Heaven and Hell

A winemaking area becomes more robust and interesting thanks to the diversity of its producers and their respective philosophies.

Years ago there was a joke going around that defined Heaven and Hell. Heaven was a world in which the chefs were French, the lovers Italian, the mechanics German, soccer players Brazilian, taxi drivers English and everything was organized by the Swiss. Hell, on the other hand, was where the chefs were English, the mechanics French, soccer players Swiss, lovers German, taxi drivers Brazilians and everything was organized by the Italians.

These were all, obviously, stereotypes and said in jest and not to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, especially in these times when it is complicated to have fun, I would like to apply the comparisons to the world of wine. And so, I ask myself: how would you define wine Heaven and Hell today? At least for those wine lovers and wine “fundamentalists” you can read on the social media.

Let’s start with Heaven for fundamentalists. Environmentally sustainable winegrowing, better if it is biodynamic or at least organic. A minimum of human intervention, to best allow a territory to express itself. No consultants, only the producer-winemaker who works with his own hands with the simplicity of a farmer and perhaps even some calluses on his hands and blisters on his feet, who knows how to drive a tractor but can also ride a horse and even use it to till the land. The grapes have to be rigorously indigenous, with very little if any use of wood, no filtering and very few sulfites, simple bottles and very colorful labels. If the wines are sparkling then its best if they have “dregs”, are turbid and thus “authentic”.

Their Hell, on the other hand, are wines with polished tannins, produced by people who may be successful in other sectors, who rely on famous enologists, who use barriques, suspicious methods to standardize each wine and who pass over a wine’s authentic origin. Sparkling and white wines are for the most part made using French varietals and are targeted for rich and upper-middleclass consumers, who are almost always incompetent but boast about drinking wines that have no “authentic” character.

For sure, for those who do not like surprises the opposite is true, with Heaven and Hell the exact opposite but this still equally simpleminded and ridiculous.

Personally, I have nothing against eco-sustainable wine, of course, nor against a correct approach to modern winemaking, which risks enhancing the value of those elements of territoriality that, rightfully so, are dear to many people.

I have no intention to play the role of the “expert” who raises his finger and scolds but only to make an appeal to common sense and, above all, to approach these questions without bias, also in view of the fact that the collapse of ideologies in this modern world has shown us something.

The world of wine is lovely because it has so many sides to it. There are great winemakers and excellent producers who are famous just as there are mediocre cooperatives and many others that have achieved surprising quality. And it is this diversity between the lead players in winemaking areas that make them so rich and interesting. Burgundy, Champagne, the Langhe and Alto Adige are exactly this. It includes Patriarche and Rousseau, Moet & Chandon and Selosse, as well as Produttori del Barbaresco and Maria Teresa Mascarello, Terlan and Manincor, and this just to name a few, significant, few. There are many others, perhaps not as interesting or valid, but they are also part of the world of wine.

A critic once said to Pablo Picasso, at one of his exhibitions, that “some of your works are very lovely but others are not that interesting” to which he replied: “If I hadn’t painted the less interesting ones, I could not have done the lovely ones”. That about says it all.

Opening photo taken from La sottile linea d'ombra: seven self-portraits by Picasso spanning more than seventy years of his production.