In my last post in this series on wine criticism I argued that the job of the wine critic is to make readers aware of a wine’s features,  communicate the kinds of responses available because of those features, and what the reasons are for those responses.

Which features of a wine are the most important to mention in a review? Obviously how the wine smells and tastes must be the focus along with any information that might explain why the wine tastes as it does. Most importantly, the critic must convey what’s noticeable about a wine that calls us to respond to it. A list of aroma notes isn’t sufficient. What the reader needs to know is why those aroma notes or textures are worth mentioning.

Which leads me to the most important feature of any wine that appreciation depends on—the degree to which a wine is distinctive. By “distinctive” I mean variation that carries with it value or high quality. For a wine to be distinctive it must be different from its competitors.

Variation is the life blood of the culture of wine. What makes Barolo (or Bordeaux, Rioja, etc.) important as a region is that the wines made there are distinctive. There is no other location in the world that makes wine that tastes like Barolo. The top wine regions in the world are recognized as such because  their products show significant variation from lesser regions with less distinctive products. In fact the whole appellation system depends on the idea of variation. To qualify as a distinct appellation, they must show there is something distinctive about the geography of the region that warrants the implication of individuality that comes with the appellation designation.

Furthermore, within Barolo, the prestige and price of, for instance, Giacomo Conterno Monfortino, is in part a result of the wine being distinctively different from other producers in the region, and particular vineyards are valued because the grapes they produce variations that are highly valued.

Wine appreciation also includes an appreciation of vintage variation. Much of the excitement of a new vintage for enthusiasts results from the expectation that each vintage will show distinct characteristics that can be compared and contrasted with earlier vintages. And the process of aging wines is interesting precisely because each bottle ages as an individual and thus can show variations that surprise (or disappoint) when opened.

Without variation as a dominant value, wine would be as uninteresting as orange juice or milk and there would be no reason for the vast number of brands and the price differentials that distinguish them. It is variation that makes wine the cultural icon it has become.

Thus, because of the importance of variation, it’s the primary job of the wine critic to track variation and report it to her readers. The ability to recognize and put into words how a wine varies from its competition is the most important ability a wine critic needs to be successful.

In this series of posts I’ve been arguing that the primary purpose of wine criticism is to aid in appreciation. Thus, to provide an account of how wine criticism performs that function we need an account of wine appreciation.

In order to appreciate a wine two conditions must obtain:

(1) Tasting the wine or accurately imagining it based on reliable perceptions of a component or stage of the wine; (for more detail see this post)

and (2) Responding appropriately to the wine. (See this post  and this post for more details on appropriate response)

Given this account of appreciation, we can now say what wine criticism is.

One necessary condition of wine criticism is that the critic must have tasted the wine. Regardless of how much a critic may know about the wine, readers have a legitimate expectation that the critic has tasted the wine and developed her view of the wine based on that tasting.

The second condition of wine criticism is that the critic seek to communicate the properties and appropriate responses to those properties that a wine makes available, as well as reasons for why those responses are appropriate. The critic’s aim is not just to describe the wine but to enable the reader to understand that these properties are worthy of their attention and invite a response, whether positive or negative.

The critic is responding to what is good or bad in a wine and is reporting that the wine moves her in some way and is letting the reader know how she is moved and to what degree, often by interpreting or elucidating features of the wine. Thus, the critic doesn’t simply inform us about facts but about facts that matter and explaining why they matter. For instance, making readers aware that a winery ages in amphora might make the wine’s minerality more evident and important or highlighting the herbal notes in a Syrah may get drinkers to recognize the wine’s complexity or relationship to other wines.

As Terry Theise writes in his recent book What Makes a Wine Worth Drinking,”If a wine doesn’t cause us to notice it why are we drinking it?” The critic must convey what’s noticeable about a wine that calls us to respond to it.

Thus, the wine critic’s job is to make readers aware of a wine’s features,  communicate the kinds of responses available because of those features, and what the reasons are for those responses. A critic could make readers aware of a wine’s features but fail to get them to respond appropriately because having the appropriate response is often up to the reader. The critic’s job is to explain what responses are available.

Because the critic’s job is to report what responses are available including her own response, there is an inherent subjectivity involved in wine criticism. The ultimate goal of the critic is not objectivity but to enable a reader’s responsiveness by using the critic’s  own response as a reference point.