We call wines elegant, simple,sexy, sophisticated, brooding, lively, rustic, authentic, and subtle. These terms are already a routine part of the wine lexicon. So why not describe wines as joyful, angry, melancholic, cheerful, nervous or rowdy? Our ability to describe the individuality of wines would be greatly enhanced by a vocabulary that included the full range of human emotions and personality traits.
Instead of a winemaker making a wine intended to be lively or sexy, why not make a wine that is cheerful or angry?
What matters is whether describing wines in this way would make sense of our experience of them. Does it help us to understand the wine? For such a practice to be worthwhile, our descriptions would have to be more then imaginative flights of fancy. They would have to be anchored in features of the wine.
But it seems to me good wines have the complexity and perceived movement characteristics to anchor such ascriptions. And by doing so we would be able to dig deeper into the uniqueness of each wine and the capacity of a wine to affect us.
After all we interpret specific brush strokes on a canvas and specific notes and rhythms in a musical piece as evocative and expressive of human personality traits or emotions. Why would aromas, textures, and their transformations be less evocative than lines, shapes or sounds?