"Authentic" wines
"Well, it's the real article ... genuine double-rectified busthead, aged in the keg."
John Wayne as "Rooster" Cogburn in True Grit
Authentic. Real. Genuine. True. Established. Unadulterated. Bona fide.
The claims recently for authenticity in wine are interesting ones, one part demand from consumers for assurances on how their wines are made, and one part holdover from the esoteric religious movements from the mid 1800's to early 1900's.
That seems like an odd combination, doesn't it? While doing my source reading for this post I came across some rather interesting items, some of which I had suspected, others that were quite new to me.
Yes, during the end of the Enlightenment and all the way to today, there are calls for a "return to nature" - a rejection of technology in favor of primitivism and intuition. It hasn't really cropped up in the wine world until the last 25 years or so - that is, until the first true large scale multinational wine companies started to emerge. It was at that time that people started to wonder about the "industrialization" of wine. Here is a product which has always been touted as magical and unique (wine as "art", and terroir concepts), what arrogance that humans could debase such an expression of Nature by twisting it to their whims? Winemakers are solely to use "intuition" in their pursuit of fine wine, aren't they?. I don't think the image of a collision of Man, Nature and Wine is realistic. As a friend of mine once stated flatly-
"Nature doesn't make wine. Nature makes vinegar. Only by interfering with the natural process do we stop it at the stage of 'wine'. In fact, wine wouldn't even exist without mankind."
So if Man needs to be present for wine to exist, is there any wine which is truly "natural" wine? Some interference of one sort or another must take place, so is the call for "natural wine" reduced to a call for nothing added to it at all? But the friction is more complex than just that...
This perceived conflict was fueled over the 80's & 90's by the anti-establishment counter-culture, which viewed the consolidations largely as just more examples of large corporations destroying competition in pusuit of nothing more than increased profits. In that world view, human industry is reduced to an extension of the ego, and is never altruistic. Larger companies which make items that were universally viewed as small artisan products were labeled as profiteers, and derided about quality - even IF their products were similar or better than the small producers. This continues to this day in films like Mondovino, and in views of winemakers like Nicolas Joly, among others. It's an easy image for small winemakers to invoke, afterall who hasn't heard the parable of David and Goliath, regardless of their religious views?
The birth of ecology was in the late 1800's, and was a reaction to the Industrial Revolution. People rightly started to wonder if mankind's incessant changes to the world were going to produce long term negative effects. Monopolies and Barons of Industry ruled the increasing rate of changes to the world. And Mankind should be concerned with the effect of its actions, and the environment should not be unnecessarily degraded for short term goals. But that doesn't mean we need to return to an idealized era before industry - an era which never really existed, in essence a Utopian agricultural society, if you will. There is no competition, money, or large scale agriculture. Services are bartered (which doesn't help you if you're a brewer and the plumber whose help you need doesn't like beer...etc.) and are somehow always traded fairly.
This place doesn't exist, in fact it's never existed.
This is just romantic idealism about the past.
Somehow these same ideals are supposed to be applied to the wine trade, with tradition - not quality - the mistress of all endeavor. Make what you will, they claim, and stand by it as "authentic"...somehow there is no need for profit, and if the public doesn't like your wine...well, they get a bit fuzzy there, don't they? The bank won't foreclose - but if they do your supporters won't think highly of them anymore (fat lot of good that'll do you while you sit on the corner begging for handouts). Your product will be acclaimed - not for its quality, but for it's uniqueness (as Joly stated, "A biodynamic wine is not always good, but it is always authentic." Joly's italics, btw).
Authenticity is only an issue when someone is trying to sell you something which it isn't.
Perhaps a $6 central valley red which was thrown into a Petrus bottle...or something simmilarly fraudulent.
Drink what you like, regardless of how it's made. That's the only true yardstick for you to use.
Evaluate with your palate, not some idealistic romance-novel views of what the world should be...
John Wayne as "Rooster" Cogburn in True Grit
Authentic. Real. Genuine. True. Established. Unadulterated. Bona fide.
The claims recently for authenticity in wine are interesting ones, one part demand from consumers for assurances on how their wines are made, and one part holdover from the esoteric religious movements from the mid 1800's to early 1900's.
That seems like an odd combination, doesn't it? While doing my source reading for this post I came across some rather interesting items, some of which I had suspected, others that were quite new to me.
Yes, during the end of the Enlightenment and all the way to today, there are calls for a "return to nature" - a rejection of technology in favor of primitivism and intuition. It hasn't really cropped up in the wine world until the last 25 years or so - that is, until the first true large scale multinational wine companies started to emerge. It was at that time that people started to wonder about the "industrialization" of wine. Here is a product which has always been touted as magical and unique (wine as "art", and terroir concepts), what arrogance that humans could debase such an expression of Nature by twisting it to their whims? Winemakers are solely to use "intuition" in their pursuit of fine wine, aren't they?. I don't think the image of a collision of Man, Nature and Wine is realistic. As a friend of mine once stated flatly-
"Nature doesn't make wine. Nature makes vinegar. Only by interfering with the natural process do we stop it at the stage of 'wine'. In fact, wine wouldn't even exist without mankind."
So if Man needs to be present for wine to exist, is there any wine which is truly "natural" wine? Some interference of one sort or another must take place, so is the call for "natural wine" reduced to a call for nothing added to it at all? But the friction is more complex than just that...
