Welcome To The Synesthesium

by WinechapNYC on February 19, 2010

Post image for Welcome To The Synesthesium

The dominant context of America’s conversation on wine revolves around the drink as a consumer product: a wine’s worth is quantified by a number on a 100-point scale, and the experience of drinking it is captured in a conglomeration of benign adjectives. Even the savviest of boozers become inundated with this myopia before they have a chance to form their own points of view. Sadly, this approach misses the point on several levels. Let us explain: Would any sane human translate the value of a great piece of art by rating it out of 100 points? Imagine going to a museum and seeing Rembrandt’s “The Return of the Prodigal Son, 1662″ with a little sign next to the canvas that read: 97 points. Would the same sane person explain their experience by making a list of the colors he/she sees in the hopes that it will be enough to catalogue the work for later comparison? No, and the truth is, there are wines that have the capacity to be equally, if not more, triumphant and alluring as that very painting. So why then should we avoid giving them the same intellectual attention? Most of us can agree that art often generates a visceral reaction in the viewer or listener. Think of a song with a melody and harmony so atmospheric that it derails all thought, replacing it with a dull, joyous vibration in the organs and a welling of power in the chest until it all but chokes you. Well, what about the taster? What about a wine that tastes or smells so inexplicably familiar that it transports you back in time? Your five-year-old self appears on Grandma’s embroidered stool working on a find-the-object search in Highlights Magazine, pencil in one hand, peanut butter sandwich in the other. The visual manifestation of taste is not a new concept–we already know that the five senses play a pivotal role in the process of making, storing, and retrieving memories. It is no surprise then, that wine should be discussed in relation to its ability to enhance or enrich life’s experiences. So, burn your wine bible, cancel your subscription to Wine Spectator, and fashion a Robert Parker voodoo doll with your roommate’s hair. Let’s drink wine like we listen to music and view art like we drink wine. Welcome to WineChap’s Synesthesium.

So What Exactly Goes Down In The Synesthesium?

Each week a wine will be paired with a record and piece of visual art that compliments or helps explain the experience of drinking said wine. Don’t worry though, this isn’t a column dedicated to unloading highfalutin bullshit. Promise. Unicorns, rainbows, and red Burgundy, WineChap

Tagged as: art, music, synesthesium

tomharrowwinehcapuk

This addresses the issues of criticism and appreciation, the former seeming more empirically-based (Points and Parker in the case of wine), the latter more subjectively observed (albeit as Chris points out in a context influenced by previous criticism). Should wine, art, literature, music, fashion be critiqued qualitatively rather than quantitively? Or does that reduce us to the 'I know what I like' school of aesthetic appreciation?

Unquestionably A more syncretistic approach enriches the experience. A few recent examples: - our 'Vin a la Mode' at Shoreditch House (London) - choosing designs from Truffle's Autumn collection http://www.truffledesign.com/ that specifically matched nuances in a range of Sicilian wines; a forthcmoing presentation with the equine photography of Tim Flach - pairing particular horses (breeds and poses) with certain wines; and of course the Bordello and Coco de Mer Tastings - with a flight of wines analogous of a journey of sexual exploration! This is surely the ultimate in evaluating wine in more hedonistic, impuslive, sensuous terms than the traditional Bordeaux vertical.

Chris Weaver

Count me in the school of 100-point-scale opponents, but I have to wonder: Why do museum goers like Rembrandt in the first place? Is it really his dim line, muted colors, or the faint smell of 350-year-old oils and canvases? Or, is it the name recognition, the prestigious placement in a museum, the odds and ends even an inexpert viewer might recollect about the artist and his work, the cumulative effect of critics over the centuries – the Robert Parkers of the art world?

I think, probably a little bit of both, and that doesn't mean Rembrandt's fans are susceptible push-overs. Knowing stuff about stuff can encourage bad decisions (think, Marlboro Man), but it can also enrich experience. Just like reading a Rembrandt book might improve a museum visit, knowing a vineyard or winery might improve a bottle. Like art, enjoying wine isn't a strictly empirical experience for most people. While that helpful history and context isn't captured by 100-point scales, it also can't be divined by taste, touch and smell alone.

That's why I think the reactions against Parker and the Spectator skip a step. Many of these critiques view personal taste and sensory experience as the obvious alternative to the popular critics – who some argue have evolved into marketing arms for entrenched producers. Maybe the problem isn't the critical approach, but simply these critics.