Evaluating Wine and Art (was Re: Evaluating paintings)
Andrew Werby
> In article <787gol$l5r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> mil...@cove.com wrote:
>
> > I JUST HEARD AN AD FOR WINE TASTING CLASSES. THE THOUGHT OF SPENDING
TIME AND
> > MONEY LEARNING WHAT WINES THE EXPERTS THINK SHOULD APPEAL TO ONE'S TASTE
> > STRIKES ME AS VERY FUNNY. I CAN'T SEE THAT CLASSES IN ART APPRECIATION ARE
> > MUCH DIFFERENT UNLESS ONE IS INTERESTED IN LEARNING ABOUT ART HISTORY OR
> > SOMETHING ELSE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM ONE'S EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO PAINTINGS.
> >
> > I'LL BE INTERESTED IN WHATEVER RESPONSE THIS MAY BRING WHEN I RETURN IN TWO
> > WEEKS.
> >
> > MILT
>
> That's funny, Milt -- the wine tasting training happened to me several years
> ago. My roommate wanted to learn how to be a gentleman, so he organized a
> wine class in our house, along with some of his friends, who collectively
> paid an expert to teach. It was pricey. He asked me if I wanted to join,
> and I declined because I thought along the same lines as you express above --
> as well as seeing it as 'silly' I thought it was 'pretentious.' But the rest
> of the story was every Wednesday morinig there were several half empty
> bottles of tasted wine laying around, and I was able to sample them myself.
> I remember particularly a Portuguese Sherry that costed about 30 bucks a
> bottle that was so wonderful...completely outside of my range of experience
> in wine.
> Erik Mattila
>
[Wine appreciation and art appreciation have certain things in common,
that shouldn't be lightly dismissed. Both the tasting of wine and the
viewing of art are productive of a certain subjective impression that
is difficult to analyze. Usually one either says "Hmm- I like it" or
"Yuck!" We find it difficult to put further words or justifications
together to explain these reactions to others, though- this is where
training can help. In wine-tasting classes, one learns to identify
various components of spoiled wine in their pure states- the sulphur
of rotten eggs, the vinegary stench of volatile acidity, amyl acetate
which contributes a banana-like aroma, or the flatness caused by
oxidation. One learns to recognize some of the elusive scents that
make wine taste good as well; they are named by analogy to similar
scents; like vanilla, which is imparted by aging in oak, cedar,
tobacco, blackberries and prunes, which are due to the particular
grapes used, and qualities that come from the soil in which the
grapes were grown, like steeliness or earthiness. Once one gets
used to dissecting a wine in this way, it becomes something of an
intellectual exercise to decide why one does or doesn't like it;
or- more interestingly- what exactly one does and doesn't like about
it.
By training oneself to think analytically about art, one can achieve
similar proficiency in evaluating what exactly there is about a painting
or sculpture that appeals to one- or turns one off. The criteria for
judgement can be argued over endlessly; one person's set of requirements
may seem uneccessarily rigid to another, and totally irrelevant to a
third. Some viewers have no patience for this sort of thing whatsoever;
if they don't like a piece of art- or a glass of wine- they don't see
why they should have to justify their opinion. If they like it, then
that's that. But a well-written critique of a work or a wine can
interest others in trying it, or pin down the reason to avoid it. It
can justify the expense of a purchase, or pin down a deviation from
normally high quality. If one has followed a critic's advice successfully,
one will pay attention when he or she points out something new that should
be tried.
Tastes, of course, will differ; but by training ones preferences one can
realize, for example, that further explorations of German Expressionism
or Chilean reds will be rewarded, if these are the sorts of things that
have proved rewarding in the past. While the opinions of experts may concur
that a work or a wine is excellent and worth a high price, one is not
required to go along with them- these educated opinions merely serve as
a general sort of guide, with which one can agree or not as one chooses.
