Tag Archives: aesthetics of food and wine

Cheese, Wine and Time

14 Monday Nov 2016

Posted by in Contemporary Food Culture, Food Science, Wine Culture

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

wine and cheeseFor flavor hounds, this article about cheese and wine pairing on NPR’s The Salt gives one a lot to chew on.  First, it’s nice to see the science of taste catching up to something I’ve been insisting on for a long time. The quality of tasting experience is determined as much by how substances evolve on the palate as it is on static structural relationships between elements. A new method of scientifically assessing flavor  called Temporal Dominance of Sensations (TDS) attempts to capture this dimension:

TDS is designed to reveal how the taste of something evolves as you consume it. The taster sits down in front of a computer screen with a black glass of an unknown wine. On the screen are 11 words describing attributes or sensations such as sour, astringent, bitter, floral and so on….The taster takes a sip and then clicks on whichever sensation is dominant at that moment. When the sensation changes — say, from “sour” to “red fruits” — the tester clicks the new attribute, until there is no sensation left.

The idea that it is changes in sensation that make the flavor experience interesting, exciting and satisfying has been largely ignored by flavor science. This experiment with wine and cheese is the first time I’ve come across flavor science trying to measure this dimension which to my mind is crucial.

As to the main point of the article, it claims that in general white wines pair better with a wider variety of cheeses than red wines do, contradicting  the widely accepted view that red wine and cheese is a natural pairing.

Although the researchers did not set out to recommend specific pairings, The Salt pressed Dr. Galmarini. Her latest study, as yet unpublished, does offer some advice.

“If you have many cheeses, better to serve a white wine,” she says.

It would be nice to have had a summary of the evidence for this. The article quotes food writer Ed Behr on the topic:

Behr points out that most red wines “are completely unrefreshing.” That’s fine with a little cheese at the end of a structured meal, to finish the red wine. But Behr says, when the cheese is more than just a taste but “maybe the central protein of the meal, what you want is a drink that’s much more refreshing.” In other words: a dry white.

I think that is broadly correct. But the problem I have with wine and cheese pairings is that cheese is almost always mouth coating, and this often cancels the perception of subtle nuances in wine, whether red or white. The article acknowledges this effect.

… Galmarini says there is a clear conclusion for certain sensations, such as sourness and astringency, which would probably be considered negative.

“With cheese,” she told The Salt, “the sensation is reduced. It does not last so long in the mouth.”

Right. So wines that are sour or excessively drying—bad wines—will taste better with cheese because of this mouth-coating effect. But what isn’t mentioned is that, by the same token, good wines will be diminished when paired with a mouth coating cheese.

This is not to say that the combination of wine and cheese is never satisfying. Sauvignon Blanc and a good chevre or a tawny Port with Stilton are magical. But you may not be getting as much nuance out of the wine when paired with a mouth coating cheese.

Advertisements

Does Simplicity Have Aesthetic Value?

13 Wednesday Jul 2016

Posted by in Edible Art, General Aesthetics, Philosophy of Food and Wine

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

malevich

Black Square by Malevich 1923

Does simplicity have aesthetic value? The dominant voices in the Western tradition of aesthetics praise complexity; finding unity in diversity is the hallmark of great art. Certainly in wine, complexity not simplicity is most admired. Legendary and high scoring wines all exhibit complex flavor profiles and extensive evolution on the palate. Simple wines might be enjoyable for dinner but seldom induce rapture.

But in food, simplicity seems to have its place. As the celebrated gastronome Curnonsky wrote, “Good cooking is when things taste of what they are”. Great chefs know when to simplify recipes to eliminate anything that might distract from an ingredient’s inherent flavor. Japanese aesthetics has long appreciated simplicity. And many minimalist works in painting, (Malevich or Rothko) or in music, ( Reich or Riley or the blues for that matter), rely on simplicity. Are these exceptions that prove the rule that complexity is fundamental to aesthetic value? Or is Western aesthetics missing something in its praise of the virtues of complexity?

It seems to me simplicity is often a tool through which an artist achieves unity and balance in a work. Thus simplicity has instrumental value. But is simplicity inherently aesthetically pleasing? Can it stand alone, not as instrument to achieve unity, but as something itself aesthetically pleasing?

I’m not sure. But if simplicity has inherent aesthetic value, it would disrupt current practices of wine tasting.

Stay tuned for more on this.

How to Pair Food and Wine

14 Monday Mar 2016

Posted by in Contemporary Food Culture, Wine Culture

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

food and wine pairingFood and wine pairing can get complicated but if you follow these simple principles you will avoid disasters and find pairings that are always acceptable.

1. Don’t lose sleep over pairings. There are a few excellent pairings in which both the wine and food are enhanced, and a few disasters. But in the majority of cases, wine and food don’t influence each other so much that a less than perfect pairing will ruin the meal. Wine and food pairing is something to have fun with but is not worth stressing about.

