This recent post from Jamie Goode is interesting but disturbing. Entitled “Some Wines are Beyond Criticism,” he argues that “some wines have become so famous and so celebrated that there is little point to reviewing them critically.” His reasoning is essentially that critics fear being accused of having bad taste.
Mostly these super-famous wines are famous for a reason: they are very good. If you tasted them and gave a low score, then there’s a chance you made an error, or you had a bad bottle. Best not to publicise that. And if you tasted the wine and it wasn’t good, and you were right, and it wasn’t a bad bottle, then only you can lose if you publish a negative note. You will come across as someone who has bad taste, except to the (presumably very few) who share your opinion.
This isn’t a surprise. The top wines in the world seldom receive negative reviews. And I get the logic; assigning a comparatively lower score to a celebrated wine has consequences for the critic. You are likely to lose access to the wine which is a serious consequence given the price of celebrated wines. I’m not necessarily faulting individual critics for declining to publish a bad review given the stakes.
But it’s disturbing that any wine is above criticism.
I can’t think of another critical community in which icons are beyond criticism. Spielberg’s autobiographical film The Fableman’s received negative reviews. Stephen King routinely receives negative reviews especially from academic critics. Even someone as revered as Pablo Picasso wasn’t beyond criticism. Guernica was widely panned when first shown in 1937. Even today, critics debate whether the painting is too vague and general to carry a distinctive, meaningful message about the horrors of war. As for music, although Taylor Swift’s offerings are almost universally admired, that will not last.
The expectation in film, literature, art, and musical criticism is that even great artists can sometimes miss the mark and, when they do, their audience deserves to know. A successful, pointed criticism is not taken as evidence of bad taste, assuming the argument is good, but indicates a capacity for original thought.
That wine critics lack that freedom of expression might indicate a troubling tendency toward hagiography in the wine world and a sophomoric tendency to believe that if something costs too much it must be good. But, to be fair, it is more likely a simple reflection of the fact that the best wines are rare (unlike film, books, or museum tickets) and that gives celebrated wineries the power to bully anyone who might offer criticism. That power and impunity is not a good thing for the wine community. It fosters complacency at the top and makes it more difficult for new, worthy but un-celebrated wines to receive the publicity they deserve.
The solution is that top critics and the publications that support them could simply refuse to review wines from wineries that bully critics into submission. But don’t hold your breath. They benefit from the system as well. What’s a little hit on your integrity if you get to sample wines to which few have access.