Technique Fixations

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Again, I stipulated that a winemaker might agree with Parker's taste. But the point of the term is to specify Parker's taste as opposed to the winemakers. If one meant merely a taste that Parker and a set of winemakers shared, then the term is inflammatory and should be traded in for one that simply points to the aspects of the wine one is referencing.

The same argument goes for spoofing. The word pretty obviously connotes decking out, falsifying (from a spoof). Although it is entirely possible to have a taste for the kind of wine another person would declare spoofed, a person who likes that wine would never call it spoofed, precisely because of the connotation of the words. I see nothing wrong with using evaluative labels. But using them while declaring that they are merely pointing terms is invidious when done knowingly and destructive of the ability to think clearly when done unawares. One interest of this thread, as well as one like it on Therapy has been the way that, as it has clarified denotations and connotations of the term, it has looked either like they need to be cleared up or, the Parker people are right and it is just an accusatory term for a wine one doesn't like and should be abandoned. I would rather it were not abandoned, but that will mean restricting its reference to an accusation rather than just a taste distinction.

Of course these are accusatory terms for a wine one doesn't like, but as I noted in my first post, the point isn't just to state the fact that one doesn't like them but to explain why, and both terms do that effectively. The fact that they are also inflammatory/pejorative is not a bug, it's a feature!

If I listen to a song and say that it sounds like "bubble-gum pop," I am both (1) expressing the fact that I don't like it and (2) expressing the fact that it's a particular style of music. Of course, people who like music that others deride as "bubble-gum pop" would not use that term themselves "preicsely because of the connotation of the words," as you put it. That doesn't render those words useless to the rest of us or "destructive of the ability to think clearly."

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

Of course these are accusatory terms for a wine one doesn't like, but as I noted in my first post, the point isn't just to state the fact that one doesn't like them but to explain why, and both terms do that effectively. The fact that they are also inflammatory/pejorative is not a bug, it's a feature!

If I listen to a song and say that it sounds like "bubble-gum pop," I am both (1) expressing the fact that I don't like it and (2) expressing the fact that it's a particular style of music. Of course, people who like music that others deride as "bubble-gum pop" would not use that term themselves "preicsely because of the connotation of the words," as you put it. That doesn't render those words useless to the rest of us or "destructive of the ability to think clearly."

But the question remains what explanation the term gives as to "why." If you mean the term simply to denote a set of features of wine, then you need another term as this one is ill-serving you. Dressner and VLM are right that the term goes to the intention of the winemaker and further the term "spoof" suggests intervention for let's say extra-vinuous reasons.

 

[Paul Hagerman]

Dam.

After lurking on Wine Therapy with a post rate of 2 per year, I come here and think I'll be able to jump right in... not sure, now, this one's already making my grey matter hurt. Too many big words.

Spoof is a nearly an appropriate term, but only due to it's long use to describe the winemaking in question.

Also, if it wasn't, it wouldn't get the Parker people's undies in knots right off.

Things are really strange here. You can actually say Parker.

But looking at the definition of the work "spoof", I see that it includes definitions "to mock (something or someone) lightly and good-humoredly; kid". I don't know if there's anything good humored about it - unless some guy making garagiste bordeaux is laughing all the way to the bank.

Of course, other definitions include "to fool by a hoax; play a trick on, esp. one intended to deceive."

Deception - that is really getting to the heart of the matter.

My feelings regarding spoofed wine is that element of deception - trying a wine that is new to me, that even is pointy, and finding taste like the same old plonk.

I envy all your regular posters that can dissect these matters at length. I wish I could engage in such fun.

 

[Bruce G.]

I doubt I've ever used the word "spoof" (or any derivative thereof) myself, so I may be a poor source of opinion. But I've always taken it to mean "smacking of obvious artifice" or something like that. When used in conjunction with talk about wine-making practices it suggests that the practices being discussed are obviously intrusive and deformative. When used in a tasting comment (where there is no suggestion that the "speaker" knows definitively about the production techniques used to produce the wine) it means that the wine tastes obviously artificial in some way. This holds true for wines made with minimal intervention, since it's possible to arrive at wines that some people find artifical using any number of routes.

