Looking at both sides of the argument the answer is not clear cut. The side of objectivity in wine (in my mind) rests with the idea that for whatever reason, a wine is made that the winemaker feels does not taste like the wines he has made in the past (with vintage variation expected) or like the wine he expects to make in the future.
The side of subjectivity rests with the idea that someone out there will love the wine that the winemaker feels does not live up to his standards.
When an object has a function and that function cannot be performed it is easy objectively to say that it is bad (e.g. a toaster that is broken and cannot brown toast or it only can burn toast).
When an “expert” sets a standard whether it is regarding a wine (or morality for that matter) it can only be subjective.
We can go around in circles regarding this topic but the answer to this question is subjective! ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
On the contrary. The point was that all things which are made can be made well or not. A toaster’s set of criteria is much simpler than wine or a car, but it is still a valid example of a thing being well or poorly made. Having a simplistic item on the list helps to define the basic argument. I don’t think the validiry of the premise (things can be made well or not) suddenly disappears at some point along the complexity scale.
Not complexity, but the objective of wine is much more nebulous than a toaster, hence the problem of labeling it good or bad.
A toaster is perhaps more apt to be compared to a winemaker, as both are responsible for a process of crafting.
Wine as good or bad is more like the toast as good or bad.
I theoretically agree completely with this post, yet I still love Oreos. Especially double stuff (maximum lard) ![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
P.S. the fact that oreos are bad yet yummy/delicious offers insight into the reasons why assessing wine by categories like “deliciousness” can be a problem
Is there any contradiction in doubting whether wine can be “objectively” good or bad (outside of obvious flaws), but still thinking that people can have good or bad taste when it comes to wine?
There is now a generation who thinks that the epitome of a fine meal is one that incorporates English Peas and radishes.
Yes. And part of understanding wine is to learn the difference between what might be objectively good vs what you like to drink. It’s similar to recognising a Rousseau Chambertin 2018 drunk now is a great wine (objectively) but actually you’d get more pleasure right now from a '99 or '02 Roumier Villages.
Father-in-law had a Trader Joe’s blind wine tasting with a group of 30 or so his retiree friends. Varying degree of wine experience from none to 1000 bottles in the cellar. 3 bottles all bought from TJ: 2 Buck Chuck ($2.99 I believe), a Trader Joe label ~$8 wine and a ~$20 wine sold at TJ. The 2BC to me was undrinkable but was picked as the favorite among 30 or so people.
Go figure.
My first observation is that there is no requirement of an educated palate in discerning good/bad wines objectively or subjectively (if that is even a major thing… subjective/objective dichotomy). Years of drinking wine amongst highly trained and novice palates has taught me that if we taste wine in blind lots (without placing a thumb on the scale by serving wines that clearly are not within a drinking window or of dramatically different varietals/profiles within that lot)… making the assumption that the group generally likes red or white wine depending on the flight… the majority of the people tasting the wines will pick out the best bottle. Whether you are observing subjective or objective factors… I find that there are undeniable aspects of a good wine that are equally perceivable to both trained and untrained palates.
I have put this theory to the test so many different times with the same results. Some may prefer Pinot over Cabernet… or Syrah etc. Some may be wowed by higher residual sugar… although these people when tasting say Cabernet with reasonable or lower residual sugars still can identify the best cabernet in a flight (assuming that you can structure a flight where there is a perceivable best bottle). If the flight is five extremely premium great bottles with distinctions such as bench land vs. mountain vs. Beckstoffer vs. Stags Leap … now you are really getting a better fix on personal palate. Similarly, if the flight is Pinot vs. Cab. vs. Syrah vs. Barolo vs. Sangiovese … now you are determining personal taste.
I often find people bashful to discuss wine because they don’t feel they have the training or vocabulary to discern… but good wine is actually broadly identifiable as good… bad wine is equally easily identified… without going into specific identifiable reasoning or details. It is simply how we identify what is in the glass in front of us!
I guess I agree with Sarah. Part of the problem is deciding what you’re using as your standard. So if a wine realizes its vision, no matter how vile you may think it, that wine can be considered “good”. Just like a toaster.
If you disagree with the vision, then it’s bad. My mother hated toast. Thought it ruined bread and dried it out. So no matter how efficient the toaster was, a toaster was a bad appliance.
Same with wine. If you make a perfect Meiomi, does that make it a good wine? If your measurement is consistency, a certain sugar level, a certain color level, etc., then I suppose it’s good if it meets those set standards. But if you reject the entire point of the wine, then it’s bad. Just like an Oreo or a cigar. They may meet certain standards, but I don’t consider them anything I would ever want in my mouth, so objectively they’re bad.
