Another Puzzling Argument about Wine and Art

Dwight Furrow

Jul 31

I came across this argument in Jason Wilson's newsletter:

I've always maintained that wine is not art. My main reason for feeling this way is that, no matter how great the wine, I've almost never encountered one that conveys complex emotions like fear or loss or grief in the way a great painting or piece of music can. But in Moriondo's Souche Méres, in one of the few times in my life, I felt a profound sadness in the wine.

It has long puzzled me why many people are so resistant to the idea that some wines can be works of art. So resistant in fact that they are willing to commit to print an obvious contradiction. He still insists that wine is not art even after this experience with the Souche Méres which appears to have conveyed a complex emotion. Has he never had an angry Cabernet Sauvignon, Riesling that expresses vitality, a fierce orange wine, dignified Amarone, or brooding Bordeaux?

Does wine convey emotion "in the way a great painting or piece of music can?" Well no, wine isn't music or painting. It conveys emotions via different sensations. (For more on this see Beauty and the Yeast: A Philosophy of Wine, Life, and Love.")

Furthermore, even a cursory knowledge of the art world would reveal that many works of art don't convey emotion at all. Many works of art explore the nature of their materials. Many paintings are about paint and many musical works are about sound just as wine explores the nature of the land and the grapes from which it was made.

Such arguments reveal a limited understanding of art as well as the expressive potential of wine.

Comment