Re: "intent" vs. "technique"... I don't understand the attempt to dissociate the one from the other. While I agree that intent is ultimately the single most important part of the whole picture, a statement of intent without supporting technique is just wishful thinking. Or a Madison Avenue punchline.
Intent determines technique (which can therefore be taken as proof of intent).
Technique will in turn determine the result.
And result will swing back around and cause a re-evaluation of both intent and technique.
Which starts the whole thing off again.

 

[LarryM]

Thanks to Paul and Bruce for chiming in with their amazement, wonder and brief analysis for the recent verbal gymnastics. We are a geeky people, but soon we'll be receiving sympathy cards from Dungeons and Dragons Grand Masters and others who rarely leave their basements. It is SPOOF folks -- laugh a little and use the word as you deem appropriate.

 

[Don Rice]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

..if the essence of spoof is manipulation towards a certain end, I'm not sure why all-natural means of manipulation should be exempt.

Would the trend toward pushing vines to "full phenolic maturity" be an example of this?

 

[VLM]

originally posted by LarryM:
Thanks to Paul and Bruce for chiming in with their amazement, wonder and brief analysis for the recent verbal gymnastics. We are a geeky people, but soon we'll be receiving sympathy cards from Dungeons and Dragons Grand Masters and others who rarely leave their basements. It is SPOOF folks -- laugh a little and use the word as you deem appropriate.

I see this, and any and all relativism, as intellectual laziness.

Spoof is a thing, like gravity or atoms, that we are in the process of cornering as an actual thing. To say it can't be defined is like saying "teach the controversy".

Just because it is hard to pin down doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[LarryM]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by LarryM:
Thanks to Paul and Bruce for chiming in with their amazement, wonder and brief analysis for the recent verbal gymnastics. We are a geeky people, but soon we'll be receiving sympathy cards from Dungeons and Dragons Grand Masters and others who rarely leave their basements. It is SPOOF folks -- laugh a little and use the word as you deem appropriate.

I see this, and any and all relativism, as intellectual laziness.

Spoof is a thing, like gravity or atoms, that we are in the process of cornering as an actual thing. To say it can't be defined is like saying "teach the controversy".

Just because it is hard to pin down doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Watch it monkey, I've got a big book of spells for your magic ass.

I'm not arguing that "spoof" does not exist, that notion (along with other items above) are your own creation. My distaste for all this is hardly steeped in laziness (intellctual or otherwise), it is because I find the discussion has become boorish and without long term benefit to our more general, highly subjective and interpretive topic. Of course, that is just my opinion.

Be well,
Larry

 

[Paul Hagerman]

If a spoofed wine falls into the marketplace and no critic hears it, does it make a sound?

 

[Florida Jim]

Yes; its the sound of glass, breaking.
Best, Jim

 

[Bwood]

My, what a baby! Just how perfect would it be if Joe Dressner's first Wine Disorder thread caused 2-3 people to go on WD hiatus within days of the forum opening?

The odd thing about reading this thread is that I think (though I am not positive) I agree with all the comments made (even though some of the comments seem somewhat contradictory on their face), of every person posting in this thread -- except VLM (who I also happen to agree with about matters of taste in wine a remarkably high percentage of the time).

By the way, I giggle at the idea that some winemakers suffer from some sort of "false consciousness." That's a good one.

So, are we now going with "spoofy" meaning thick, clumsy wines that could be made anywhere that are made to fit the fashion of certain wines of the day, and which I happen, in my enlightened state, not to like? Hey, I can live with that even if it is a less emotionally satisfying approach than viewing it as definite basket of techniques and using that objective basket of techniques to then give a sense of scientific weighting to my own subjective personal taste preferences.

By the way, I think the notion that "spoof" is like "atoms," as vlm argues, is mostly incorrect in the way he means it. But, first, I'd point out that no one thinks we are really even close to understanding what an "atom" really is, so that's not all that comforting to begin with, but that I also think the new meaning of "spoof" we are moving towards is at its base a concept like "pretty atoms" versus "ugly atoms" and is ultimately not measurable at all, even if it is discussable. And, frankly, even if "spoofy" really just means "clumsy," I am sure we could even bring in a semiotics person to show us how meaningless the word "clumsy" is, or how poorly we understand that word or words in general and that if you look at them closely enough they are like "atoms" in knowability.

