An Argument Against Aesthetic Nihilism

When I decided to open my own wine retailer, the first question I asked myself was what kind of wines would I sell?  The easy answer, of course, is “good wines.”  The follow-up question is,

naturally, what is a good wine?

If you ask the majority of wine drinkers what constitutes a good wine, they will say the same thing.  A good wine is a wine that I like.  This is, of course, tautological,and thus completely begs the question.  Some people have extended this individualistic ideal of taste to argue that there are no standards for quality in wine, that everything is personal, a concept that I refer to as aesthetic nihilism.

I do believe that there are different wine preferences.  I, for example, prefer wines with a good amount of acidity.  Many wine drinkers prefer wines that are very full bodied, thick, alcholic and emphasize fruit.

At the risk of seeming anti-Democratic and enraging those at the vanguards of populism, I would like to state with certainty that there are standards that can be applied to wine in terms of which are well made.  Before the hordes descend on me, this is not the same as saying that there are standards for saying which wines are good.  

Let me try to give some rough guidelines for what I look for in a “Good Wine” and avoid in a “Bad Wine.”  These standards apply to what I will call fine wine.  Roughly put, with fine wines the winemakers are attempting to elevate the wines from being mere beverages to being something interesting that wine drinkers can contemplate.  If you are of the “it tastes good” crowd, stop reading here, all that follows will be babble.

Good=Balance/Bad=Monochromatic

Some people, who have stopped reading this by now, view wine as a mere beverage like Coca-Cola.  If it tastes good, then it’s good.  Wine lovers want something more interesting.  If one looks at the major taste elements in wine: fruit, body, acidity and minerality, a good wine will have 2 or 3 of those.  It’s a lot more interesting to taste something that has multiple flavors cascading across the palate than a giant glass of black cherry soda (not that black cherry soda doesn’t have its charms).

Good=Integrated Wood/Bad=Oak Bombs

Some very expensive wines have a lot of wood flavors on release.  Because wines do not have warning labels for premature drinking, many wine novices drink them too early.  Now, a large portion of the wine drinking public thinks that wood is good.  Let’s be clear - wood does not taste good.  No one eats trees.  There are no wood chips sold as snacks.  No one drinks wood extract.  Wood in wine is there as an element to add structure and body to the wine.  Some woody wines will mature after many years and be wonderful.  They have enough structure and fruit to tolerate the wood.  Most woody wines are just woody.  They are crap cynically marketed to the ignorant to sell wines made from crappy grapes at inflated prices.  PT Barnum would be proud.

Now, there are wines that have a good amount of wood that are very rich and structured.  Often, the minerality in these wines will play a small part in the wine’s flavor profile.  I do not personally care for these wines but some people like them and I would not call them Bad wines.

Good=Clean Aromatics/Bad=Skanky Brettanomyces

As in the case of wood, there are no poop flavored snacks.  There is no poop deodorant.  Why?  Because poop stinks.  Wines that have an overwhelming amount of poop smell were made in a sloppy style and Brettanomyces, a wild yeast, grew and made the wine stink like poop.  It’s not good.  If you like the smell of poop, go sit in an outhouse, breath deep and save your money.

Good=Balancing Acidity/Bad=Stewy Messes

I like acidity.  I like more acidity than most people.  I will argue that at least some acidity is necessary for a great wine.  First, wines without acidity do not age well.  Second, they are not refreshing to drink.  

Good=Secondary and Tertiary Flavors/Bad=Nothing There
The reason we age wine is to get secondary and tertiary aromas that are just not there when young. Most true wine lovers I know prefer aromas to taste, as taste is a function of aromas anyway. Bad wine is wine you age and has no tertiary or secondary aromas, or even worse, smells stewy, alcoholic and over the hill.

Good=Complex Aromatics/Bad=McCormacks Vanilla Extract
As I previously stated complex aromatics that are usually secondary and tertiary are wine lover's Holy Grail. We like tons of nuance and many flavors versus one flavor is always better. Especially when always changing and evolving. That is good wine. In Bad wine, especially ones that are propped up by oak to impress when young tend to smell like oak when old and nothing else. That is Bad wine.

When I drink with fellow professionals, there is always a spirited debate about the wines.  There is often great agreement but 1 or 2 wines will always be focal points for disagreement.  Sometimes it is whether the wine will age.  But more often is it about the style of the wine.  There are certainly different strokes for different folks.  

But that does not mean that there are not good and bad examples of varying styles of wines.  I find that arguments surrounding what is a well made example of a certain style are much less common.  Wine professionals do of course, like different styles of wine.  But with practice, one learned to weed out wines that are simply poorly made.