Baudry Rose 2008

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
My point about canons was not that the arguments based on them were no good at all, though I think that they are hardly definitive, but that they need to be taken seriously and not dismissed out of hand. On the other hand, since you don't think that a class of things called artworks exists, I don't even see the basis of an interest in how they are evaluated. It would be like being interested in how we evaluate unicorns. I also find your dismissal of the class equally lacking in any obvious warrant.
Click to expand...

I never said any of what is ascribed to me above.

Canons need to be taken seriously and not dismissed out of hand, but not because they coalesce around inherent quality, but because they teach us about how our past and present cultures interpret and value objects. The fact that there is a consensus about Mozart being better than Salieri doesn't make Mozart better in any absolute sense, only makes him generally considered better.

Of course there is a class of things that society calls artworks. What I find non-existent is the class of artworks that contains art as an objetive attribute. What makes a society call an artifact an artwork is not any inherent objective quality but a cultural consensus, a projection by that society and its tastemakers of an object having achieved or manifested desired characteristics that vary over time. My dismissal of a class of objects whose atributes cannot be objectively demonstrated is entirely warranted. The onus of proof is on those who defend the existence of something that cannot be shown to exist other than as a projection.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
My point about canons was not that the arguments based on them were no good at all, though I think that they are hardly definitive, but that they need to be taken seriously and not dismissed out of hand. On the other hand, since you don't think that a class of things called artworks exists, I don't even see the basis of an interest in how they are evaluated. It would be like being interested in how we evaluate unicorns. I also find your dismissal of the class equally lacking in any obvious warrant.
Click to expand...

I never said any of what is ascribed to me above.

Canons need to be taken seriously and not dismissed out of hand, but not because they coalesce around inherent quality, but because they teach us about how our past and present cultures interpret and value objects. The fact that there is a consensus about Mozart being better than Salieri doesn't make Mozart better in any absolute sense, only makes him generally considered better.

Of course there is a class of things that society calls artworks. What I find non-existent is the class of artworks that contains art as an objetive attribute. What makes a society call an artifact an artwork is not any inherent objective quality but a cultural consensus, a projection by that society and its tastemakers of an object having achieved or manifested desired characteristics that vary over time. My dismissal of a class of objects whose atributes cannot be objectively demonstrated is entirely warranted. The onus of proof is on those who defend the existence of something that cannot be shown to exist other than as a projection.
Click to expand...

You've just said exactly what I've said you said again above. My claim was that evidence of agreement over the quality of great works is less than perfect but not insignicant evidence that that quality in fact exists objectively. Your second sentence, rather than arguing against that claim, just dismisses it.

If you don't believe that artworks exist, it follows that you don't believe that a class of artworks exist. You believe that a concept exists that people think, wrongly, refers to actual objects, doesn't exist. Your claim that the attributes of artworks cannot be objectively listed, again, makes no reference to any of the various attempts to list those attributes, most with unsurprising success until Duchamp and Warhol in the 20th century. Since you give no reason for thinking those theories failed (think how surprised Vasari would be to learn that he didn't know what an artwork was)much less any reason for why the attempt is theoretically impossible to succeed at, which is what the claim that one "cannot" find attributes of the object, your sentence has no warrant. The onus of proving that an object that many if not most people do think exists is on the person who denies that existence in the first instance, even when all those people have worse reasons than they in fact do for that belief.

I in fact, with some hesitation and in recognition of how much the claim depends on a certain reading of limit cases like Duchamp and Warhol, agree with you that we don't have a satisfactory definition of what an artwork is and agree further that evaluating artworks cannot be an objective activity. I do not find either of these positions self-evident or even so nearly so as to think that the burden of proof lies on those who disagree with me and I think they are both subject to numbers of logical and historical embarrasments that entail holding them with much less assurance than you seem to do.
 