In a way, a dissident opinion is an advantage- if one genuinely prefers
Ripple to Chateauneuf de Pape, or Peter Max to Van Gogh, then one can
save a lot of money on ones wine or art purchases and be happier with
the results.
Certainly neither the experience of tasting a wine or looking at a work
of art are things that can be definitely put into words, but just making
the attempt can be instructive, and may lead to the widening of ones
horizons.]
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
http://www.computersculpture.com for 3d design tools
Edwin Pawlowski
Andrew Werby wrote in message ...
>Tastes, of course, will differ; but by training ones preferences one can
>realize, for example, that further explorations of German Expressionism
>or Chilean reds will be rewarded, if these are the sorts of things that
>have proved rewarding in the past. While the opinions of experts may
>concur
>Certainly neither the experience of tasting a wine or looking at a work
>of art are things that can be definitely put into words, but just making
>the attempt can be instructive, and may lead to the widening of ones
>horizons.]
>
>Andrew Werby
Good points. There is also the money to be saved. If I drink a glass of
wine and like it, I'll try others of that brand or variety. If I dislike
it, the opposite will happen. This is much cheaper in the long run that
spending $5 to $15 a bottle because the label looks nice and having no idea
what is inside.
This is even more important now that I've started making some wine. I'd
hate to spend $50 or more, invest weeks of waiting, racking and finally
bottling to find that even though the wine is good, it does not suit my
taste.
Ed
e...@snet.net
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Andrew Werby
> Andrew Werby wrote in message ...
>
> >Tastes, of course, will differ; but by training ones preferences one can
> >realize, for example, that further explorations of German Expressionism
> >or Chilean reds will be rewarded, if these are the sorts of things that
> >have proved rewarding in the past. While the opinions of experts may
> >concur
>
> >Certainly neither the experience of tasting a wine or looking at a work
> >of art are things that can be definitely put into words, but just making
> >the attempt can be instructive, and may lead to the widening of ones
> >horizons.]
> >
> >Andrew Werby
>
>
> Good points. There is also the money to be saved. If I drink a glass of
> wine and like it, I'll try others of that brand or variety. If I dislike
> it, the opposite will happen. This is much cheaper in the long run that
> spending $5 to $15 a bottle because the label looks nice and having no idea
> what is inside.
>
> This is even more important now that I've started making some wine. I'd
> hate to spend $50 or more, invest weeks of waiting, racking and finally
> bottling to find that even though the wine is good, it does not suit my
> taste.
> Ed
[Making ones own wine, or art, gives one the opportunity, with
time and practice, to make exactly the sort one prefers, and
save quite a bit over buying the products of others. So
keep trying different wines, and looking at different sorts
of art, if only to keep all the possibilities in mind. Being
a practitioner of either also gives one more insight into the
efforts of others in the field than somebody who has never made
the attempt, so it's worthwhile to try, even if the initial results
are unsatisfactory.]
Andrew Werby
> e...@snet.net
> http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
peter nelson
>> That's funny, Milt -- the wine tasting training happened to me several
years
>> ago. My roommate wanted to learn how to be a gentleman, so he organized
a
>> wine class in our house, along with some of his friends, who collectively
>> paid an expert to teach. It was pricey. He asked me if I wanted to
join,
>> and I declined because I thought along the same lines as you express
above --
>> as well as seeing it as 'silly' I thought it was 'pretentious.' But the
rest
>> of the story was every Wednesday morinig there were several half empty
>> bottles of tasted wine laying around, and I was able to sample them
myself.
>> I remember particularly a Portuguese Sherry that costed about 30 bucks a
>> bottle that was so wonderful...completely outside of my range of
experience
>> in wine.
