Charters 2005

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]
On: 17 October 2014, At: 08:30

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Wine Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjwr20
Is wine consumption an aesthetic experience?

a b
Steve Charters & Simone Pettigrew
a
School of Marketing Tourism and Leisure , Edith Cowan University , 100 Joondalup
Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia E-mail:
b
Graduate School of Management , University of Western Australia , WA, 6009, Australia
Published online: 06 Oct 2011.
To cite this article: Steve Charters & Simone Pettigrew (2005) Is wine consumption an aesthetic experience?, Journal of
Wine Research, 16:2, 121-136, DOI: 10.1080/09571260500327663
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571260500327663
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Wine Research, 2005, Vol. 16, No. 2,
pp. 121 – 136
Is Wine Consumption an Aesthetic Experience?

Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:30 17 October 2014
STEVE CHARTERS and SIMONE PETTIGREW

Original manuscript received, June 2005
Revised manuscript received, August 2005
ABSTRACT There has been occasional debate amongst aesthetic theorists about whether or not
the consumption of wine can be considered an aesthetic process. This paper examines this debate
empirically, using data from an exploratory study into wine consumption practices to elucidate
the arguments. The findings of the study suggest that consumers perceive some key similarities
between the consumption of wine and the appreciation of art forms. These similarities include: the
pleasure provided by each; the interrelated role of sensory, emotional and cognitive responses;
the focus on evaluative processes, particularly in relation to the concentration and training which
they require; and the issues of personal taste. It can also perhaps be argued that both wine and art
forms prompt a common perception of beauty.
Introduction
There is a synergy between organoleptic experience and the philosophy of aesthetics.
Aesthetics as a philosophical subdiscipline originated in the 18th century with
debates about the nature of ‘taste’ (Dickie, 1971), a term used metaphorically for
the evaluative appreciation of the beautiful. Indeed Hume, an early philosopher of aes-
thetics, was explicit about this link using a story from the novel Don Quixote to exemplify
the role of taste (Hume, 1757/1998). In the story two men were asked to assess a wine;
one tastes and claims it is good but for a hint of leather, the other concurs but notes a
distinct flavour of iron. When the barrel was emptied an old key on a leather thong was
found in the bottom. This evaluative subtlety, Hume (1757/1998) argued, acts as a
metaphor for how the ‘mental’ faculty of taste operates.
Nevertheless, the use of wine tasting as a metaphor for the aesthetic process does not
mean that wine consumption itself can be considered an aesthetic experience. As will be
seen, some philosophers have explicitly discounted this possibility. Yet the consumption
of wine can still excite comments such as ‘beautiful’, ‘sublime’ or ‘awesome’, all terms
associated with an aesthetic response. Indeed, a few writers on wine have considered
that it is, at least when of high quality, an artwork, and claim that it can be evaluated
Steve Charters, School of Marketing Tourism and Leisure, Edith Cowan University, 100 Joondalup Drive,
Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia (E-mail: s.charters@ecu.edu.au). Simone Pettigrew, Graduate School of
Management, University of Western Australia, WA 6009, Australia.
ISSN 0957-1264 print/ISSN 1469-9672 online/05/020121-16 # 2005 Institute of Masters of Wine

