineyard in the wines, even with the use of high levels of whole cluster. All of that still remains fashion, and but I do feel that as I made my “fashion” choices based upon experience with the vineyards rather than on my theories, and altered process based upon results that my “skiing” became more about responding to the course rather than my style(while still being completely beholden to my aesthetic tastes).

[TomHill]

A bit late to this discussion because I’ve been back in KansasCity for daughter’s wedding & caring for my Grandson.

I think this is an outstanding article William has written & one in which I pretty much totally agree. Thanks for sharing that.

When I hear a winemaker trot out the usual diatribe of him wanting to stand back, not intervene, and let the true terroir express itself,
I just sorta roll my eyes and think “whatever”. William’s point that the winemaker’s decisions inevitably leaves its mark, a patina, on a wine is one I can
totally accept. That wine can still, to some degree, express its terroir. Sometimes the winemaking can/will dominate the expression of the terroir.
Othertimes, not so much. I won’t denigrate the wine if the winemaking is the dominant factor in the wine.

For instance, let’s take PaganiRanch. And Carlisle/Bedrock/Ridge. Which wine offers the truest expression of PaganiRanch (bearing in mind that
each producer gets different block whose cepage differs). I would venture that Bedrock expresses the terroir in the most transparent manner because
Morgan’s winemaking style is not as distinctive as Mike’s or John’s. Doesn’t make it the best of the three, in my book. The Ridge Pagani always displays the
Ridge winemaking style in a dominant/distinctive way. And Mike’s falls in between. Yet in all three, I can (sometimes) pick up a distinctive signature that
speaks of Pagani. But I invariably also like the Ridge because that is John/Paul speaking directly to me on that’s what they think Pagani terroir is. Three different
winemakers expression to me what they think Pagani really is.

And then there are winemakers whose distinctive winemaking style is the dominant characteristic in the wine. I think back to DavidBruce and his wines of the '70’s.
I loved those wines because it was DavidBruce shouting at me that this is what SantaCruz WhiteRiesling really is. His shouts were so loud that he even destroyed
the varietal character of his Riesling. But I loved those Rieslings, terroir be damned.

So just my random thoughts. Thanks for bringing your thoughts to this interesting discussion, William. Lots of food for thought in this thred.
Tom

[Brady_Daniels]

…
In that spirit, one of the things I find most fascinating about the concept of “terroir”, is that the more I learn about the history of wine production, the idea of “terroir” cannot simply be reduced to the given climate or land (say the general weather pattern, soil type, topography, surrounding habitat etc etc). In fact, any wine region or terroir is at least just as much defined by the historical development of humans working that land and developing specific wine making practices that become associated with that terroir.

For me this is a bridge too far.

If we start with a definition of terroir as “the given climate or land (say the general weather pattern, soil type, topography, surrounding habitat,” then stick with it. If you want to claim there is a societal/ historical element that affects the finished wine, I’m cool with that, but it’s by definition not terroir.

I’ve seen arguments in past threads that winemakers are part of the terroir, too. Again, defitionally false.

Yes, tradition, and winemaking choices have a huge impact on the finished wine. And they are hugely important. But can we please not call them terroir?

[Brady_Daniels]

I really appreciate two concepts from William’s article. First, the idea that winemakers make hundreds of decisions on what to do or not do, and each makes an impact on the final wine. Second, that these decisions make the winemakers patina. I love the patina concept, partially because I believe it’s true, and partially because it sounds positive, unlike say, “the hand of the winemaker.” Being positive might make it easier for terroir purists to stomach.

I also like that patinas tend to be gentle, and it doesn’t take much to mar them. I think this separates artisan winemaking from industrial. It also helps defend our storage and transport obsessions. Plus patinas get better with age. Winning all around.

[Brady_Daniels]

I still like sustainable agriculture and well made, low-Sulphur wines and will continue to enjoy them for their life and energy, even if that category mistakenly claims the label “natural.”

[Sean_S_y_d_n_e_y]

This is always a great discussion and William has, as always, used his thoughtfulness and command of language to great use. It’s always been a wonderful series of dilemmas - is a tonnellerie that makes barrels from forests in Nevers, a mere ~200km from Beaune, closer in spirit to Burgundian terroir than one that gets its lumber from Limousin?

As others have said, the entire concept of a monoculture crop is the embodiment of artifice. A whirlwind of competing organisms all fighting for the same limited resources is nature’s truest expression of itself.

The vignerons seem to be the lens through which terroir is reflected. Without them, we’re blind. How that lens is cut is a each person’s preference, adherence or not to culture and tradition, and philosophy.

[Mariano_Chiaramonte]

Brilliant article, it reinforces the idea of another article by the winemaker Oliver Styles that I read a couple of weeks ago. One of my favorite passage:

“Aside from using the words natural wine a lot less, there has to be a little bit of reconciliation. When I say I make wine with zero additions, that’s not an implicit attack or superiority statement over those who do. It’s the equivalent to a Pinot Noir producer stating she just works with one grape and a burly bunch of Bordeaux blend lovers getting all hot under the collar: “Ugh, listen to her with her ‘one grape is all I need’ talk, implying blends are rubbish”. Nonsense, it’s just a winemaking choice.”

https://www.wine-searcher.com/m/2021/01/swallowing-the-reality-of-natural-wine