Are Pinots Getting Too Big?

Eric Asimov, wine writer at the New York Times, recently wrote about the "revolution" occurring in the increasing lightness of California Pinot Noir. Steve Heimoff, columnist for Wine Enthusiast magazine, responded, in his blog, to Asimov's assertion.

Taken together these two viewpoints underscore a fundamental issue for me. The only truth in wine is that which is circumscribed by your vineyards and fruit coupled with the winemaker's overriding sensibility that takes those raw products and makes the most authentic wine out of them.

Asimov is talking about a STYLE of wine for which he has a PREFERENCE. There is no right and no wrong to this. The style that he prefers (or that Parker or the Spectator prefers) is not intrinsically better than the fatter style of wine that he doesn't.

The winemaker really only has a responsibility to himself. I can't truly know what the "market" wants especially when I release a new wine. I can only promise that the wine I am producing is as true to the vineyard and to the grape as it can be and, more importantly, that it is true to my winemaking philosophy.

Styles of wine change. Critics gain a pre-eminence which can shape the way wines are produced. That pre-eminence will eventually cease to be, and the next major critic may like a different style of wine. Making wine to suit the perceived palate of the critic is a fool's errand. It's philosophically dishonest and boring...and there's every likelihood that the wine style and the critic won't arrive at the same place at the same time.

There is room in the wine world for any number of wine styles and wine varieties. We, the consuming public, will vote with our palates and our pocketbooks, some styles and grapes will be steamrolled under and serve as the fertilizer for the next "revolution."

In the end, we should all worry less, explore a lot, and drink more good wine.

Art & Commerce: Emotion & Money

I find myself linking to Steven Heimoff's stuff quite a lot. Steve, writer for Wine Enthusiast magazine is one of the best wine writers out there. Especially on his blog, he is not afraid to emotionally invest.
In his latest post, he reacts quite eloquently to the dynamic of critic being criticized for expressing a controversial viewpoint. He wasn't the critic in question...it was the art critic for the SF Chronicle who got enough negative mail from readers regarding his remarks about Dale Chihuly's work that he felt a need to explain himself.
If the world were perfect, we wouldn't need a mediator to tell or explain or reveal. We would (if we were so inclined) devote enough attention to something to come to some kind of rational and humble conclusion of our own about the worth of a piece of blown glass or a Santa Lucia Pinot Noir, for example. It would become obvious to us that only our own reaction to a piece of art or to a product is valid, that we cannot ever "know" what the artist or craftsman was trying to accomplish, but that his work was a gift given to us...and we are to say to it, either yes or no.
We know that we could never have made that thing, and that the artist's conception of it is different than ours and only the artist's. Our conception is only truly meaningful to ourselves given that we all experience the world differently.
The hardest thing though, sometimes, is to acknowledge our own lack of experience with something and to be careful how loudly we trumpet our opinion. It isn't a perfect world, and wine critics serve a useful purpose for those who aren't yet ready to make their wine buying decisions completely on their own. It is important to remember, however, that the critic is paid to form an opinion; he does not speak for us...he speaks only for himself; and his opinion, in the end, can only be valid for him.