But all this stuff conjures, for me, Karl Marx retreating into the British Museum for a couple of decades to write Das Kapital. Great for you if you want to do that.

Ultimately, I think Allemand Cornas is brilliant. Clape Cornas has great "ideology" from everything I read, but - for me - the wines are not even close to being in the same league as Allemand. Whatever Allemand does (and I will bet that a large part of the quality difference with his wines and many merely good wines is in the vineyard), I will argue back from that and will say that his is a great approach for his land in Cornas. If it turned out, which I don't think it will, that he uses every artifice known to winemakers to make his wines, I would approve.

And the most "spoofy" wines I've ever had came from Australia and generally had adorable animals on the label. So when I use "spoofy", that's what I'll mean. Okay?

 

[VLM]

originally posted by LarryM:

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by LarryM:
Thanks to Paul and Bruce for chiming in with their amazement, wonder and brief analysis for the recent verbal gymnastics. We are a geeky people, but soon we'll be receiving sympathy cards from Dungeons and Dragons Grand Masters and others who rarely leave their basements. It is SPOOF folks -- laugh a little and use the word as you deem appropriate.

I see this, and any and all relativism, as intellectual laziness.

Spoof is a thing, like gravity or atoms, that we are in the process of cornering as an actual thing. To say it can't be defined is like saying "teach the controversy".

Just because it is hard to pin down doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Watch it monkey, I've got a big book of spells for your magic ass.

I'm not arguing that "spoof" does not exist, that notion (along with other items above) are your own creation. My distaste for all this is hardly steeped in laziness (intellctual or otherwise), it is because I find the discussion has become boorish and without long term benefit to our more general, highly subjective and interpretive topic. Of course, that is just my opinion.

Be well,
Larry

I can understand the rest of it, but not boor-ish. I think that there can be an emergent consensus, the way there is in science, on what spoofy means. Not exactly that way, but I think it is an important concept and worthy of some intellectual back-and-forth.

Do you really think relativism isn't intellectually lazy?

 

[Dave Nelson]

originally posted by Bwood:

And the most "spoofy" wines I've ever had came from Australia and generally had adorable animals on the label. So when I use "spoofy", that's what I'll mean.

Maybe the Politburo will be kind enough to provide us with a small (but getting larger by the comment) laminated reference card (even a .pdf - I can laminate it myself) for each WD member's particular definition of spoof. Perhaps that way we could avoid EVER having this discussion again.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Bwood:
By the way, I giggle at the idea that some winemakers suffer from some sort of "false consciousness." That's a good one.

Yeah, that was funny.

So, are we now going with "spoofy" meaning thick, clumsy wines that could be made anywhere that are made to fit the fashion of certain wines of the day, and which I happen, in my enlightened state, not to like? Hey, I can live with that even if it is a less emotionally satisfying approach than viewing it as definite basket of techniques and using that objective basket of techniques to then give a sense of scientific weighting to my own subjective personal taste preferences.

I don't use spoofy interchangeably with "like", and I don't think anyone else should. They may highly correlate, but they are not equivalent.

By the way, I think the notion that "spoof" is like "atoms," as vlm argues, is mostly incorrect in the way he means it.

OK, both atoms and gravity may not be great analogies, but I think you get the point.

But all this stuff conjures, for me, Karl Marx retreating into the British Museum for a couple of decades to write Das Kapital. Great for you if you want to do that.

I completely disagree. I think that trying to put an intellectual structure on wine is what separates us from "it's what's in the glass".

For example, in trying to come to terms with exactly what terroir means, I've been forced, by logical necessity, to think about it in a different way. That never would have happened without the back and forth with other folks in what seem to be "little" arguments. Difficult problems often seem "little".

Ultimately, I think Allemand Cornas is brilliant... Whatever Allemand does...

I agree. Eric calls the wines "modern". When you compare them to Juge or Verset, they certainly are.

And the most "spoofy" wines I've ever had came from Australia and generally had adorable animals on the label. So when I use "spoofy", that's what I'll mean. Okay?