DOI: 10.1080/09571260500327663
122 STEVE CHARTERS AND SIMONE PETTIGREW
aesthetically. Amerine and Roessler (1976), who wrote a classic text on wine tasting,
make these points:
Aesthetics has to do with the subjective and objective appraisal of works of
art: music, art, architecture—and wine. (p. 3)
The components [of wine] must complement one another synergistically and
excite our aesthetic appreciation. (p. 8)
Additionally, wine professionals use the association of wine to art and the aesthetic as a
way of understanding—even promoting—their product. Beringer Blass wines in
Australia have recently launched the Andrew Garrett range of wines with pictures of
musical instruments on their front label, and an explicit linking of music, wine, food
and ‘good company’ on the back label of the bottle. One English wine merchant,
formerly a pop music composer and producer, also made a link when asked how the
worlds of music and wine compare:
If you take a good wine, it will keep your interest from the top of a glass to the
bottom, and the bottle will evolve as you drink it. It’s the same with a piece of
music. You consume them in a similar way, I guess. (Williams, 2002, p. 19)
However, whilst sometimes alluded to by other wine critics (e.g. Jackson, 2002) and
academics (Charters and Pettigrew, 2002), the perspective that wine consumption is
an aesthetic process has not been developed within any consistent theoretical frame-
work. This study attempts to remedy that lacuna by examining whether or not wine
consumption can be considered an aesthetic experience. To provide context it
reviews how the Western philosophical tradition understands the aesthetic but the
study is not merely based on a priori argument. Rather, this paper presents the
results of a research project which examined the relationship between wine and the aes-
thetic experience from the perspective of the social sciences, utilising a qualitative
methodology. The focus is thus on drinkers’ views about the aesthetic nature of wine
consumption.
Context
Can Wine Consumption be an Aesthetic Experience? A Philosophical Perspective
There is a long philosophical tradition which maintains that the consumption of food
and drink is not susceptible to aesthetic evaluation. This was clearly delineated by
Kant (1790/1987), who paradoxically was known to enjoy wine. The most recent
development of the argument that food and wine are incapable of providing an
aesthetic experience has been made by Scruton (1979). His argument is threefold.
First, he claims that since Aquinas philosophers have distinguished the upper senses,
which may allow for ‘objective contemplation’, from touch, smell and taste. These
latter ‘lower senses’ are primarily used for utilitarian purposes. A further distinguishing
feature is that in tasting both the object and the desire for it are steadily consumed. No
such thing, Scruton (1979) argues, is true of genuine aesthetic attention. Finally, he
argues that the concentrated focus required by aesthetic objects is of a different,
more cognitive, nature from the focus demanded of food and drink. It is also worth
adding another criticism of the notion that food and wine can be aesthetic objects. It
has been noted that the physiological sense of taste “is not only subjective but also
relative. It depends on factors idiosyncratic to the taster” (Korsmeyer, 1999, p. 100).
By contrast, it is claimed, true aesthetic objects have no physiological impact on
IS WINE CONSUMPTION AN AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE? 123
their audience (Korsmeyer, 1999). However, in response it could be argued that the
response to a specific melody, or a line, or a colour, may also be idiosyncratic and
have relative dimensions.
A sustained rebuttal of the traditional perspective was made by Sibley (2001). He
notes that while Scruton (1979) claims there is a difference between the lower senses
and the higher senses, the latter acknowledges that this difference is “hard to describe”
(Scruton, 1979, p. 113). Sibley (2001) suggests it is hard to describe because it is non-
existent. Additionally, Sibley (2001) points out that the argument about the consump-
tion of the aesthetic object also counts for little, for we consume all products including
music or a picture, without necessarily ingesting them. Moreover, he adds, music dies
away, and pigment fades. Finally, both types of sense, he claims, can have utilitarian
and ‘baser’ elements, and both are capable of sustaining aesthetic interest—that is,
of providing the basis for cognitive evaluation of the aesthetic product.
A number of other recent philosophers have also maintained that food or drink is
capable of providing an aesthetic experience. Coleman (1965) comments that food
and drink may be capable of offering the complex sensations necessary to provide cog-
nitive stimulation. Crucially, Osborne (1977) has noted that the distinction sometimes
made between the mere ‘sensuous’ pleasure of taste or a smell and the ‘cognitive’ plea-
sure in the appreciation of high art is a false dichotomy; he analyses in detail what we
see in an artwork, including hue and colour, then points out that the components of a
smell can be far more complex than either aspects of a visual response. Other philoso-
phers have also used wine illustratively to explain how perceptual judgements and
objective claims about apparently subjective topics can be made (Gale, 1975; e.g.
Railton, 1998; though for a contrary view see Shiner (1996)). It is thus clear that
whilst there may be a long tradition which excludes wine from aesthetic appreciation,
it is not a tradition which is universally accepted.
A final point relates to the idea of wine as an ‘artwork’, with the wine maker as
artist. A full analysis of this debate is beyond the scope of this paper, which seeks
to focus on the consumer’s experience rather than the nature of the aesthetic
object. However, it is enough to note that there are those who would argue that
wine (like, perhaps, a great meal) is capable of being considered a work of art
(Korsmeyer, 1999). However, Korsmeyer (1999), in a recent, comprehensive philoso-
phical engagement with food and wine, has argued that both products must be seen
in a much wider symbolic context rather than merely as artworks or capable of
aesthetic evaluation. They have “a symbolic function that extends beyond even the
most sophisticated savoring” (Korsmeyer, 1999, p. 103). Other philosophers have
suggested that if wine is capable of aesthetic appreciation it is irrelevant whether or
not it is an artwork (e.g. Sibley, 2001).
The Nature of the Aesthetic Experience

