Big, high alcohol fruit bombs vs. food friendly elegance, toasty, buttery chardonnay vs. crisp, minerally Chablis, conventional winemaking vs. sans souf natural wines, terroir-driven wines vs. winemaker wines. The wine world has its own culture warriors to keep things interesting if you like a good argument.
Unlike the culture wars over gay rights or religion, where human lives and destinies are at stake, these wine wars have little effect since they are ignored by most people who will go on drinking what they like. More importantly, in a real “culture war”, one is forced to choose sides because to sit on the fence is to be complicit in some great harm that will significantly influence the life chances of people affected by it. But in this debate about wine styles no one is forced to choose (except winemakers I suppose). Big alcoholic reds from warm regions are a distinctive style of winemaking enjoyable for their pure deliciousness and intensity. More restrained, elegant wines with high acidity are interesting because of their liveliness, complexity, and sense of place. We can enjoy both and seek out the best examples of each without choosing sides.
Why not let a thousand flowers bloom? Certainly the wine world benefits from diversity like any ecosystem.
As to the distinction between “terroir-driven wines” vs. “winemaker wines” there is less to this debate than it would seem when the rhetoric is flying. The difference is alleged to be the degree to which a winemaker intervenes in the winery to shape the taste of the wine. “Terrior-driven” wines involve little intervention, allowing the unadorned flavors of the fruit and its location to shine. “Winemaker wines” are a product of a winemaker’s attempt to shape the wine according to her artistic vision. No doubt, terroir is real and some winemakers seek to preserve it. But winemakers who seek to preserve terroir nevertheless have to interpret what that means and they make countless decisions about when to drop fruit, when to irrigate, degree of sun exposure, when to harvest, not to mention fermentation temps, time to macerate, etc. all in the name of preserving terroir’s signal. Each winemaker will have a different take on it. This is obvious in, for instance, Burgundy where adjacent vineyard plots tended by different growers and winemakers produce vastly different wines despite strict regulations about winery practices. In the end, even “terroir-driven” wines are “mind-driven”, a product of the winemaker’s artistic vision.
Again, we don’t have to choose one or the other but can appreciate each wine for what it is or perhaps what it is striving to be.
These debates are a sign of a vibrant, reflective culture. But there is no war going on—only people advocating that their own sense of taste should be the standard. The 18th Century philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that the mark of a genuine aesthetic judgment is that it strives to be universal. I doubt that is true. No one wants a culture in which everyone shares the same taste. But when we love something we want others to love it too. Beauty is an object of love and both beauty and love will last as long as there is some mystery to be grasped that requires my undivided attention. But beauty and love are inherently social. Part of my desire for a particular wine is that others have that desire as well.
These debates are not best described as a “war” but as an attempt to find friends with whom we can share our taste.
Exploring the Philosophy of Food and Wine 