Oh, so we all get top make our own definitions of everything then. Great.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

Do you really think relativism isn't intellectually lazy?

In order to mount a full-scale defense of a radical non-identity theory, one generally needs to do some fairly impressive intellectual work. I don't think either Nietzsche or Heraclitus is intellectually lazy.

The brand of relativism that says, oh well, I like vanilla, you like chocolate, etc. etc. usually is an excuse to assert one's preferences without the trouble of arguing, so I guess I'm with you there.

But it does seem to me one of the responsibilities of an objectivism that isn't lazy to distinguish those things one can mark objectively from those things one can't, as well as distinguishing those things one can know things about from those things one can not only know things about but offer warrantable evidence for why one thinks one knows those things. One could determine that spoof fell into the category of things that one couldn't coherently make knowledge comments about (remember for Kant, who was not a relativist, this included all wine preferences)or into the category of things that one could recognize but not justify one's recognition without being a relativist. Accusing everyone who thinks that something one thinks one knows something about is in fact for some reason or other unknowable of relativism is as intellectually lazy as the I like vanilla, you like chocolate style of relativism.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Dave Nelson:

originally posted by Bwood:

And the most "spoofy" wines I've ever had came from Australia and generally had adorable animals on the label. So when I use "spoofy", that's what I'll mean.

Maybe the Politburo will be kind enough to provide us with a small (but getting larger by the comment) laminated reference card (even a .pdf - I can laminate it myself) for each WD member's particular definition of spoof. Perhaps that way we could avoid EVER having this discussion again.

What a great idea! I wish they had put that on the registration card.

 

[Bwood]

Maybe we could ask The Politburo for Wine Disorder trading cards that had everyone's definition of "spoof" on the back, next to batting averages.

 

[Bwood]

Accusing everyone who thinks that something one thinks one knows something about is in fact for some reason or other unknowable of relativism is as intellectually lazy as the I like vanilla, you like chocolate style of relativism.

I want this quotation on my Professor Loesberg trading card.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Don Rice:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

..if the essence of spoof is manipulation towards a certain end, I'm not sure why all-natural means of manipulation should be exempt.

Would the trend toward pushing vines to "full phenolic maturity" be an example of this?

That's definitely a big part of what I was getting at.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

Do you really think relativism isn't intellectually lazy?

In order to mount a full-scale defense of a radical non-identity theory, one generally needs to do some fairly impressive intellectual work. I don't think either Nietzsche or Heraclitus is intellectually lazy.

OK. I don't know much of either, so I'll take your word on that.

The brand of relativism that says, oh well, I like vanilla, you like chocolate, etc. etc. usually is an excuse to assert one's preferences without the trouble of arguing, so I guess I'm with you there.

Wow! Thanks.

But it does seem to me one of the responsibilities of an objectivism that isn't lazy to distinguish those things one can mark objectively from those things one can't, as well as distinguishing those things one can know things about from those things one can not only know things about but offer warrantable evidence for why one thinks one knows those things. One could determine that spoof fell into the category of things that one couldn't coherently make knowledge comments about (remember for Kant, who was not a relativist, this included all wine preferences)or into the category of things that one could recognize but not justify one's recognition without being a relativist.

I think it is about more than just preferences. I'm really intrigued by emergent consensus and whether and how truth conditions are possible with such a thing. Intuitively, it strikes me as fitting well with certain epistemological theories, like coherence (Keith Lehrer, Theory of Knowledge (Westview, 1990)). Unfortunately, I'm too out of practice to really lay down a "real" argument that would stand up to a professional philosopher. It looks like Alvin Goldman is working on some sort of Social Epistemology. He was my senior thesis advisor when I tried to blend his naturalistic, causal epistemology with coherentism.

Accusing everyone who thinks that something one thinks one knows something about is in fact for some reason or other unknowable of relativism is as intellectually lazy as the I like vanilla, you like chocolate style of relativism.

Fair enough, I hope I didn't do this.

If spoof truly cannot be said to have any sort of definition, cannot be a type for which there are tokens, cannot be put forward in a proposition "A is spoofed" without having any truth value, then I'll relent. I just don't see this to be the case.