In our previous post we mused about the
nature of creativity in winemaking. To wit: is there any, or even
room for any?
We compared winemakers to chefs,
contrasting the way in which chefs are applauded for novel technique
and approaches to food, while the winemaker is expected to get out of
the way and allow the grape to express itself.
Part of the difference, of course, is
that food has few boundaries, even if it does have tradition. A
Béchamel must be a
Béchamel, but if the cook
changes it enough that it becomes something new, no one seems to
mind. A chef can use wine, but if a winemaker uses food, the product
is no longer wine. In that sense wine is constrained.
Béchamel. Thank you Wikipedia.
But really, I missed the point. The
nature of creativity is all but impossible to discuss because it
can't be known until it appears. If we say “X would be something
new in wine,” we've already created it. All that remains is the
doing. I would argue that wine types beyond still wine, such as
sparkling and fortified arose out of creativity, along with
creativity's dance partner, good fortune. Other winemaking
differences or preferences are more reflections of style than of
creativity.
Where and when the next creative
breakthrough will arise remains to be seen. We'll work on it.
Promise.
Posts
