It doesn’t take much exposure to wine to understand, then be overwhelmed by, its astounding, infinite variability. To know wine in its entirety is impossible, but the urge to experience its endless beauty is strong. We chase a constantly expanding repertoire of styles in a — perhaps laudable, perhaps gluttonous — attempt to gauge wine’s true scope. It’s easy to lose track of the aesthetics of wine amidst sensory (not to mention marketing) overload. All of a sudden, we’re talking more about what a wine represents than what it is.
On a fundamental level, wine never happens until it’s drunk, so it’s worth putting that relationship back at the centre of wine appreciation. I’m not playing a postmodern game and suggesting a wine literally doesn’t exist until it is consumed. Rather, a bottle of wine isn’t complete if it’s never tasted. Until that moment, it is just liquid potential – an idea, a “maybe.” The ideas may be interesting or fraudulent, novel or hackneyed, but without tasting, they remain untested.
And that’s true of each bottle, even if one is familiar with other bottles of the same wine. Wine drunk at one moment will be different from at any other moment, its chemistry changed, its context shifted. The only chance we get to capture the beauty within a bottle is at the moment of consumption. If you believe this, as I do, then the idea of a trophy wine, one never intended to be drunk, is an obscenity. It makes a mockery of wine and its capacity to impart pleasure.
Ironically, we destroy wine in our attempt to appreciate it, which makes the drink even more tantalising. Unlike a beautiful painting, one can’t revisit a wine exactly as it was the first (or second, or third) time. The slight sadness I feel when I open a rare bottle is, I think, related to the fact that drinking a wine involves both the creation and the elimination of its beauty. If wine doesn’t exist until it is drunk, it only ever exists in that moment too. And when it’s gone, all we have left are our memories of it, subject to the same distortions and inaccuracies as our memories of loved ones who have died.
If a bottle of wine does have any sort of life beyond being drunk, it’s in the minds of those who were there. I’ve often wondered why I, and thousands of other wine lovers, are driven to write about the wines we love. Perhaps our notes are eulogies of a sort, reminders of what we liked and didn’t like, written in the knowledge that a bottle consumed can no longer speak for itself. All that’s left are those who remember how beautiful it really was.
So good. Enough said. x
Cheers Mike, it’s nice to know more personal writing resonates…. I am sure you can relate!
A beautiful piece of writing
Love your work Julian. It reminds me of the idea of jazz improvisation and potentiality – in theory a range of potentialities exist but only one of them becomes real when it is actualised – selected and played. The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben has witten a lot on this idea of potentiality. A wonderful way of looking at things.
That’s precisely what I’m getting at, Chris. The unpredictable, one-off nature of jazz is a good analogy, and interestingly, can be extended to the practice of recorded jazz. Arguably, capturing a jazz improvisation and replaying it destroys what makes it special by making it reproducible. Isn’t this why we rail against industrial wines that have no element of variability?
An excellent little novella and very much to what wine basically comes down to. I will steal this piece, place it in my monthly report and claim it as my own – it is eminently thievable 🙂
I guess I owe you one, given I imposed on us the experience of being cornered by Ms Ticking Clock over dinner… 🙂
I love it, I love it, I love it, I love it. I love it!
Very kind, Kellie. Thank you!