>
>[Wine appreciation and art appreciation have certain things in common,
>that shouldn't be lightly dismissed. Both the tasting of wine and the
>viewing of art are productive of a certain subjective impression that
>is difficult to analyze. Usually one either says "Hmm- I like it" or
>"Yuck!" We find it difficult to put further words or justifications
>together to explain these reactions to others, though- this is where
>training can help. In wine-tasting classes, one learns to identify
>various components of spoiled wine in their pure states- the sulphur
>of rotten eggs, the vinegary stench of volatile acidity, amyl acetate
>which contributes a banana-like aroma, or the flatness caused by
>oxidation. One learns to recognize some of the elusive scents that
>make wine taste good as well; they are named by analogy to similar
>scents; like vanilla, which is imparted by aging in oak, cedar,
>tobacco, blackberries and prunes, which are due to the particular
>grapes used, and qualities that come from the soil in which the
>grapes were grown, like steeliness or earthiness. Once one gets
>used to dissecting a wine in this way, it becomes something of an
>intellectual exercise to decide why one does or doesn't like it;
>or- more interestingly- what exactly one does and doesn't like about
>it.
>
>By training oneself to think analytically about art, one can achieve
>similar proficiency in evaluating what exactly there is about a painting
>or sculpture that appeals to one- or turns one off.
That's what I question.
I'm also a bit of a wine connoiseur and my wife and I enjoy
attending tastings and debating the merits if this wine or
that, or their suitability for different foods. And one thing which
becomes clear with wine is that there is an agreed-up
vocabulary ("corky", "dry", "spicy", etc) that everyone knows
and that is applied in a pretty consistent way. If you were to
blindfold someone who spoke this language and asked them to
choose which of three wines had one of these characteristics he
would have no trouble doing so. Or if someone says that some
wine is young or that the flavors are well differentiated or that some
red wine which was just opened needs to breath a little or it will have
a bite, these statements have a meaning which is understood
by others.
The reason for this is that these are characteristics of the WINE
ITSELF and the vocabulary is just to communicate about it. If
I say a wine is spicy or has a bite I'm not imposing some
property ONTO the wine; I'm just choosing words to describe
what is already true about the wine.
What I'm questioning is whether the characteristics of modern
art which critics discuss are as intrinsic to the art as the
tastes and textures of the wine, above are to the wine.
To take my example of the green stripe from MOMA, or,
say, a Pollock paint-splattering, how much of the description
in these is about features which are intrinsic to the painting
and how much is meaning imposed by the viewer?
The reason why things like paint, clay, metal, etc, are called
"media" really is because they are (from the American Heritage
Dictionary) "an intervening substance through which something
is transmitted or carried on". Does it matter what was in the artists
head if doesn't take a form that can make contact with someone
else's head?
---peter
NomDeNette
>...snipped very interesting commentary regarding wine descriptors as true
characteristics vs. a means of human interpretation...
>The reason why things like paint, clay, metal, etc, are called
>"media" really is because they are (from the American Heritage
>Dictionary) "an intervening substance through which something
>is transmitted or carried on". Does it matter what was in the artists
>head if doesn't take a form that can make contact with someone
>else's head?
>
>---peter
As a person who thinks of himself primarily as a "wine grower" instead of a
"wine maker", I must use Peter's introduction of the concept of "medium" to
point out a major difference between the art of winemaking and other
artistic endeavors.
The creation of fine wine grapes is, WITHOUT QUESTION OR ARGUMENT, the most
important part of creating a fine wine. As an old French proverb says,
"good wine is made in the cellar, great wine is made in the vineyard ".
In other words, for the winemaker, the grape is much more than a mere medium
for artistic expression, it is the very sole of the finished product.
A great artist can create a masterpiece using inks of poor quality, but a
winemaker, regardless of his ability or gifts will NEVER make a great wine
from poor grapes.
The medium of winemaking is not the grape, it is the vine, the soil, the
rain, the weather, the earth & the delicate, graceful interplay between
these.
The French understand this, they call it Terrior.
The next time you taste a great wine, a TRULY GREAT WINE, remember to give
credit to the winegrower. Great Wine is the result of a gifted winegrower
who has handed his masterpiece to a winemaker.
Thanks;
-Ed
--
"Wine is sunlight, held together by water..."
