I think that there are few people who really "get" this type of approach – Hugh Johnson being the granddaddy of those, and probably still the best.

I'd put art critics and those who review books up there as well – their breakdown of a work cannot, by its very nature, be rendered sans emotion, and we all know emotion is a volatile, mercurial thing.

Anyone who takes on the task of quantifying something as subjective as art, literature, and especially wine (which encompasses more senses than any other form of art, and probably requires more imagination than either – but that is my *subjective* take) knows going in that they are dealing in vagaries, opinion, unique slices of time (tasting a bottle that was shipped properly, of a good vintage, no bottle shock, no dumb phase, was stored properly, etc… versus a barrel sample, or versus a bottle shared among friends, en chateau, or one that was mishandled, yada yada – there are so many outside influences, let alone internal ones like personal preference and other prejudices) and a myriad of other subjective factors that should be taken into consideration, but rarely translate to print.

Yet we need that human (and some say flawed) element. A sniffing machine can break it down to core elements, molecular chains and compounds. But a machine, while technically perfect in analysis, and free from prejudice of label, settings, ad dollars, palette fatigue, etc… can it translate a complex liquid into text? Sure, just as a mass spectrometer can. But can it quantify the wine as metaphor, as a vehicle for sensory perception, and not just a list of descriptors? No. And I think this is where many wine writers fail, they simply run a list of tried/tired and true descriptors, tack on a few clever words, project the drinkability window and *boom* you have a tasting note.

There will be a change in the way we write about wine. There *has* to be. Wine is more than a liquid, more than another alcoholic beverage. It can totally recall a memory from decades ago, it can serve as an ambassador from a foreign land, it can be a great and challenging puzzle, it can be a vacuous self-indulgent money pit for the egocentric millionaire, it can elevate a meal, can be good for your health, and it can be big business. The wine writer of the future needs to consider the ancillary roles of what lies in the glass. And all those nuances and vagaries cannot be pulled out with a tweet, any numerical/puff/star/glass/clover/sips rating system, or a defecation of poorly chosen words.

I agree with the assessment, by and large, but more importantly, I hope everyone concerned with the task of writing about wine takes it as a challenge to up their game.

[ /rant ]