2. Stock up on versatile wines. Wines with high acidity and wines with some sweetness are the most versatile for pairing with food. Riesling usually has some sweetness and good acidity so it is one of the most versatile varietals. Medium-bodied, fruity wines such as Pinot Noir, Merlot, Viognier and Chardonnay, if lightly oaked, will also pair with a wide variety of foods.

3. Don’t be a slave to rules. Pairing rules are rough approximations. Yes, white wines tend to be better with seafood than red wines but there are exceptions. Grilled tuna sauced with a red wine reduction would be better with a red wine; a light Pinot Noir or Merlot is fine with swordfish. Another platitude is “if it grows together it goes together”. In other words pair foods from a particular region of the world with wine from that region. This is a good rule of thumb because some regions have had centuries of experience making wine that works with their food. But keep in mind that many regions of the world, if they grow grapes at all, specialize in only a few varietals so by following this rule your choices are restricted.

4. Always pair wine with the dominant element in a dish. If a grilled chicken breast is smothered in mango salsa, the dominant flavors will be on the sweet side. With chicken piccata, the briny capers and sour lemon will be dominant and should influence your wine pairing.

5. Think about sweetness levels first. This is the rule with the least flexibility. The wine should be at least as sweet as the food. If the food is sweeter than the wine, the wine will taste flat and sour. Paying attention to this principle will help avoid the worst disasters. A little sweetness can also balance spicy heat. This principle is important for desserts as well. Make your dessert wine sweeter than the dish. But dessert wines also should have some acidity to provide palate relief. Muscat de Beaumes de Venise or Recioto di Soave are reliable for this purpose.

6. After sweetness, think about weight and body. Pairing a powerful, tannic red with a light salad or citrusy sauce won’t work. A soft, fruity Pinot Grigio will get lost when paired with a rich, meaty stew. When you’re stumped by unusual flavors, e.g. a frisee salad with lardons and egg, getting the weight right is often the best you can do.

7. After weight and body think about acidity. Acidity is what makes a pairing really sing and acidic wines tend to be the most versatile. Acidity can cut through the richness of a dish, stand up to tart ingredients, provide counter-point to fried foods and make your mouth water in anticipation of the next bite. Pinot Noir, most Italian wines, and many white wines such as Riesling and Sauvignon Blanc have good acid levels. Low acid seldom leads to disasters but it can prevent pairings from standing out.

8. Pay attention to tannins and alcohol. Tannin is a phenol that creates the drying sensation in red wines and provides support for a long finish. Tannins absorb fat which is why a Cabernet Sauvignon goes well with most steaks but they sometimes enhance bitterness. High alcohol tends to make wine feel weighty, sweet, and can sometimes add bitterness as well. Both tannins and alcohol will make spicy foods taste more spicy and bitter foods taste more bitter. High tannins and alcohol work best when paired with rich, savory dishes such as roasted meats but be careful of the spice levels in the dish.

9. Sometimes bubbles are best. Sparkling wines are refreshing and love salt and fried foods.

10. Let the star shine. If you have a great bottle of wine, let it take center stage. Don’t be afraid to suggest a simple dish that will show off the wine. This is especially true if the wine is aged. Aged wines have subtle flavors that get lost if the food is too exuberant. On the other hand, if the chef is letting his or her freak flag fly, go with a simple, versatile wine that will not compete with complex flavors.

Good Food + Good Wine=Good Life

09 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by in Contemporary Food Culture, Philosophy of Food and Wine

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

good foodIn my line of work I often here the complaint that wine and food are trivial concerns, everyday pleasures that pale in importance to the business of business or politics, and lacking the depth of meaning that can be uncovered by the study of more serious topics.

My response to this objection is to point out that food and wine have the capacity to bring people together, create communities, anchor identities, and provoke otherwise intelligent and quite sane people to give up everything in pursuit of flavor. Unlike simple pleasures such as basking in the sun, wine and food encourage conversation, investigation, and heated arguments about what is worthy or authentic. Because the flavors of wine and food tell stories about geography, climate, history and culture they reveal truths about ourselves and our world. And as nature continues to recede in the face of burgeoning human activity it is through food and wine that we reconnect to nature and traverse the porous boundary between nature and culture.

But more importantly, the essential activity in leading a meaningful life is to make each moment count—moments that are largely filled with the mundane, ordinary routines  of day-to-day existence. There is much satisfaction to be gained by transforming everyday matters like eating and drinking into something special and alluring. Attending to the quality of food and beverages is the most accessible way of making the ordinary extraordinary. Thus food and wine are central to leading a good life.

And that is no trivial matter.