-Louis Pasteur
Lum
NomDeNette <Zen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:78ig2g$pit$1...@remarQ.com...
>"wine maker", I must use Peter's introduction of the concept of "medium" to
>point out a major difference between the art of winemaking and other
>artistic endeavors.
>
>The creation of fine wine grapes is, WITHOUT QUESTION OR ARGUMENT, the most
>important part of creating a fine wine. As an old French proverb says,
>"good wine is made in the cellar, great wine is made in the vineyard ".
>
>In other words, for the winemaker, the grape is much more than a mere
medium
>for artistic expression, it is the very sole of the finished product.
>
>A great artist can create a masterpiece using inks of poor quality, but a
>winemaker, regardless of his ability or gifts will NEVER make a great wine
>from poor grapes.
>
>The medium of winemaking is not the grape, it is the vine, the soil, the
>rain, the weather, the earth & the delicate, graceful interplay between
>these.
>
>The French understand this, they call it Terrior.
>
>The next time you taste a great wine, a TRULY GREAT WINE, remember to give
>credit to the winegrower. Great Wine is the result of a gifted winegrower
>who has handed his masterpiece to a winemaker.
>
>Thanks;
>-Ed
>
The most difficult part of winemaking is locating a source of high
quality grapes, and the only way most home winemakers can obtain
high quality fruit is to grow it themselves.
lum http://home.att.net/~lumeisenman/
Dan Parker
>
>Good points. There is also the money to be saved. If I drink a glass of
>wine and like it, I'll try others of that brand or variety. If I dislike
>it, the opposite will happen. This is much cheaper in the long run that
>spending $5 to $15 a bottle because the label looks nice and having no idea
This is precisely why some instruction (or perhaps "guidance" is a better
word) can prove so valuable. If I had taken such an attitude I would have
missed out on some of the best experiences of my wine drinking life. For
instance, Zinfandel is one of my favorite varieties...in spite of the fact
that the first couple examples I had were quite poor in quality. But I
reasoned that, given all the things I had read about good Zins, these were
probably just bad examples of the variety. Further experimentation proved
that to be correct. Cutting an entire variety out of your repertoire on the
basis of one or two negative experiences is not doing yourself any favor,
IMHO.
Dan
Andrew Werby
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> Andrew Werby wrote in message ...
> >By training oneself to think analytically about art, one can achieve
> >similar proficiency in evaluating what exactly there is about a painting
> >or sculpture that appeals to one- or turns one off.
>
> That's what I question.
>
> I'm also a bit of a wine connoiseur and my wife and I enjoy
> attending tastings and debating the merits if this wine or
> that, or their suitability for different foods. And one thing which
> becomes clear with wine is that there is an agreed-up
> vocabulary ("corky", "dry", "spicy", etc) that everyone knows
> and that is applied in a pretty consistent way. If you were to
> blindfold someone who spoke this language and asked them to
> choose which of three wines had one of these characteristics he
> would have no trouble doing so. Or if someone says that some
> wine is young or that the flavors are well differentiated or that some
> red wine which was just opened needs to breath a little or it will have
> a bite, these statements have a meaning which is understood
> by others.
>
> The reason for this is that these are characteristics of the WINE
> ITSELF and the vocabulary is just to communicate about it. If
> I say a wine is spicy or has a bite I'm not imposing some
> property ONTO the wine; I'm just choosing words to describe
> what is already true about the wine.
[While this is basically true, different people have different thresholds
of tolerance for certain elements in wine. Some can tolerate quite a bit
of tannin, others can hardly stand any. Some people have an acute sensitivity
to bitterness or acidity, others consider it an important flavor
characteristic. While opinions on these things refer to actual components of
the wine, they are still essentially subjective.]
>
> What I'm questioning is whether the characteristics of modern
> art which critics discuss are as intrinsic to the art as the
> tastes and textures of the wine, above are to the wine.
