Tag Archives: finland

Expertise in transformation

I know my shit

When the Age of Enlightenment got off in the 18th century weird things followed. Reason replaced religion and the church lost its monopoly on ultimate truths. New authorities were needed to fill the void. They were found within science. The idealists of the time hoped that the scientific method would eventually eliminate irrationality in our lives. This has been partly achieved: Helsinki Airport would probably not work if the flight control would rely on faith instead of mathematical patterns. On the other hand, irrationality didn’t go anywhere. The priest was kicked from the limelight but the expert was put on the pedestal previously reserved for the priest. But let’s make a jump to wine shall we? You ready?

Keep your shitty parachute


Think about the traditional wine expert. He or she has read a hundred books on the subject, toured the wine regions thoroughly and is able, if needed, to give an ad hoc lecture on some trivial subject. To put it bluntly, he or she (from here on only “he”) is like a walking encyclopedia, whose main purpose is not so much to generate new knowledge, but to manage already existing knowledge.

Knowledge is his source of power. That’s why he prefers to keep his clearance from the crowd he’s communicating to, enforcing the power distance between the ones who do the talking and the ones who do the listening. Many times he is not really into dialogues because the value of his professionalism is partly measured in his ability to portrait himself as somewhat infallible. That’s why the most respected experts are sometimes referred to as gurus, that are masters of sacred knowledge. Bit like priests.

Yes, it’s been about knowledge. How well experts are capable of expressing themselves by writing or speaking is less important than the sheer amount of knowledge accumulated by meticulous studying and experience. After all, encyclopedias are supposed to be boring.

 

From this shit...

...To this shit roughly in a century

These experts of Enlightenment had their golden age. In wine it was very late, starting in the 1970′s (when mass markets for wine gained momentum in the USA) and peaking in the 90′s. But it has now ended. You see, something crucial happened. Internet saw day light.

When Internet began to show first dawning signs of maturity, the cloud emerged and Google works as a bridge to it. With no need for knowing all the books by heart, a random person with a portable device can look for even the smallest detail and find it. You still need the big picture but all the details are starting to be available for anyone, anywhere, anytime. Information has become the air we breathe and since we don’t usually think about the undeniable significance of air while we are doing it, its value goes into inflation. That’s why nobody wants to pay for news anymore these days. The uninterrupted stream of information is taken for granted.

As a result the keepers of knowledge are now amidst one of the biggest information revolutions mankind has witnessed (in my opinion proving to be even more important than the crucial invention of printing press). In the core of the change is the concept of knowledge turning ubiquitous. We are all on that roller coaster.

Yes, we know more shit than we used to

Since the changes in culture tend to follow technology with a substantial lag, we seem to be in the middle of two eras, standing on a narrow bridge above a gorge. What does this mean in terms of the future of wine writing?

Before the ongoing information breach started it was both necessary and sufficient requisition for someone claiming to be a wine expert to know world of wine thoroughly. These days general expertise is still necessary, but not alone sufficient. This is essential.

One answer to the task thrown by the structures in transition is to become a specialist, basically an old school expert owning a territory only a fraction of what the kings and the queens of the field used to rule with sovereignty. Expert on the wines of the Greek archipelago. Expert on emerging regions of Portugal. Expert on cold climate wines of Southern America. Expert on natural wines.

This information shit is addictive, need another fix

Even if you are one of the respected MW’s but with no specific area of ​​expertise, when it comes to wine communication, you might soon find yourself playing in the loosing team. Why? Because even if you spent a hundred years learning the details of different wine areas, a passionate wine pro born to a certain viticulture village will most probably know more about the local wines than you’ll ever do. Most importantly, the quality of information he can tap into will  be more dense, relevant and valuable to most followers than something learned mostly from books with a certain general view on the topic. And if you’re missing the mark, he will let you and the world know about it instantly. It’s a competition and a single person can’t beat someone born to it empowered by efficient communication, not to even mention a community tapping on crowd intelligence. You just can’t win that match.