Food and the Fine Arts

09 Tuesday Dec 2014

Posted by in 3 Quarks Daily Column, Art and Food, General Aesthetics, Philosophy of Food and Wine

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant has, arguably, been the most important philosopher in the tradition when it comes to questions about art and aesthetics. And according to Kant, the culinary arts cannot be genuine fine arts because they don’t engage the intellect in the way painting or music do. In my Three Quarks essay this month, I explain why Kant was wrong.

It’s All About Pleasure

01 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Art and Food, Art and Wine, Contemporary Food Culture, General Aesthetics, Philosophy, Philosophy of Food and Wine

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, ,

whole-snapper-6526-520x346Bottom line. Food (and wine) has to taste good. Otherwise we won’t consume it no matter how interesting it is. We take food into our bodies, so we are very careful to avoid anything that might be dangerous or disgusting.

This fact about food consumption is often used to cast doubt on whether food can be an art. After all, the fine arts–painting, sculpture, music, or literature—have no such restriction. The fact that a painting depicts an unpleasant scene or a novel recounts a disturbing tale does not inhibit our experience of them. We readily consume the unpleasant when we can hold the object at a distance as we do with vision or cognition. We allow music to express negative emotions as well.

kollwitz

Kathe Kollwitz “War”

The violence of Picasso’s Guernica, the desolate personalities of Kathe Kollwitz, the brutal angst of Munch’s The Scream—all depictions of the horrible that we find fascinating or gripping, We are moved by the cacophony of Stravinsky or the strident, searing guitar work of Sonic Youth. But the Confit du Canard—it must be pleasing or it will be untouched. This leads many commentators to conclude that food lacks the expressive range of painting, music, or literature because, whatever food does, it must do so with pleasure; it cannot represent the ugly.

But I think there is a fundamental mistake in this argument. When painting, literature, or music expresses something unpleasant we don’t experience it as unpleasant–we take pleasure in the presentation. The depiction may be of something unpleasant but through the artistry of the artist our experience is of something vivid, intense, and full of life. The actual experience of violence or trauma is deeply unpleasant, but its presentation via art nevertheless gives us pleasure. If this were not the case we would feel repulsion rather than enchantment when confronted with great art. We are moved by great art but it is always the pleasure we take in the representation that participates in our being moved.

Art that gives no pleasure is simply a failed work.

Thus, fine art and fine food and wine do not differ in the role that pleasure plays in the experience—it is necessary for both.

Moreover, it is simply false that food does not represent violence or horror. The carcass of a dead fish with one eye staring at you is unlovely and it represents a variety of ideas—death, slaughter, power, and the creative destruction of heat among others. It is the artistry of the chef and our own powers of self-deception that cast that violence in the glow of phenomenological pleasure.

As it is with food so it is with art.

Why is it Important to Think about Food and Wine?

11 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by in Art and Food, Art and Wine, Contemporary Food Culture, Philosophy of Food and Wine, The Ethics of Eating, Wine Culture

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

philosophers club

Photo by Todd Lapin Creative Commons license

There are lots of hard problems that require our thoughtful attention—poverty, climate change, quantum entanglement, or how to make a living, just for starters. But food and wine? Worthy of thought?

On the surface it looks like there are only three questions worth considering when it comes to food and wine: Do you have enough? Is it nutritious? And does it taste good? If you have the wherewithal to read this you probably have enough food. Questions of nutrition can be answered by consulting your doctor or favorite nutritionist. And surely it doesn’t take thought to figure out what tastes good.

But when we look at food a bit more deeply we find some important issues lurking beneath the surface. Some of the aforementioned “hard problems” have a lot to do with food. Our food distribution networks are anything but fair leaving many people without enough to eat; and our food production and consumption patterns are environmentally unsustainable in part because of their impact on climate change, as well as the disruption of water supplies caused by global warming. How we farm, what we eat, and how we cook have important social, political, and ethical ramifications—ramifications so important that we cannot think of these issues as purely private matters any longer.

But without minimizing the importance of these issues, I want to suggest that questions about what tastes good and why should occupy much more of our thoughtful attention than it does.

The aesthetics of taste are important because I don’t think one can live well in our world without taking an interest in the aesthetics of everyday life; and because food and wine are among the most accessible and satisfying everyday experiences, we should care about them much more than we do.

Why is the aesthetics of everyday life so important? This famous quote from the film Fight Club provides the experiential background:

Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who’ve ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so

we can buy shit we don’t need. We’re the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War’s a spiritual war… our Great Depression is our lives. We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’d all be

millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won’t. And we’re slowly learning that fact.And we’re very, very pissed off.” (Taken from Edward Norton’s character in Fight Club.)

Most Americans live lives that are highly regulated and standardized, governed by norms of efficiency and profit that crowd out any other value; and these norms increasingly colonize our home life as well thanks to intrusive media technologies. We tend to work long hours at boring, repetitive jobs, that demand our full attention–in order to make someone else rich. That is, if your job is not outsourced to a machine.

