originally posted by VLM:
hmmm
"Enologists at UC-Davis set the standard of what wine should be, and they defined it by identifying faults and how to correct them," said Nicolas Mestre of Williams Corner Wine. "That approach has no pleasure in it."
I know this bit of folklore has a long history, but a) is it even true, and b) do people really think there is no role for science in wine making?
Good questions. I'd say that UCD promoted -- and may still promote -- a vision of winemaking (and, tangentially wine appreciation) that emphasized a lack of technical faults over other goals (such as expression of terroir, typicity or any personal vision of what that site/grape should be capable of delivering). As for the role of science in winemaking, I see that as a straw man argument. Even the naturalistas probably use science in keeping their winery clean of nasty microbiota or in the machinery that they do use for crushing, pressing, etc.
Mark Lipton