This perceived conflict was fueled over the 80's & 90's by the anti-establishment counter-culture, which viewed the consolidations largely as just more examples of large corporations destroying competition in pusuit of nothing more than increased profits. In that world view, human industry is reduced to an extension of the ego, and is never altruistic. Larger companies which make items that were universally viewed as small artisan products were labeled as profiteers, and derided about quality - even IF their products were similar or better than the small producers. This continues to this day in films like Mondovino, and in views of winemakers like Nicolas Joly, among others. It's an easy image for small winemakers to invoke, afterall who hasn't heard the parable of David and Goliath, regardless of their religious views?
The birth of ecology was in the late 1800's, and was a reaction to the Industrial Revolution. People rightly started to wonder if mankind's incessant changes to the world were going to produce long term negative effects. Monopolies and Barons of Industry ruled the increasing rate of changes to the world. And Mankind should be concerned with the effect of its actions, and the environment should not be unnecessarily degraded for short term goals. But that doesn't mean we need to return to an idealized era before industry - an era which never really existed, in essence a Utopian agricultural society, if you will. There is no competition, money, or large scale agriculture. Services are bartered (which doesn't help you if you're a brewer and the plumber whose help you need doesn't like beer...etc.) and are somehow always traded fairly.
This place doesn't exist, in fact it's never existed.
This is just romantic idealism about the past.
Somehow these same ideals are supposed to be applied to the wine trade, with tradition - not quality - the mistress of all endeavor. Make what you will, they claim, and stand by it as "authentic"...somehow there is no need for profit, and if the public doesn't like your wine...well, they get a bit fuzzy there, don't they? The bank won't foreclose - but if they do your supporters won't think highly of them anymore (fat lot of good that'll do you while you sit on the corner begging for handouts). Your product will be acclaimed - not for its quality, but for it's uniqueness (as Joly stated, "A biodynamic wine is not always good, but it is always authentic." Joly's italics, btw).
Authenticity is only an issue when someone is trying to sell you something which it isn't.
Perhaps a $6 central valley red which was thrown into a Petrus bottle...or something simmilarly fraudulent.
Drink what you like, regardless of how it's made. That's the only true yardstick for you to use.
Evaluate with your palate, not some idealistic romance-novel views of what the world should be...
Labels: authentic, biodynamic, terroir
posted by Anonymous at 10:20 AM
6 Comments:
Huge,
Interesting thoughts here.
I think you nail it when you suggest one of the reasons we are seeing more "support" for natural wines is the meta-cultural reaction to globalization.
Today in all product fields it seems "smaller is better".
Yet, from a technical and sensory perspective, I do think it is hard to argue with the idea that you are likely to get "better" wine when the wine is produced with a "minimalist" perspective. That is, less fining, less filtering, smaller batches that allow hands-on work.
Granted, wine is not wine without human intervention and this,interestingly enough, is the same factor that masks terroir.
Good post.
Interesting thoughts, entirely accurate yet profoundly flawed.
The issue here is how, as a culture, we preserve diversity. Thus the criticism against the international style does not pivot on the issue of "naturaleness" but on homogenization.
When, in the wine world, market forces meet technology we get a series of "Yellow Tails" aimed at different price points.They are all correct, some even delicious, yet ultimately they represent a small subset of what is possible in the world of wine. And they represent a taste point that is sadly specific to the vagaries of contingent taste aesthetics.
Of course all serious wines try to maximize the expression of the categories that form the parameters by which we judge wine quality: flavor intensity, complexity, balance, etc. However welding of these parameters into a final wine does not have a unique solution. There are many possible great wines.
What distinguishes terroir driven wines is that they do not follow the compass of market taste in trying to reach this point.
Since each piece of land dictates a sort of delimited set of solutions to the problem of making great wine, what we end up getting is wine diversity.
When we make wines by using technology to create wines targeting marketable taste points, we chase a globalized and fairly homogeneous taste fashion point and we reduce the universe of possible wines.
The first paved street was a thing of wonder. The endless ribbons of potholes that now make urban america, leave much to be desired. The difference if that we will probably always have countryside. The fear is that one day, we may no longer have the diversity of artisanal wines, and that would be a loss.
Huge - I'm not sure I understand your reply to "anonymous", but I can say that I think Anon's logic is as flawed as Anon claims your to be. Anon starts with the premise that terroir-driven wines are superior, and states such as a given fact. I don't believe this to be automatically true as I've had some pretty putrid terroir-driven wines myself....
Al
I find it interesting that many people hold up "old world" wines as those that promote diversity, yet many of the modern machines used to "manipulate" wine are designed and manufactured in Italy and France!!!
Jim
All very interesting. Unfortunately there's only one sentence in this entire thread worth reading:
"Drink what you like, regardless of how it's made. That's the only true yardstick for you to use. "
That and MAYBE the one after it:
"Evaluate with your palate, not some idealistic romance-novel views of what the world should be..."
I say that because there really is no argument going on here. Just tightly overlapping perspectives on the same realities. Realities which all lead back to the main point expressed at the end of Hugh's dissertation.
I'm sorry, I didn't make that clear. I didn't mean to demean your effort. The article was a very well written, informative read. I meant that comment in reference to all the responses on this blog.
Thanks for pointing out the spelling error. Peripherally, "Huge" registered as "Hugh" in my brain =) I will ammend instances of your blog name in the cave.
Post a Comment
<< Home