I can't disprove the theoretical possibility of a tasting note that did point directly to taste sensations and communicate them adequately, though I suspect that such tasting notes will be in some language other than the two in which I can currently read them and probably in a technical language yet to be developed.
Click to expand...
I think one of the several areas in which we part is that I'm no longer certain "taste sensations" are what I want tasting notes to communicate. In some ways, they're the easiest form, which is why my notes from large-scale tastings are almost exclusively taste sensations, because I don't have time for anything else. In other ways, as you indicate, they're harder because the communication is fraught. Personally, I often handwave this away by noting that no one ever goes into a wine shop and asks for a wine that tastes like ripe pineapple and walnut skins, but it doesn't really address the problem that you identify, only pretends that it doesn't much matter.

For myself, I've achieved a measure of satiety from others' notes, which it appears you have not. Coad's. Callahan's. Andrew Scott's. In a different vein, Terry Theise's. There are others, some of whom post here, and not each and every note qualifies, but a large number of contributions from those named sources have crossed a "that's what I want to know" threshold that they don't appear to cross for you. All I can really say about what those notes have in common is that they apply unusual language for the genre, that they're more personal than the norm, and that while they sometimes employ the contexts that so many of us insist are important, the context that most closely surrounds them is that of the note-writer's personality, both as it communicates about wine and as it responds to wine. I don't know if any of that is useful to you, but it is to me.

Maybe you're just exceptionally difficult to please? But no, you like grenache, so that can't be it.
 
originally posted by Thor: a large number of contributions from those named sources have crossed a "that's what I want to know" threshold that they don't appear to cross for you. All I can really say about what those notes have in common is that they apply unusual language for the genre, that they're more personal than the norm, and that while they sometimes employ the contexts that so many of us insist are important, the context that most closely surrounds them is that of the note-writer's personality, both as it communicates about wine and as it responds to wine. I don't know if any of that is useful to you, but it is to me..
Click to expand...

What you're describing is good for entertainment.

But from someone who is a reliable and experienced taster, it is also pretty useful/interesting to read basic information about how a wine is showing relative to the aging curve, still shut down, not yet shut down, etc.

No embellishments needed. Just a good taster. And the proviso that it may not apply to everyone's bottles, but can still be useful/worth reading. At least to me as I debate what to open for dinner.
 
What you're describing is good for entertainment.

But from someone who is a reliable and experienced taster, it is also pretty useful/interesting to read basic information about how a wine is showing relative to the aging curve, still shut down, not yet shut down, etc.
Click to expand...
Useful, sure. Interesting? Can't join you there.

I also object to dismissing anything not utilitarian as mere "entertainment."
 
originally posted by Thor: Useful, sure. Interesting? Can't join you there.
Click to expand...

Not always. But when someone has a surprising experience with a bottle that is either showing well or not showing well contrary to general wisdom, it can be an 'interesting' showing/finding.

I also object to dismissing anything not utilitarian as mere "entertainment."
Click to expand...

I never dismissed or said anything about 'mere'. Embellished notes offer plenty of value, especially on a board where people like to discuss!

But I said 'entertainment' because the practical value of helping to decide whether to open/how long to decant may not be present when a note compares wine to childhood memories.

But that doesn't mean that entertainment is not valuable for life in general.
 
No, you're right. The only value of a tasting note is answering the question of whether or not to open one's own bottle. It begins and ends there.
 
I'm much closer than you think, but I have to pretend otherwise so Cory doesn't kill me.

To be serious: you and I clearly look for very different things from tasting notes. At the risk of being accused of putting words in your mouth again, you appear to want them to be about you and your needs. That's fair, and a popular -- possibly majority -- opinion. I want them to be about the author and the wine, and how they got along.
 
originally posted by Thor: At the risk of being accused of putting words in your mouth again, you appear to want them to be about you and your needs..
Click to expand...

I never said that!

I was just responding to the trend towards bashing the basic notes by saying that both options are incomplete for me and both have value.

I don't privilege one over the other.

