The Meaning of Spoofulation -- September 2008 Clarification

J

Joe Dressner

Joe Dressner
Can't we accept that spoofulation is unknowable and undefinable but all-encompassing, precise and scientific?

I love the dialectic!

Anyhow, I started a new thread because the other one is too long for me to read.
 
I'm not even going to try reading the other thread yet. I think we miss the point with spoofulation. Really what we should be trying to define is what is spoofulated. I think we focus far too much on technique when what really mean is a poorly conceived result.

Let's face it many would like to ascribe spoofulation purely to technical aspects of wine-making that they disagree with on some philosophical grounds. Imagine if you will that these techniques were reduced by half, or perhaps again by half. Would the end result still be spoofed? Perhaps but not likely.

So my point is that a spoofulated wine is a wine that exhibits excessive character that can be ascribed to the abuse of certain systems and techniques. In the absence of such abuse the wine might very well be fine, thus we should not be ascribing a causal connection soley to said systems and techniques but rather to their misuse.

Another aspect of spoof is that the wines tend to mirror one and other. On a certain level this is due to many spoofulated wines being produced by a small group of flying winemakers/consultant. This wonton group of wine abusers has a direct causal affect on spoof with their "recipes" for producing 90 plus point wines. The homogenzation of wine may not be an aim for this group but it certainly has been an effect.

So to put it succinctly spoof is abuse. It is the abuse and misuse by commercially guided purpose that produces wine that lacks typicity yet exaggerates attributes that are commonly found in wines that stick out in mass tastings due to said exaggerated character and thus are capable of garnering high point scores from wildly popular critics.

As you alluded to in the other post, I just took a peak kill me why don't you, the more one is exposed to winemaking, and I am not saying I have some exceptionally high level of exposure, the more one sees behind the curtains. Some very fine wines are made by judiciously using systems and techniques that are frequently and readily bashed by many.

I drink Northern Italian and moderately old California wine and i like them.
 
maybe not all spoof is "commercially guided". maybe the dude (or dudette) making the wine really likes it to taste that way.
 
"I think we focus far too much on technique when what really mean is a poorly conceived result."

So....it's what's in the glass that counts.

Can we refer to that as the Mjolnirian Gambit?
 
originally posted by Hoke:
"I think we focus far too much on technique when what really mean is a poorly conceived result."

So....it's what's in the glass that counts.
Click to expand...

I don't know that this is fair. If you accept Jonathan's point about tradition for a particular spot, there would have to be a dialogue between "what's in the glass" and what has been in the glass before.
 
originally posted by Cliff:
originally posted by Hoke:
"I think we focus far too much on technique when what really mean is a poorly conceived result."

So....it's what's in the glass that counts.
Click to expand...

I don't know that this is fair. If you accept Jonathan's point about tradition for a particular spot, there would have to be a dialogue between "what's in the glass" and what has been in the glass before.
Click to expand...

You'll have to take that up with Greg, Cliff. His statement.

I don't necessarily accept Jonathan's point about tradition. Heck, at this point, I'm not sure I even remember correctly what Jonathan's point about tradition was specifically. I can only imagine that he said tradition was a good thing. [I'll have to wade through and look again.]

But tradition, hallowed though it usually is, is simply another way of saying "this is the perspective we've always looked at before, so this is what we should continue to do in the future."

And every single traditional wine region I can think of right now (I'm slow these days, so I may well be missing some) has gone through change of some sort within the last...oh, say....20-30 years. Both official and unofficial; both condoned and not not condoned. Some minor, some revolutionary.

So do you look at tradition as a stasis, or as a continuum?

Does Eric Texier represent tradition or a continually developing---changing----focus and philosophy? And which Eric Texier are we talking about anyway: the one that just posted, or the one that started several years ago? And are they different? And if so, why?
 
This thread is just reproducing the earlier thread. Pretty soon it will be as long. If this board can't produce an agreed upon definition, as I said, the term will have been shown to be without meaning. If anyplace can do it, we should be able to, but will have to start reading suggestions, compiling the way they mesh and do not and start negotiating out the differences. I am not sanguine. This is, after all, Disorder, not order.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
This thread is just reproducing the earlier thread. Pretty soon it will be as long. If this board can't produce an agreed upon definition, as I said, the term will have been shown to be without meaning. If anyplace can do it, we should be able to, but will have to start reading suggestions, compiling the way they mesh and do not and start negotiating out the differences. I am not sanguine. This is, after all, Disorder, not order.
Click to expand...

Or, to put it another way, dis' ain't order, is it?
 
