Mystery

[Saina Nieminen]

I've been struggling to understand some comments that are quite recently voiced about how many wine drinkers want to be mystified by wine. Those who believe this, what do you mean? And why do you believe it? What's so good about mysticism? Is it simply fright caused by expecting to enjoy wine less if all was understood about it? But that hasn't seemed to me a very good reason because of parallels with other aesthetic pleasures. In music, for example, I find my appreciation heightened when I understand the technical stuff: Tallis's Miserere loses none of its beauty when I look into the complex canonic polyphony. Does this parallel not apply to aesthetics in wine?

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

I've never understood it either. The more knowledge, the better. It is knowledge that separates complex canonic polyphony from complex cacophonic polyphony or complex colonic polyphony.

 

[Florida Jim]

Otto,
While I do not use the term mystery, I can say that I enjoy being surprised by a wine (and, FWIW, in music, as well).
Although, IMO, neither term presupposes ignorance, just the inexplicable.
In an attempt to tie this to something concrete: my first taste of a Gravner wine completely surprised me, even though I fully understood how it was made.
Best, Jim

 

[SFJoe]

Sunsets are still pretty even if you know something about light scattering.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

I would say knowing something about light scattering makes them prettier.

 

[Yixin]

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
I would say knowing something about light scattering makes them prettier.

Or makes one appreciate the prettiness more.

 

[Seth Hill]

I read a Malcolm Gladwell essay recently ("Open Secrets," reprinted in his anthology _What the Dog Saw_) which talks about making distinctions between puzzles and mysteries.

I don't have a quote handy from the essay, but for me, a puzzle is an active engagement while a mystery is experiential. Head and gut.

I enjoy both in wine.