If you want to continue to be a generalist wine communicator in the future, not focusing on anything narrowly defined, you must have a specialty, a dimension in your work that cannot be reduced back to mere knowledge. Such as excellent skills in writing or speaking, a charming appearance, the ability to entertain, a vision clearer than most or the ability to combine different spheres of intelligence into one. Something that sets you apart from the others that have similar access to the data in the cloud. To put it simply, if you needed to be good before, you now have to be brilliant.

The shit is getting complex

Technology’s making many things easier. That’s why we invest in it. It’s not exaggeration to expect that in fifteen years technology will assist pretty much anyone with a high school diploma to produce flawless text in a similar way the GPS is helping us find our way today (if your inner compass is as broken as mine). In fact I’m already utilizing this kind of technology by resorting to several online dictionaries while writing this. MS Word helpfully corrects some of my misspellings automatically and WordPress hopefully the rest.

The age of  general expert with no exceptional talent is coming to an end. Enter the long tail. Enter the rise of the rest.

But even the specialist has to adjust himself to the new world even within his field. Mere broadcasting is no longer considered enough by audiences. People want insight, well formulated arguments and informative opinions. Describing has to be enhanced with active and ongoing interpretation. That’s why traditional illusory objectivity as a paradigm is in the decline and making room for sophisticated subjectivity. No longer can an expert justify hiding behind technocratic objectivity in matters of great importance. You need to have an opinion about things that fall on the field of your expertise and you can’t withheld it like a keeper. You need to spit it out and take a stance. Sounds self explanatory but has been far from it the past decades.

This shit you expected didn't you?

What I’ve described above happened to the uomo universales, the polymath geniuses of Medieval times, preceding the Age of Enlightenment in their scientific ethos, but failing to make the leap to the new era of incremental complexity. They flourished in a world that was not too fragmented and complex for a single person to absorb and master whole areas of expertise. Their disappearance took a hundred years to happen. I promise you this one will take significantly less. The question is: are you willing to jump? Take a look at the picture of the jumping man in the beginning of this post. If I’m not mistaken, you now understand it in a completely new way.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sacred juice

“Puritanism: strictness and austerity especially in matters of religion or conduct”
– Merriam-Webster

The favorite one liner wine professional like to do is the ‘wine’s just a beverage, a simple agricultural product’ mantra trying to make wine easier for people intimidated by the number of crus within a radius of kilometer in Côte de Beaune. I’ve used that catch phrase more than my share. But as it happens, if you put emphasis on the history, wine’s not just an ordinary beverage. Though certainly mostly used for everyday consumption, it’s been utilized for religious purposes for quite some time. Its ties with things considered sacred are tight as a knot.

Fancy talking about wine in slow-mo? This writer of Gilgamesh did

We need to rewind couple of thousands of years back to see the big picture. Though the initial connection of wine and religion is very much unclear for obvious reasons we do know that when primitive religions gradually evolved into monotheistic redemption religions with scriptures, wine already played an important role in them.

In the first monotheistic religion, Zoroastrianism, wine was used to put a friend of Zarathustra into trance that gave the fellow an epiphany where he saw himself ascending to heaven. Pretty celestial stuff.

Wine is also present in Quran how counter intuitive it may sound. All fairness it’s not completely clear whether the wine described in the texts had alcohol in it or not (that’s at least the favorite argument of mullahs) but the Quran does state, however, that there’s a river of wine flowing through the paradise so one could argue Allah knows a thing or two about the good stuff.

In the texts of old testament shared with Jews and Christians wine is all over the place with quite a number of examples. In the new testament one of the key miracles includes turning water into wine at a wedding making Jesus a winemaker. Wine played also an important role in the last supper on which Jesus went symbolically cannibal with his followers. The story doesn’t tell whether Judas enjoyed his wine turned blood turned wine more than the others.

So as Eurasian commodity wine is pretty much part of all the religions of the region. But what I find particularly interesting is the thought that maybe it’s not just about wine playing its part in religion but also religion playing its part in wine thanks to their intertwined history. This is where it gets interesting.

Fancy giving your paleo-pal a sip of something?

Anthropologists claim that in the early forms of religion there was no concept of sin the way we know it today. The notion of sin was coined later to support the notions of heaven, hell, redemption, omnipotent benevolent god and all that stuff invented after the high civilizations were build stone by stone.