I don't necessarily accept Jonathan's point about tradition. Heck, at this point, I'm not sure I even remember correctly what Jonathan's point about tradition was specifically. I can only imagine that he said tradition was a good thing. [I'll have to wade through and look again.]

But tradition, hallowed though it usually is, is simply another way of saying "this is the perspective we've always looked at before, so this is what we should continue to do in the future."

And every single traditional wine region I can think of right now (I'm slow these days, so I may well be missing some) has gone through change of some sort within the last...oh, say....20-30 years. Both official and unofficial; both condoned and not not condoned. Some minor, some revolutionary.

So do you look at tradition as a stasis, or as a continuum?

Does Eric Texier represent tradition or a continually developing---changing----focus and philosophy? And which Eric Texier are we talking about anyway: the one that just posted, or the one that started several years ago? And are they different? And if so, why?
Click to expand...

I certainly can't speak for Eric, but I see his efforts over the years as very much a dialogue with people like Gentaz, Chave, Clape, Allemand, VT, and others. Traditions evolve all the time. That does not mean that anything goes.
 
originally posted by Cliff:
I certainly can't speak for Eric, but I see his efforts over the years as very much a dialogue with people like Gentaz, Chave, Clape, Allemand, VT, and others. Traditions evolve all the time. That does not mean that anything goes.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I agree. In some sense, maybe the most meaningful commentary about wines and the concepts behind them are the wines that other winemakers make.
 
originally posted by Cliff:
I don't necessarily accept Jonathan's point about tradition. Heck, at this point, I'm not sure I even remember correctly what Jonathan's point about tradition was specifically. I can only imagine that he said tradition was a good thing. [I'll have to wade through and look again.]

But tradition, hallowed though it usually is, is simply another way of saying "this is the perspective we've always looked at before, so this is what we should continue to do in the future."

And every single traditional wine region I can think of right now (I'm slow these days, so I may well be missing some) has gone through change of some sort within the last...oh, say....20-30 years. Both official and unofficial; both condoned and not not condoned. Some minor, some revolutionary.

So do you look at tradition as a stasis, or as a continuum?

Does Eric Texier represent tradition or a continually developing---changing----focus and philosophy? And which Eric Texier are we talking about anyway: the one that just posted, or the one that started several years ago? And are they different? And if so, why?
Click to expand...

I certainly can't speak for Eric, but I see his efforts over the years as very much a dialogue with people like Gentaz, Chave, Clape, Allemand, VT, and others. Traditions evolve all the time. That does not mean that anything goes.
Click to expand...

Well said, Cliff!
 
Lets go back to this in three months.

All sides need to think deeply about their positions.

The dialog has been great!

We've all learned a great deal about ourselves and each other!
 
originally posted by Hoke:

But tradition, hallowed though it usually is, is simply another way of saying "this is the perspective we've always looked at before, so this is what we should continue to do in the future."

And every single traditional wine region I can think of right now (I'm slow these days, so I may well be missing some) has gone through change of some sort within the last...oh, say....20-30 years. Both official and unofficial; both condoned and not not condoned. Some minor, some revolutionary.

So do you look at tradition as a stasis, or as a continuum?

Does Eric Texier represent tradition or a continually developing---changing----focus and philosophy? And which Eric Texier are we talking about anyway: the one that just posted, or the one that started several years ago? And are they different? And if so, why?
Click to expand...

Putain???!!! (I didn't ask the Politburo if the use of Putain can be assumed to be a french version of fuck, but...)
 
Putain???!!! (I didn't ask the Politburo if the use of Putain can be assumed to be a french version of fuck, but...)
Click to expand...

Mr. Texier:

Putain is a perfectly acceptable word here at Wine Disorder.

Thank you for your participation.
 
We just finished bottling our 2007s. The machine didn't misbehave too badly, for once. Spilling was kept to a minimum. We're too tired here to start considering if the wines are sufficiently spoofulated. But I promise to report back when we find out.
 
originally posted by VS:
We just finished bottling our 2007s. The machine didn't misbehave too badly, for once. Spilling was kept to a minimum. We're too tired here to start considering if the wines are sufficiently spoofulated. But I promise to report back when we find out.
Click to expand...

That's the spirit.
And congrats.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by The Latin Liquidator:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
the term will have been shown to be without meaning.
Click to expand...

Ah, the signifier, wide open and free!

What's wrong with the absence of a fixed meaning or set of fixed meanings?

M.
Click to expand...

Signifiers without signifieds, as Derrida will tell you, are impossible since they would cease, by definition, to be signifiers. But you can get the effect you want by just making random sounds. One of them could even be "spoof." And such a use of the sound would be innocuous at least, if that's what you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top