Which seems to be what you are doing!
 
I didn't say that you said that. I said that you called the sorts of notes I was praising "entertainment" and simultaneously objected that notes that told you how a wine was drinking were "useful/interesting." That's information that would only be important to you if it was useful to you, and the entire point of wishing for notes of that nature is that they have utility for the reader, not the writer. That is a Rahsaan-centered view of the utility/interest of tasting notes. I'm not calling you a bad person to suggest this.

No embellishments needed. [...] But I said 'entertainment' because the practical value of helping to decide whether to open/how long to decant may not be present when a note compares wine to childhood memories.
Click to expand...
This is what I mean: you're contrasting "childhood memories" and "embellishments" with "helping to decide whether to open/how long to decant," as if the two are orthogonal concepts. They're not. And it's instructive to me that you present "helping to decide whether to open/how long to decant" as the opposite of the sort of note I'm lauding, because -- as I said in the last 'graph -- that is a Rahsaan-centered view of the utility of tasting notes. You're asking: what can they do for you? And you're suggesting that if they're not getting about that business, they're doing less for you than they might.

There was some exaggeration for the purpose of sarcasm from me, yes, but I think the core point holds.
 
I'll just note that all I ever said is that I don't write these things and don't read them, mostly, with great appreciation, even though I do keep reading them. I wasn't making any theoretical or generalizable claims except to the extent that to explain my reaction, I had to write sentences that might look somewhat like such claims. Please do not take my listings of my reasons as arguments for anyone else to do one thing rather than another.
 
I'll just note that all I ever said is that I don't write these things and don't read them, mostly, with great appreciation, even though I do keep reading them. I wasn't making any theoretical or generalizable claims except to the extent that to explain my reaction, I had to write sentences that might look somewhat like such claims. Please do not take my listings of my reasons as arguments for anyone else to do one thing rather than another.
Click to expand...
Actually, I was wishing I could write the generalized/theoretical defense as I considered this issue and my potential responses to it. I can't. I hope it's because I can't yet, but we'll see. I know you're not taking the "don't unless you've walked the land," etc. anti-note stance, or any otherwise-justified stance, but I feel it's an objection worth addressing. I do feel that you're wrong. But I can't express why, yet. So I'll have to work on that.
 
originally posted by Thor:
I'll just note that all I ever said is that I don't write these things and don't read them, mostly, with great appreciation, even though I do keep reading them. I wasn't making any theoretical or generalizable claims except to the extent that to explain my reaction, I had to write sentences that might look somewhat like such claims. Please do not take my listings of my reasons as arguments for anyone else to do one thing rather than another.
Click to expand...
Actually, I was wishing I could write the generalized/theoretical defense as I considered this issue and my potential responses to it. I can't. I hope it's because I can't yet, but we'll see. I know you're not taking the "don't unless you've walked the land," etc. anti-note stance, or any otherwise-justified stance, but I feel it's an objection worth addressing. I do feel that you're wrong. But I can't express why, yet. So I'll have to work on that.
Click to expand...

Just being nitpickey, but since I'm just making a report of my reactions, and I'm not lying about them, I can't be wrong. If you come up with a way of writing that not only does what you say a note could do but elicits assent from me that it does what you say a note could do (and I am painfully aware that those could be very different requirements), I might change my mind about tasting notes. But I still won't have been wrong in reporting what I think now, even though I will have been insufficiently informed and thus wrong in thinking it.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
You've just said exactly what I've said you said again above. My claim was that evidence of agreement over the quality of great works is less than perfect but not insignicant evidence that that quality in fact exists objectively. Your second sentence, rather than arguing against that claim, just dismisses it.
Click to expand...

Evidence of agreement only means to me that certain works have met the subjective requirements (established by the winners in the cultural power struggles) better for longer. I am arguing, not affirming, that the burden of proof should lie with those who claim that something possesses a quality that cannot be shown to exist objectively.