> To take my example of the green stripe from MOMA, or,
> say, a Pollock paint-splattering, how much of the description
> in these is about features which are intrinsic to the painting
> and how much is meaning imposed by the viewer?
[If it isn't, then it should be; that's what I was trying to get at in my
earlier
remarks. If somebody has something to say about the stripes and splatters that
makes it clear how it differs from and surpasses other superficially
similar stripes
and splatters, I would listen with interest. If a critic, on the other
hand, wants
to go on about Pollack's tortured childhood, his drunken antics, or the
cool cats
he hung out with, I tend to turn off. I'd like to see the emergence of a
vocabulary
for critical discourse about art that actually referred to generally
comprehensible
qualities of the art itself, much like the wine terms mentioned above help one
communicate about the characteristics of the wine. There used to be fewer
difficulties
in this, when artists were all trying to do more or less the same thing in
their work.
At that time, one could conceive of various styles as variations in the
basic idea,
which was to achieve a recognizable portrayal of a scene of some sort. But
in today's
fragmented art world it seems we'll have to start again from scratch,
thinking up
some terms that are more reflective of the more various art of our times.
I'd like to find a way to describe various abstract forms, for instance,
that systematized a range of shapes and patterns found in nature. The
closest I've come is the language used by botanists to differentiate
plants, and the terms used by topologists to describe the shapes arrived
at by mathematical operations. I'm not sure either would be suitable for
art-critical discourse, however. What this currently seems to focus on,
more than attempts to describe what's going on in the art itself, like
wine criticism, is either the psychology of the artist or the theories,
enthusiasms and prejudices of the critic, none of which interest me as
much as the visual qualities of the work itself. It is as if wine
criticism focused on the biography of the winemaker and its relationship
to French literature instead of on how the stuff actually tasted.]
> The reason why things like paint, clay, metal, etc, are called
> "media" really is because they are (from the American Heritage
> Dictionary) "an intervening substance through which something
> is transmitted or carried on". Does it matter what was in the artists
> head if doesn't take a form that can make contact with someone
> else's head?
>
>
> ---peter
[Does it matter to whom? If it matters to the artist, is that enough?
What if only one other person in the world likes it? What if he or she
likes it for reasons that have nothing to do with what was in the artist's
head?]
Beth Laske-Miller
> [If it isn't, then it should be; that's what I was trying to get at in my
> earlier remarks. If somebody has something to say about the stripes and
> splatters that
> makes it clear how it differs from and surpasses other superficially
> similar stripes and splatters, I would listen with interest. If a critic, on the
> other
> hand, wants to go on about Pollack's tortured childhood, his drunken antics, or
> the
> cool cats he hung out with, I tend to turn off.
Ah, that is so refreshing to hear! I have a degree in fine arts, and I got soooo
sick of the "tortured artist" interpretations of their works, especially since in
many cases they had no evidence to back up the claims. Especially in modern art,
critics seem to feel they have an open license to make up anything. A big part of
the reason I decided to avoid the fine art gallery circuit is that I didn't want
some critic telling me I have "unresolved childhood issues" (or whatever) because
I put a purple stripe next to a green ball. I paint the things I paint because I
like how they look, I like the interesting combinations of colors, shapes and
forms I can get. I like the surprises. The same holds true for the wine I make.
I like to experiment (within reason) and explore the aesthetics.
> I'd like to see the emergence of a vocabulary for critical discourse about art
> that actually referred to generally comprehensible qualities of the art itself,
> much like the wine terms mentioned above help one
> communicate about the characteristics of the wine. There used to be fewer
> difficulties in this, when artists were all trying to do more or less the same
> thing in
> their work. At that time, one could conceive of various styles as variations in
> the
> basic idea, which was to achieve a recognizable portrayal of a scene of some
> sort. But
> in today's fragmented art world it seems we'll have to start again from scratch,
>
> thinking up some terms that are more reflective of the more various art of our
> times.