Everyone needs a way to resist these demands, a place where beauty, pleasure and attention to things that have intrinsic value occupy our attention. Finding extraordinary meaning in simple things like a meal or a bottle of wine is the most accessible path to a good life in this damaged world. This is not a new thought—ancient sages from the Buddha to Epicurus had similar notions. But it is more relevant now than ever in human history,

Of course the character in Fight Club  creates a place where men get together and punch each other to feel better about their limited lives. I guess that is “aesthetics” of a sort—a sensory experience no doubt. But we can probably do better by seeking a form of beauty not tainted by violence.

Yet such a commitment means we must refuse to accept what is false and inauthentic, that we recognize and block the strategies of our corporate masters when they manipulate our desires. When we outsource our practical reasoning to marketers our desires are not our own. The only antidote to such outsourcing is critical thought and a mind sufficiently open to fully appreciate what is before us, as food and drink almost always is.

As Epicurus said “Not what we have but what we enjoy, constitutes our abundance.”

Cheers

What is Good Taste? (and another bottle of Pinot)

27 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by in Art and Wine, General Aesthetics, Philosophy of Food and Wine

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

,

 

empty bottlesA few weeks ago I posed the question what is good taste, without making much progress on the topic.

It can’t be merely a sense for what is appropriate given contemporary social conventions because people who are alleged to have good taste, artists and critics for example, often produce unconventional judgments about what is good. Instead, having good taste involves knowing what is truly excellent or of genuine value, which may have little to do with social conventions.

But one of the most popular philosophical theories of taste—the causal theory suggested by David Hume in the 18th Century—also seems inadequate. Hume thought of good taste as the ability, acquired through practice, to detect the features of a painting, piece of music, or wine that cause us to feel pleasure. But no list of features will adequately explain aesthetic judgments. To use winetasting as an example, a wine’s quality involves concepts such as structure, balance, complexity, and intensity which produce even more abstract qualities such as deliciousness, power, elegance, gracefulness, or refreshment. But no list of facts about an object, regardless of how subtle or difficult to discern, will fully explain why we experience a wine as balanced or delicious.

Hence, the problem of good taste. What do you discern when you identify elegance, grace, or deliciousness in a wine? It’s not like picking out oak flavors. It’s a judgment about how everything comes together—a set of relations that emerge from facts about the wine but are not identical to any particular collection of facts. If it is not an analytic ability, what sort of ability is it?

I think Kant, another 18th Century philosopher, gets us closer to an answer. When I judge something to be beautiful, I do so because I like it. But what about it do I like? For Kant, the pleasure I get from a genuinely beautiful object does not lie in the fact I find it agreeable. Rather, I enjoy how it makes me think. It stimulates contemplation. Kant called this the free play of understanding and imagination.

Interpreting Kant is a rather perilous journey but I think he has in mind something like this.

A beautiful object is striving to represent an order or unity that cannot be fully articulated. There are no words or aesthetic principles that can fully describe it.  Contra Hume, we can’t simply point to a set of features that cause pleasure because that will not capture what is unique about a particular work.  So we can’t understand a beautiful object like we understand tables or tax returns that have determinate, repeatable features. With beautiful objects we have to search for what they mean and that requires imagination. Yet there is something there that we want to learn more about, patterns that we want to learn to follow, a unity we must strive to grasp. A beautiful object can’t mean anything we want it to mean. We have to search for a principle that helps us to better understand the object while never quite succeeding. It is this searching activity that we find enjoyable, when the work has an order and unity to it that we sense but can’t describe.

Of course, some objects won’t repay that much attention. We explore them for awhile, get bored because we’ve come to identify and articulate everything important about them, and move on. But according to Kant, an object is genuinely beautiful if it sustains our interest in reflecting on it indefinitely because all attempts to fully understand it fail. The object has an order that constantly opens new ways of understanding it. Beautiful objects inspire us to dream up new principles because no principle is adequate to grasp it.

Taste is therefore our ability to determine whether an object is worth reflecting on, whether it will repay our attention and produce endless fascination. A person of good taste discovers new patterns to explore,  finds unexpected avenues of meaning, and responds with feelings and insights that generate new ways of describing something.

So what do we discern when we identify elegance, grace, or deliciousness in a wine? Perhaps these are clues to the presence of some new, unexplored facet of the wine that encourages exploration. But there is something that doesn’t seem right about this. Don’t we revel in the deliciousness or elegance without worrying about where it is taking us.  Kant’s view seems too intellectual, too bound up with understanding to account for our fascination with the sensuous surface of things, the pure enjoyment of appearances.

So I fear we are not quite there in our pursuit of good taste.

Maybe if I open another bottle the answer will become clear.