Back in the good old paleo-days it wasn’t good versus evil in our minds or in the world. It was about sacred pitted against profane not virtue against sin. In those times purity equaled sanctity and profane equaled corruption of sanctity brought to you with an element of abomination to make it stick. You didn’t want to piss off the forces greater than yourself and you tried to avoid it with superstitious bans and rules very much fixated on the DO’s and DON’T’s governing the dangerous border between sacred and profane.

To get rid of the abhorrent contaminating corruption in ourselves and around us, we’ve used rituals of many sorts, magic, prayers and sacrifices (burning cattle. Or burning people. Especially dead ones. Sometimes not so dead). We still recognize the intuitive need to repel corrupt elements by taking action and to resort to black and white thinking while doing it.

If you’re like myself, non-religious scientifically minded person, you sort of think you’re vaccinated against all sort of spiritual fuss. Think again. Here’s why. Sometimes we, as wine drinkers, make wines the vessels of our spirituality without even recognizing it ourselves.

Fancy some corruption? Hieronymus did

Interestingly enough, purity is the thing many of us seriously dedicated to wine are looking for in the glass. We are looking for the pure expression of terroir or pure expression of variety. We see purity as an intrinsic value. This is especially true with natural wines that are in a paradoxical way undogmatic dogma of purity in themselves.

When a wine is seriously impressive, we may call its taste ethereal, surreal or even out of this world. If you’ve ever seen someone having his first sip of Romanée-Conti (with a tight history with Christian monks like the whole of Burgundy), you know what I’m talking about. The taste is just a part of the equation. The wines hierarchical position at the very top of the symbolic system makes the moment special (which also explains why fake bottles sometimes get these 99 scores from respected critics). The moment is so loaded with significance it becomes a ritual by its own right. Almost like searching for answers on eternal questions in the glass, the silent, almost fervent, moment of the first sip is the moment the prehistoric man inside reveals himself to us.

Turning it the other way around: as wine idolators(sic!) we shun the idea of someone using semi-synthetic products like Mega Purple to give the wine some artificial color. Wines manipulated with tannin enzymes or aroma enzymes strike us as wrongness of epic scale. Someone has contaminated the sacred of nature with corruption of men. That’s a profane abomination for you.

This is quite telling: sometimes if we don’t know what we’re dealing with but kind of like the wine, we get anxious because our palates are not good at giving answers to questions concerning metaphysics. Is it corrupt? If we learn the truth our relation to the bottle may change.

Fancy a tannic sacrebleu?

Why do we react like this? I believe there are relics within our thinking carrying the code of the primitive era, bit like tailbones of a cognitive sort. My makeshift theory goes that because purity is still closely connected to the concept of holy in these primitive parts of our brain, we tend to see pure things also examples of sanctity and that’s why great wines can sometimes provide an experience best described as spiritually uplifting. Easy.

From time to time we dislike things “endangering the typicité” not because we want to hang ourselves on to some point of time in history when they passed the laws governing how a wine style should be made because we don’t really think in our right state of mind that the people in the 50′s where infallible like the pope and we know the tradition has changed pretty much constantly. We are against change because we sense a rupture that may put purity at risk.

This is why we don’t have a problem with English using Champagne varieties or Napa doing Cab. In our mind there was a void before the somewhat dangerous by nature alien elements came and therefore there was nothing to be corrupted. This is also the reason why some arguments made against the use of international varieties in Chianti are deep down Tower of Babel arguments.

This is not to say that Chianti Classico 100% Sangiovese couldn’t in fact be better than one including Syrah. Absolutely it can be. And to be clear: this is neither a justification for spoofing wine with industrially produced chemical shortcuts meant to make things easier for the producers (in my opinion that shouldn’t happen without total transparency along with it, but oh boy).

So in the end, what is this rambling about? It’s about the point that sometimes stances we firmly take don’t have much to do with taste, ecology or morals. Sometimes they are just channeling paleolithic intuition within us. And you know what? There’s nothing wrong with that.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35 other followers