The tides turn as they will. Web 2.0 is making way for Web 3.0, or so some say. Goose liver made way for that of the duck, and both have stepped partially to the side for “food foams” and gluten-free morsels. Syrah struggled there for a bit and is making its way back into our hearts.
Things change and people accept new things at every turn. But why? It’s consensus, I tell ya. It’s in politics, in cyberspace and in the airport terminal. We draw conclusions and share them. We’re quite impressionable but in many ways embrace the scientific method, so we accept input, interpret it, process it, adapt to it AND adopt the bits that resonate with our paradigms – and we syndicate. Nowadays, the broadcast tools are fabulously rich in capability, and the creators are on a tear to capture each moment, each segment of attention to purvey the, well, the 3.o version. Heck, I’m all over Hootsuite, even though it took me 12 months to interpret-process-adapt to it, and another 2 months to adopt it. But it’s made for syndication, and the legions of Twitter spinoffs want me to click like a ghoul wants mortals to vex. The best part about syndication? Even during the rolling brownouts (hm. we haven’t seen those in Cali for quite some time), we can syndicate not just with our mouths and hands, but with our energy. I’m getting there, getting there….a-HA! Got there – I’m talking about wine criticism and scoring.
Before you go A.D.D. or groan, please consider this: There are lots of wine critics, and countless ways to learn about wine. Remember, when we encounter a new experience, it’s human nature to reference past stimuli (taken through to the culmination of the “adopt” phase of learning) in order to make a decision. When we say that decision is an informed one, we generally mean that we’ve made comparisons, impartially assessed alternatives – driven a few cars before taking one from the lot. Thus, when it comes to taking a wine into one’s life, many who prefer a little outside help will turn to the wine critic. It helps. It may not be so easy to ask a few friends what their honest opinions are about a bottle before taking the plunge. Not so many of us will throw caution to the wind, and fewer will make a purchase based on place, varietal, vintage, pedigree (vineyard or winemaker). Wine geeks do it, sure. However, the mass media still reigns, and wine critics play just as integral a part in that mechanism as whoever turned that hilarious Twitter concept about an inappropriate dad into a television series. Name withheld – I’m sure you know why and what I’m talking about.
I’d like to see – and am beginning to see – a wine world in which critical commentary becomes more and more viral. I yearn for – and am delighted to observe – validation by consensus, communication sped up, trust and appreciation propagated both through oral tradition and the electronic landscape. It’s happening, and we can see the results when we check out what’s occurring all over the Internet but, more importantly, when we process and adopt this data into our own jargon. You may once have heard me rail against the Twitterization of tasting notes in defense of wine writing a la Cussler/Gaiter/Broadbent. (see “Buffaloed”) That opinion still sticks. I’m advocating for self-empowerment and the practice of embracing one’s own wine opinions, obviously made actionable through sharing and syndicating. Smoke signals, blogs, it doesn’t matter. Isolationists, on the other hand, may actually need the most famous critic they can find to do the thinking for them. Well, they’re alone, and that’s a difficult way to enable population growth.
There’s no all-powerful duo of wine scorers that can ever truly validate the merits of a wine. Advertising muscle is exactly what makes the dictator the homogenous authority. Check your history. And check it again because we can see what goes on when people select the path of self-determination. Informed decisions begin to happen and happen again. And that, in my opinion, is a happening thing. So is wine criticism – for income and for pleasure. I support all wine critics who have something creative and honest to say about a wine so long as they keep sharp (re: taste boatloads of wine). The ones who have the courage to share why their palates are the way they are are even more objective. It’s like going to a great concert with someone who can’t hear high pitches and talking about the show afterwards. There’s so much more to learn about why (s)he appreciated the music, thus knowing when to take a recommendation from this person about the upcoming tuba mosh.
We’ve learned via consensus which critics like what, but 9 times out of 10 the critics don’t tell us what they either can’t taste or are hypersensitive to. But we don’t need to wait for even the critic who can taste everything (like we’d ever find out) before we make our own minds up. As far as I’m concerned and always have been, we can change our minds any time. Gosh, we can even be our own critics and make our relatives our associate wine judges. Barring that, if somebody next door writes about wine, and we like to read about it, shouldn’t we take the time to peruse their latest article before borrowing the lawnmower? It just might be enjoyable, informative and helpful.
