Could we criticize critics???
Re: Greatness
Ver mensaje de WaltZalenskiWe agree, therefore, on my main and somewhat obvious point: designations of a wine or a producer as ";Great"; or ";not Great"; are no less subjective than statements of mild preference for one glass over another. While statements of preference naturally are regarded here and generally as merely subjective, categorical remarks about greatness are more likely to falsely connote objectivity, and we should be mindful of that connotation.
As for your broader points about the lack of any objectivity even with respect to whether a wine is well made, perhaps I should respond that any response by me will be futile because no reader - no individual sentient being - can access my meaning objectively, and I will end up communicating nothing. Trust me, I don’t want to get in to all that, although I do believe that experts can broadly agree on the general standards of well-made wine, just as communities of experts can broadly agree on certain general issues of quality in art, literature, and music -- and just as a community of language speakers can generally agree on meaning.
Ah, but...
Ver mensaje de WaltZalenskiConsensus, my friend, is not ";objectivity";. I will never argue against the possibility of consensus and the establishment of accepted standards, but we must understand that said consensus is merely a confluence of subjectivities and/or individual agencies.
The signifier, alas, is endlessly ductile and malleable. It’s a wonderful thing with which to work. Or around which to work, depending on your worldview.
Please remember that when I make an utterance, it is I who speaks, on behalf only of myself. Even if I’m presenting scientific data, raw numbers, or something like that, be very aware that I am presenting them through my own optic, as part of my own intertext (a fahsionable word on this side of Verema, I see) and subject to my reader/interlocutor’s eqally personal approval or lack thereof.
Ah, man, this stuff gives me a migraine. I quit academia because of having to go on explanations like this all the time. I no longer pretend to be a philosopher. I’m just a wino with some strong opinions. Yep, that’s me...
Best,
Manuel
Re: civilised debate ! (and Barthes)
Ver mensaje de rayolConnecting some other dots scattered throughout this thread, Barthes’ wine essay in Mythologies is an interesting, perhaps essential, filter through which one should assess the Mondo Vino movie, the Accidental Connoisseur book, and some of the other wine-related debate going on. Not surprisingly, Bathes says that wine is not merely wine in France. It is national identity (probably far more so than is the case in Spain). Barthes notes that a political candidate in France would suffer if he were photographed drinking a glass of beer. (Do I recall reading that Zapatero does not drink at all?) Barthes also addresses the issue of wine socioeconomics, but quite differently than Mondo Vino. Specifically, he discusses the poor Muslim nation of Algeria, under French influence, growing grapes for wine, which is not a useful crop for them because their religion forbids them to drink wine.
Incidentally, recalling the remarks here about impotence, both linguistic and physical, Barthes remarks that wine in France is a symbol not only of national identity, but also of virility!
Re: Ah, but...
Ver mensaje de WaltZalenski";I no longer pretend to be a philosopher. I’m just a wino with some strong opinions. Yep, that’s me...";
Yes, but now you can write a Critique of Pure Riesling...
or Principia Oenophilia...
and conduct Symposia according to the true and original meaning of the word.
"Critique of Pure Riesling"
Ver mensaje de WaltZalenskiI remember meeting Randall Grahm at Vinexpo ’99. He had a ";Riesling Asylum"; with Selbach-Oster and Ostertag. A funny concept. He gave me a wine named ";Critique of Pure Riesling"; to try. Funny stuff. best moment was when Barbara Selbach threw a bagful of rocks on the table to accompany the tasting of her wines...
I’ll do symposia, as long as they don’t involve a hot tub. Or cigars.
As far as book-form, I’m not so keen on it for myself. I prefer bandwith to paper, really...
M.
Re: "Critique of Pure Riesling"
Ver mensaje de WaltZalenskiI should have known that Graham, a reformed philosopher as I recall, would have used that line before. The term symposium originally referred to a drinking party; the Greek verb sympotein means ";to drink together."; What is your pet word for this? ";Jeebus";??? Yes indeed, you have strayed far from academia.
Like I said...
Ver mensaje de WaltZalenskiI’ll do symposia. Just no damn hot tubs. And no cigars (nothing against cigars, it’s just that I really enjoy them, but am medically forbidden to smoke even a one; plus, they don’t go iwth wine...)
A jeebus (not ";my"; pet term, but by now a highly regarded word of common usage among wine geeks, soon to be included by the OED) is a distant cousin of a symposium. We don’t encourage the wearing of togas or any such drape-like garments, though. There are parts of NYC wine geekdom that should never be seen.
And, though we often start on chairs, as in Greek symposia, our final seating tends to involve a bit of floor.
There are some strong family resmeblances, indeed.
M.
Am I the only one who miss...
Ver mensaje de Paco HigónThe link we’ve in the ’spanish side’ where you can ’See the thread as a whole’ :-?
cheers,
Jose