Something good from the Wine Spectator?

[scottreiner]

Just received the October 15, 2008 issue with "Values" on the cover. I am not generally impressed with what I read in this publication, but Matt Kramer's piece was beautifully expressed. I can't find a link for the piece on the internet, so here is the money quote: (The piece discusses whether or not skilled winemakers should be called artists. Kramer argues no.)

"Why does this distinction matter? Because abstract though it is, if winemakers and, yes, wine lovers, see wine as art, then the essential connection between what a grape expresses from its site and what we expect is severed. If a winemaker is an 'artist', then he or she, can and should modify the result to suit a personal vision separate from a 'mere' expression of place...

So it is with wine. All sorts of technological deconstruction and reconstruction now occurs in many wineries today, especially ones creating high-end - or at least high-priced - wines. They see themselves as artists and would like to convince you of same. If they can, well, you know how distorted the rules can be - and who pays"

Could it be that the Spectator is discussing spoofilation? And coming up against it?

 

[SFJoe]

Kramer has always had a distinct view, IMO.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by SFJoe:
Kramer has always had a distinct view, IMO.

Kramer is not, nor has ever been, representative.

I quite like his work. Never met the man though.

 

[drssouth]

He actually is a nice guy.. I met him at a WS event several years ago.. he certainly speaks his own mind (which I like). .when M. Shanken was introducing everyone, he noted Matt was a "occasional contributor".. this is someone who is in every issue.. all of the others (Laube et al) were highly praised.. interesting!!

 

[Ruben Ramos]

originally posted by drssouth:
. .when M. Shanken was introducing everyone, he noted Matt was a "occasional contributor".. this is someone who is in every issue.. all of the others (Laube et al) were highly praised.. interesting!!

Even WS has pecking order...

 

[Kevin Harvey]

As alluded to above, Matt Kramer is the best thing in the WS but he is not representative of the publication's general editorial bent.
Matt is a great champion of terroir (old World and New) while the primary WS reviewer of CA wine looks upon elements like minerals and earthiness negatively.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Kevin Harvey:

Matt is a great champion of terroir (old World and New) while the primary WS reviewer of CA wine looks upon elements like minerals and earthiness negatively.

When he isn't claiming that there are 3 molecules of TCA in the wine, rendering it undrinkable.

Mark Lipton

 

[Marshall Manning]

Matt writes for the local paper, the Oregonian, also, and while I usually enjoy his WS pieces, his recommendations for the local paper are often the same wines (and even many of the same comments) from year to year. While some wines are deserving of this, some also seem a little predictable and seem to be promoting some local producers who may not deserve it.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

I liked Matt's book Making Sense of Wine and enjoy his columns when I come across them. Nothing else I've seen in WS for many years has any value, speaking for myself. The photos are pretty.

I wish someone would reprint Making Sense of Burgundy.

 

[Thor]

I truly enjoy Matt Kramer's work.

I have to quibble with him here, though. He and I agree on a preference for wines of place, but not all wines are of a place, and not even all good wines are of a place. In the case of these wines, I think I'd prefer an artist to an assembly line, though of course they ways in which the artist-winemaker can make something horrifying probably outnumber the paths towards pleasant outcomes.

The two worlds can co-exist, as well. Else I would find it hard to rationalize my affection for Radikon.

Further, there's not just one kind of artist. In the excerpt (I haven't read the full column), he's talking about the artist as originator. But I think we can call some interpreters artists as well (I'm not interested in arguing the point), and to draw an analogy, I think it's reasonable to prefer Aretha's performance of "You Make Me Feel Like a Natural Woman" to Carole King's, even though Carole's version would be analogous to the terroir or "place" in the song.