originally posted by MLipton:
Thanks for all the thoughtful responses, folks. I finally have a bit of time to formulate my thoughts.
Jonathan - I'd thought that the high/low art divide had fallen out of favor in academics, as Chris notes in his comments. Your larger point about wine being a commodity in a way that music isn't is certainly valid, so perhaps I should focus on the issue of craftsmanship in winemaking, in the same way that cooks, cheesemakers and woodworkers can be superior craftsmen (artisans?).
Todd - as a devoted Enophile, I understand your point all too well. This is why I focused on the purpose to which the technology was put, that of obliterating individual characteristics and making a more homogeneous "product."
Chris - I agree with you about the benefits of better plonk (or is that boatloads of cheap crap?) and of the slippery distinction between high art and low art. This is why I wanted to focus on the stylistic shifts that took place in Bordeaux and Napa, which were not at all about making better vin ordinaire but rather about regularizing very limited production and expensive wines. The musical analogy to that shift might be the formation of the band Asia in 1981, when 4 technically proficient prog rock veterans made the decision to form a band to make commercially successful music. I have no truck with such decisions, but they're motivated by commercial rather than artisanal considerations, don't you think?
Regarding the drinking habits of our predecessors, one need look no farther than AJ Liebling's Paris, where 2-3 L of wine person was considered perfectly normal.
Mark Lipton