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If you don't believe that artworks exist, it follows that you don't believe that a class of artworks exist. You believe that a concept exists that people think, wrongly, refers to actual objects, doesn't exist. Your claim that the attributes of artworks cannot be objectively listed, again, makes no reference to any of the various attempts to list those attributes, most with unsurprising success until Duchamp and Warhol in the 20th century. Since you give no reason for thinking those theories failed (think how surprised Vasari would be to learn that he didn't know what an artwork was)much less any reason for why the attempt is theoretically impossible to succeed at, which is what the claim that one "cannot" find attributes of the object, your sentence has no warrant. The onus of proving that an object that many if not most people do think exists is on the person who denies that existence in the first instance, even when all those people have worse reasons than they in fact do for that belief.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that the artness of artworks is an inherent quality, but there is a class of objects called artworks because they have garnered the necessary cultural consensus. We part company is in whether that consensus is based, at least in part, on inherent attributes.

Historical attempts to list attributes of artworks fail because they try to transcend their time instead of being historically specific. Vasari had a time specific concept of artwork. Warhol and Duchamp upset established notions, showing them to be exactly what I am arguing they are, culture specific and uninherent.

Most people believe in some form of God and history has shown, I think, that it's impossible to prove that God does or doesn't exist. Nevertheless, until shown otherwise to my satisfaction, I don't believe he does. I also believe the burden of proof lies with those who claim that he exists, even if they outnumber those who think he doesn't.

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I in fact, with some hesitation and in recognition of how much the claim depends on a certain reading of limit cases like Duchamp and Warhol, agree with you that we don't have a satisfactory definition of what an artwork is and agree further that evaluating artworks cannot be an objective activity. I do not find either of these positions self-evident or even so nearly so as to think that the burden of proof lies on those who disagree with me and I think they are both subject to numbers of logical and historical embarrasments that entail holding them with much less assurance than you seem to do.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we can have a satisfactory definition of what an artwork is: any object that the tastemaking establishment of a time and culture determines to be an artwork as the result of prevailing in the course of political and economic negotiation. Of course, such a definition does not address the artness of an artwork but, as you know, I think that is a projection.
 
Oswaldo,

The statements you make that account for historical agreements are theoretically conceivable accounts but in the absence of further argument, Ockham's razor would prefer the easier reading that different people across long periods of time have agree on evaluations of some works because they were perceiving the object that is there. They are on strong grounds in saying that that's what they do because, in the absence of other evidence, it's a good guess that that's what they're doing. Controverting their claim and offering another description of what they do doesn't yet count as having evidence.

Vasari's definitions of works of art (paintings on walls and canvas, statues and buildings, he didn't bother with music and literature) was sufficiently bounce your nose against it obvious looking that no one controverted it for many hundreds of years. When Hegel said offhandedly that everyone can tell the difference between screaming and singing or jumping up and down and dancing, again, he said something that no one would have had a problem with until a hundred years later. Duchamp and Warhol contest this agreement by producing objects that don't have these bounce your nose off of it obvious attributes and have been called works of art. I hope it won't surprise you that there have been very strong arguments about how to define art in the fact of these works, some more persuasive then others, but none meriting your position that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, your position is the most obvious.

Once again, you are wrong in thinking I disagree with you either about evaluation or about artworks. I am being far sniffier than that. I think these positions have important requirements to meet or they are easily dismissable and I don't think you are taking those requirements with sufficient seriousness.
 
originally posted by Thor: You're asking: what can they do for you? And you're suggesting that if they're not getting about that business, they're doing less for you than they might..
Click to expand...

Of course I'm asking what they can do for me. I don't read things unless I get some sort of benefit from them.

And yes I agree that practical info about opening times and entertainment are not orthogonal concepts. I enjoy reading all sorts of tasting notes. For me, it's usually more about the author and his/her wine voice than it is about the particular style and what kind of information they are conveying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top