In order to explore whether or not wine can be a stimulus for an aesthetic experience, it
is useful to attempt to crystallise some of the core elements of that experience. Given the
disputes that have raged between philosophers for the past 300 years this may seem to
be a vain exercise, but without engaging in the detail of those disputes a tentative
summary of aesthetic processes can be offered.
At the core of aesthetics at the beginning of the 18th century was the notion of
beauty—and it is still accepted by most aesthetic thinkers that the beautiful, the
sublime or that which is moving is central to the aesthetic experience (Blackburn,
1994). The importance of beauty was a point made by Plato (n.d./1951), whose
writings were the precursor of aesthetic thought, and the concept was discussed by the
founders of the discipline (e.g. Hume, 1757/1998; Kant, 1790/1987). In passing, it
should be noted that some have argued that the ugly or distressing may have aesthetic
value (Schlegel (n.d.), cited in Cupchik (2002)): whilst such an aesthetic object may
not be beautiful, it can still be moving in some way. Beauty, moreover, must be inter-
preted in a broad sense, and covers products beyond the merely visually appealing.
Traditional aesthetic thought has considered music, poetry and perhaps novels and
plays to be aesthetic products.
Having established beauty as a core concept for aesthetics, the next stage in the
development of aesthetic thought was to determine how the beautiful could be appreci-
ated. This debate centred on two issues: how aesthetic judgements could be validated;
and how the individual made those judgements. Thus, on the former issue, early
theorists sought to establish how judgements of taste could be validated (Hume,
1757/1998; Kant, 1790/1987), but after Kant the emphasis shifted away from attempt-
ing to show the validity of evaluative judgements. The impact of Hegel was to transfer
the weight of debate away from the beauty of the object onto the subjective response to
it (Ferry, 1993), a process which was completed in the work of Schopenhauer (Dickie,
1997). Later aesthetic thinkers, however, have revisited the issue of how aesthetic
objects can be assessed, and have also returned to the debate about whether or not
aesthetic appreciation is objective or subjective (for recent examples see Gale, 1975;
Beardsley, 1980; Railton, 1998). Connected with this debate is the issue of whether
or not there are any common evaluative criteria which can be used to make judgements
across a range of types of aesthetic object. Although an approach such as this may be
considered to smack of metanarrative (Lyotard, 1984), and thus be anathema to a
postmodern perspective (Featherstone, 1991), some modern philosophers of aesthetics
have pursued this, most notably Beardsley (1980). Beardsley (1980) has posited three
‘general canons’, criteria which he argues can be applied to all aesthetic objects in order
to assess their value. These three criteria are the degree of unity or disunity of the work,
its complexity and the intensity of its subject-matter.
As well as considering the validity of aesthetic judgements, philosophers of aesthetics
are also concerned with the nature of the individual’s aesthetic response: what precisely
is experienced during aesthetic engagement? It is generally agreed that at the very least
an aesthetic experience requires a concerted effort of concentration. Some philosophers
develop this into the concept of ‘disinterested attention’ (Townsend, 1997), where the
focus on the object is so complete that it can only be appreciated for its own sake
without consideration for any extrinsic purpose it may serve. This particular extrapol-
ation from the idea of concentration on the aesthetic object is not universally accepted,
however (e.g. Dickie, 1964).
A connected issue is whether or not the aesthetic response is an act of the mind, or
emotional, or even a bodily sensation (Osborne, 1979). Some philosophers have
argued that the experience is entirely cognitive, and emotion plays no part in it (see
Scruton (1979) for a clear exposition of this perspective). Others argue that feeling is
essential to the experience, or that it is primarily a sensory response (noted by
Osborne (1979)). This relates to the debate about the role of pleasure in aesthetic
engagement. Some maintain that any pleasure taken in the process is entirely cerebral;
others allow it a more visceral or emotional dimension (Schaper, 1983). It has certainly
been suggested that Kant and those who followed him totally dismissed the role of plea-
sure in the experience (Schaper, 1983), or at the very least sidelined it (Osborne, 1979).
However, the increasing interest psychologists have shown in aesthetics has meant that
this issue has been revisited (for a comprehensive review see Funch (1997)). This is
particularly evident in the work of Csikszentmihalyi and his collaborators

(Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi, 2002), where the concept
of ‘flow’ is developed. Flow represents the individual’s complete involvement in an
activity or product, a process which Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson (1990) explicitly
equate to Beardsley’s (1980) philosophical analysis of an aesthetic experience. The flow
experience encompasses mental, emotional and sensory processes (Csikszentmihalyi,

