Diamond-encrusted skulls, fine wine and how
to judge them 19 December 2008

Melvyn Minnaar wonders if blind tasting is best

Writing about art, as I do from time to time, I find the hoopla about whether wine gets a more accurate, ‘objective’ rating when tasted blind (i.e. without the taster knowing anything other the barest minimum about what’s in the glass in front of her/him) is ever-amusing. Try applying that regime to contemporary painting or video installation. (Last year’s Documenta 12 art fest in Germany picked up serious flak because the curators didn’t supply wall labels.)

Art and wine are interchangeable subjects for many questions. Finally, it all boils down to appreciation. One can admire/judge/approve/reject/be charmed by an artwork in exactly the same way as a glass of wine engages the senses and mind. Art and wine do share, of course, the dubious link to ‘investment’ and money. But both are such high-human experiences, that they ultimately simply resist empirical rationalisation. It is when one looks at the issue of so-called blind-tasting (that gesture to rationalism and pseudo-science) as a parallel to the (visual) art experience, that the holes appear in the argument.

In recent times, for example, a locally well-known wine scribe/blogger seems to have made it his hell-bent mission to discredit the annual Platter wine guide, because the team of tasters doesn’t evaluate the wines blind. Another well-known wine personality has just organised a weekend wine-tasting ‘academy’. The nomenclature signals that evaluating wine can be trimmed to the rules and rigours of academia. (Stellenbosch University has also just embarked on a scheme to train wine judges.)

Wine magazine, in turn, uses a kind of pliable-democratic, numbers system for its blind-tasted ratings, in which scores are posted and the average highest wins. On the face of it this is fair, except that when the individual scores are given (for the top-scoring wines only), it could be argued that the result when a wine is similarly scored by all members of the team is the safer option to go by.

Whether the judges agreed in this way about Vergelegen V 2004, the famous estate’s very expensive top wine, in the recent Wine ranking exercise we do not know. It scored only two-and-a-half stars – which means that individual judges’ scores are not recorded. In the 2008 Platter Guide the wine was rated four-and-a-half stars (by this website’s editor), though it didn’t make it through the blind-tasted five-star line-up.

Of course, the ‘low’ rating in Wine will make for cheap thrills among the chattering wine gossipers. But it may also be a pointer to the fallacies of the blind-tasting system (and, of course, the magazine’s count-up-and-divide process).

One doesn’t need to agree with the Platter rating, but the fact is that Vergelegen V is a top-class wine. This much has been debated and agreed to over many good glasses by a number of wine-knowledgeable experts both at the wine’s launch last year and afterwards. (Grape’s new releases panel gave it a whopping 18.5 points and high praise – tasting sighted, admittedly, and it performed very well at Jancis Robinson’s recent tatings in Davos, tasted blind.) A debate could be about style – but this is certainly not a two-and-a-half star wine? I don’t think anyone sober in the wine business would disagree.

Then how did the judgement come about?

I would argue that it fell victim to the blind-tasting process, and the implicit belief that the evaluation of wine can be conducted by a set of rules - of which the most important seems to be that ‘objectivity’ is achieved when as little as possible is known (which may presumably taint the taster’s smart, neutral ability).

In evaluating wine – and this is echoed in art appreciation - neutrality is a false premise.

Yes, of course, expertise can be acquired: palates sharpened, bench-marked. (As with acquiring  a ‘good eye’ in the visual arts, dogged experience acquired over years is the best training for the acute tongue.) But, like in art, context - and intention - cannot be discarded. In fact, many modern semiologists will argue that the more you know, the better your position to evaluate. And, taken to a logical conclusion in this wine-tasting business, this means seeing the label too. Naturally, as in art, the onus is on the judge to avoid being waylaid by ‘signs’ (to use the Saussarian terminology) that undermine independent judgement. But this, in the end, boils down to an ethical call: the integrity of such a judge.

If we didn’t known the why and wherefore of Damien Hirst’s diamond-encrusted skull, his artwork For the Love of God – blindly served, say, on a platter -  we might mistake it as a bit of kitsch in a exotic temple. But an art lover paid $100 million for it.

Some wine lovers are paying R750 for a bottle of Vergelegen V 2004. Surely they are entitled to some respect being accorded their vinous masterpiece.

COMMENTS

From Peter Gebler [Cape Wine Master resident in Germany]:
One can argue forever about sighted vs. unsighted tastings. As I have experience with a number of wine-tasting panels, including one for a European annual guide, I can only say that a wine guide is never the gospel, and Platter's does a very creditable job indeed. In fact, tasting a 'famous' wine sighted can be a disadvantage, as one has expectations that might not be fulfilled, and might then be particularly strict. Use a guide as a guide, and then make up your own mind by tasting/drinking the stuff.

From Vieilles Vignes:
Dear Melvyn, captivating writing I must say, almost sounds like a book review of Philosophy and wine [edited] by Barry Smith; you obviously did not agree with the notion that wine cannot be called art, and the arguments made to that extent.

I must agree, seeing the V getting two and half stars is akin to getting bangers and mash at a Michelin three star! But unfortunately your argument for sighted tastings compared to blind does lead to the conclusion that the ‘idea’ of a great wine must be rewarded with a great score. Using Wine magazine as a counter for using blind tastings seems a bit risky at the best of times and does not exactly portray what a blind tasting should be like. If I’m not mistaken Jancis tasting in Davos was blind, and the jury is still hanging if it was the V that was present to start with! [No: As we reported, the confusion was in one tasting between the Cabernet and the Red blend; the V was in a separate tasting. Both done blind, but everyone knew the line-up contained only ‘starry’ wines! – Ed]

Not to slate your stance on wine being art, but which part of wine is art, the label, the skills to make it, the individual bottle, the entire bottling lot, the producer as a whole? Art does not always portray meaning or some deeper Freudian undertones, what is a constant is the fact that it doesn't change from one viewing to the next. The meaning for the viewer might change, the canvas might fade a little, but the work itself is constant. Intrinsic to why we enjoy wine is that it is not a constant and cannot be appreciated in the true sense unless consumed, which in that event destroys it as a work of art!

My humble opinion: do away with all of these pseudo money-making competitions with hidous spandex-coloured ribbons and stickers, panel tastings coughing out averages, which suits the average person. Get more ‘tasters’ with gumbo and guts willing to put their names and honest opinions to a wine, and then you find the one who best suits your tastes and follow them. You might argue Platter’s tasters are identified and named and those are their opinions – but human psychology is amazing in the sense where none of these tasters own the Platter Guide; although given total freedom to rate wines as they please, it is still not their private soap-box where they can call a spade a spade.