Maybe it exists somewhere. I think critics fail to recognize that not all art is
based on an emotion or an experience, sometimes it's just an aesthetically
pleasing image, and there is nothing wrong with that. The popular notion is that
it can't be "fine" art without some kind of deep story behind it. Fooey!
> I'd like to find a way to describe various abstract forms, for instance,
> that systematized a range of shapes and patterns found in nature. The
> closest I've come is the language used by botanists to differentiate
> plants, and the terms used by topologists to describe the shapes arrived
> at by mathematical operations. I'm not sure either would be suitable for
> art-critical discourse, however.
I think it is! I think what you may find in most art critics and historians, is
that they know a lot about art, but not much about mathematics, geometry, botany,
chemistry, or other empirically-based collections of forms. Douglas Hofstadler is
a great exception. I had a chance to check out one of his exhibits recently, it
was an amazing combination of science, art, form, etc. . . I have also read one of
his books, Godel Escher Bach, he talks a lot about patterns and rhythms in maths,
music and art. It takes a while to work through, but it's a great book.
> What this currently seems to focus on, more than attempts to describe what's
> going on in the art itself, like
> wine criticism, is either the psychology of the artist or the theories,
> enthusiasms and prejudices of the critic, none of which interest me as much as
> the visual qualities of the work itself. It is as if wine criticism focused on
> the biography of the winemaker and its relationship to French literature instead
> of on how the stuff actually tasted.]
LOL! It seems more absurd to put it in the context of the winemaker that the
visual artist. "This Cabernet Sauvignon shows the deep anger the winemaker felt
during primary fermentation because his cat got run over by a car that day". :)
> [Does it matter to whom? If it matters to the artist, is that enough?
> What if only one other person in the world likes it? What if he or she
> likes it for reasons that have nothing to do with what was in the artist's
> head?]
Amen! I like it, my friends like it. Maybe someday the rest of the world will
too, so what?! I'm happy if one person likes it.
Beth
Rick Wiles
> based on an emotion or an experience, sometimes it's just an aesthetically
> pleasing image, and there is nothing wrong with that. The popular notion is that
> it can't be "fine" art without some kind of deep story behind it.
>
Perhaps, but when reads the writings of Cazan, Van Goah or Dali one pretty much gets
these idea that these persons had more than a few unresolved issues hanging about.
Take Dali for example: the man believed in transcendal sex that is that the two
partners could but in different places at different time and still perform the act.
While the idea is novel and would differently save money on condoms I and I feel I
speak for the majority like my sex the old fashion way (two people). Or perhaps the
better example is when one day Dali decided that it would show believed wife his new
estate since it had under gone a grand landscaping project and the grounds were
nearing completion. His wife and he lived in different houses and he hadn't had any
personal contact with her in almost four years however, the couple did have
transcendental sex three times a week. Anyhow one fine sunny day he loaded her into
his gold colored Caddilac and while driving slowly around the estate Dali explained
what go here and what would be there when the grounds project was finally complete
afterwards they had a picnic. What his wife thought about this sudden act of personal
kindness and attention was never known you see at the time of the tour she had already
been dead for five days. And you say that some of these unresolved issues and he had
plenty couldn't but show up in his art????
Not that this has anything to do about wine or winemaking other than I enjoy both art
and winemaking.
Every human pursuit has developed it own jargon along the way to help others of like
interest to communicate efficiently and precisely.
MnSRC
>paintings)
>From: Rick Wiles <jhazelton...@usouthal.campus.mci.net>
>Date: Mon, Feb 1, 1999 14:46 EST
>Message-id: <36B60486...@usouthal.campus.mci.net>
What kind of Cadillac was it?
Salud,
Martin J. Crane
Rick Wiles
> >both art
> >and winemaking.
> >
> >Every human pursuit has developed it own jargon along the way to help others
> >of like
> >interest to communicate efficiently and precisely.
>
> What kind of Cadillac was it?
>
A fleetwood fairly early model a 57-59 if I recall correctly.