One can argue that it comes down to personal preference. But not always. Back to Oreos and tobacco. They offer no benefit and may be actually harmful. Is there an objectively good or bad cigar? If you accept that they are harmful to your body, they are all objectively bad. If however, harm is taken out of the equation, then there are probably people who are happy to argue the merits of one vs the other.
So with wine, once you define your parameters, you can determine if it’s objectively good or bad. But if you don’t define your parameters, the conversation has no point.
Assuming that a wine can be objectively bad (exhibiting universally accepted faults and flaws), is objectively good wine simply wine that is not objectively bad? Or are there objective criteria that can be applied to wine that would result in our being able to find the objectively “best” wine.
The answer to both of your questions is “no.” And it’s because you’ve set up a false dichotomy.
There is objectively “good” wine. There is also objectively “bad” wine. But there is certainly no objectively “best” wine. Wine is just not the sort of thing that is susceptible to a Platonic ideal.
That is not to say, however, that good-vs-bad is binary. An over-extracted, mass-produced $5 grocery store wine is “bad”; it does not have the characteristics of good wine. Decent-vintage Mugneret-Gibourg Bourgogne is an objectively “good” wine; it has many characteristics of “good” wine (as arrived at collectively by experienced wine drinkers over the course of centuries). But good-vintage Mugneret-Gibourg Clos Vougeot is objectively “better” than the Bourgogne because it has more characteristics of “good” wine, and the characteristics it shares with the Bourgogne are largely superior versions of the Bourgogne’s characteristics. But is M-G’s Clos Vougeot objectively superior to the version from Chateau de Clos du Vougeot? I say “no.” Wine does not lend itself to that level of minute objective scrutiny. Certainly at some point the objective analysis breaks down and it all becomes subjective. But that breakdown does not rebut the whole notion that some wine is objectively better than other wine. Just because it’s hard to tell if some balls near the foul line are fair or foul doesn’t mean it’s also hard to say that balls in the stands are foul.
This is of course the case with many things. Bach and Mozart are objectively “good” because they have all the characteristics of “good” music and hundreds of years of cultural understanding has cemented the notion that they are “good” from any standpoint. Vanilla Ice’s music is objectively bad because it shares few, if any, characteristics of “good” music. But there is no objective basis to say that Bach is “better” than Mozart. The same holds true for art and cuisine and even something like vacation destinations (Paris and Hawaii are both “good” destinations but which one is “better” is subjective).
I agree with this, “untrained” people will gravitate to wines we wine buffs would consider good, and naturally like them more than “bad” wines, when the quality difference is large. That has been my experience as well in blind tastings or in settings where people aren’t steered to particular wines. You don’t often hear this but I think it’s true.
With that said, people want different things at different times. Sometimes I want a Bud Light more than aged Bordeaux and enjoy it more. Good wine is a particular sensory experience and some times are more appropriate for it than others. Taste is very context dependent.
Defining your parameters is pretty much the definition of subjective.
Not that I agree with Mark’s general point, but I do agree that the toaster analogy is a poor one. A toaster is a tool, a means to an end, and the question is about measuring the end product. The better analogy would be whether there are objective measures to what is good toast.
With respect, the question is meaningless since there is no metric for quality.
It is an objective fact that the Beatles sold more records than Zager & Evans. But Zager and Evans are only objectively bad if it is agreed that quality is defined and measured by life time record sales. Most people would in fact say quality is a subjective criterion and hence an opinion, even if widely held.
I don’t think there’s an agreed metric for quality of wine. (Certainly not sales, vide Yellow Tail, Meiomi etc. ). What we do have is various degrees of agreement with the opinion that wine x is good or bad. The more that tends to unanimity the more it may be thought of, erroneously , as objective. But it’s really just popular opinion. And of course different groups may have different popular opinions.
So, no, question is meaningless. But it has triggered some great responses about wine.
Wine is not toast (unless it is crap), and a toaster is not as “objective” as you think, as each toaster will toast a little differently. A toaster’s design is very subjective, but their are still good designs and bad designs among them. Think of a better analogy.
It occurs to me that the lack of complete agreement in this thread implies the answer must be “no”.
Hey. I used to love this when I was in high school.
But, if you are measuring wine by sales you would find that the best wine out there is Gallo Hearty Burgundy and the best “premium” wine is Kendall Jackson Chardonnay. By contrast, Romanee Conti would not be very good.