2002). Interestingly, in their research amongst the curators of art galleries,
Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson (1990) noted that professionals reported responses to
art which, at varying times, concentrated on their mental processes, how they felt
and their instinctive sensory reactions.
One can therefore summarise this review of the literature by suggesting that some of
the major aesthetic debates centre on three issues. The first is the nature of the
aesthetic response, including the concentration required, the nature of pleasure in
the experience and whether or not it is primarily cognitive, emotional or sensory.
Second is the role of the aesthetic object, including the elements of beauty and the
nature of artworks. Third is how aesthetic judgements can be established—and
specifically whether they tend to be objective or subjective. Each of these will be
considered in this paper.
Process
This paper results from an empirical study examining the consumer’s engagement with
wine. To this extent it is different from most of the literature examined previously,
which, coming from the discipline of philosophy, tends to be based on pure reason
(the major quoted exception is Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson (1990)). The study,
which was framed within the marketing subdiscipline of consumer behaviour,
focused not only on wine consumers, but also on producers and those involved in
wine distribution (including judges and critics). This allowed for comparison across
the three reference groups. There were a total of 105 informants, of whom 60 were
consumers and 45 were marketers or producers.
Because it was dealing with previously unexplored phenomena the research was
considered exploratory. As it was exploratory a qualitative research approach was con-
sidered apposite (Calder, 1977), and two techniques were used: individual interviews
and focus groups. Questions covered a range of topics, but all data collection operated
within the context of exploring if and how wine functions as an aesthetic product for
drinkers. Because of the research topic the focus groups incorporated a blind wine
tasting which allowed the participants to focus on the process of aesthetically evaluat-
ing wine in isolation from any extrinsic cues to its quality (such as price or label). This
allowed for observation of informants’ responses to wine, adding another layer of data
to their spoken comments.
Data were collected throughout Australia, concentrating on the metropolitan cities
of Sydney, Adelaide and Perth but also in some regional areas such as Margaret River
and McLaren Vale. More informants were sourced from the consumer reference group
than the professionals’ groups. This was due to their greater preponderance in the
population overall and because professionals, as elite informants, would give more
reasoned and articulate data and thus fewer would need to be interviewed (Marshall
and Rossman, 1989). Informants were sourced in a number of ways, including utilising
contacts of the researcher, sending out flyers requesting assistance and asking friends for
help in recruitment. The focus groups and interviews were audiotaped and the focus
groups were also videoed. Short written field notes were taken at each stage of the
data collection process. The recordings and the field notes were transcribed, producing
406 pages of raw data. The transcripts were then analysed using the qualitative analysis
software NUD.IST.
From the beginning of data collection a process of analysing and cross-referencing
informant responses was developed. This was aimed at starting the analysis by
developing classes of data (Janesick, 1994) and was also designed to enhance
subsequent data collection (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). As a result, emerging ideas
informed later data collection by facilitating the detailed examination of themes as
they emerged (Huberman and Miles, 1994) and permitting the search for possible
‘negative instances’ (Douglas, 1985). To enhance the dependability and credibility
of the data a series of triangulation methods was adopted (Wallendorf and Belk,
1989). This included the use of different consumer reference groups and subgroups,
obtaining data from different places, the dual use of interviews and focus groups and
the generation of both oral and observational data.
It is necessary to enter a caveat about informants’ perspectives on the aesthetic
nature of wine. They were given no warning that the subject would be addressed,
nor any ‘training’ in what aesthetics might entail. This was a deliberate decision
to avoid pre-prepared ‘scripts’ or carefully thought out answers; the intention
rather was to focus on immediate, ‘top-of-mind’ responses. The topic was addressed
obliquely—by asking them if they felt that there were any similarities between wine
and music, or with art generally. On occasions the aesthetic perspective on wine was
raised voluntarily by informants. Nevertheless, it was usually conceptually hard
for them to come to terms with the subject initially and they generally had to
work through the ideas before reaching any conclusions. Where the informants
had separate aesthetic interests (one was a graphic designer and a number were
highly involved consumers of music) then they often found the issue easier to
address.
Another methodological limitation of this study is that it was carried out only in one
English-speaking country, and as it used qualitative research its conclusions are
tentative only. Further research, both cross-cultural and quantitative, could add to
the value of the conclusions reached.
Findings
As noted earlier an examination of the aesthetic experience involves the exploration of
three aspects: (1) the nature of the aesthetic response; (2) the features which define an
aesthetic object (including its beauty and the concept of the artwork); and (3) the
criteria used to establish aesthetic judgements. Consumer views on the aesthetic
nature of wine are examined below in the context of each of these aspects. Before
addressing each of these, however, it is important to note the differing perspectives
amongst informants about whether or not wine does have an aesthetic nature.
Does Wine Have Aesthetic Dimensions?

Overwhelmingly (by a ratio of about three to one), informants considered that the
consumption of wine shows some similarities to the appreciation of ‘pure’ art
forms—especially music (which is what most of them were explicitly questioned
about). Only a very few informants were uncertain about their response, either
because they failed to grasp the concept involved or because they were unable or
unwilling to reach a final conclusion. In its most extreme form the case for the similarity
between wine and artworks was made as follows:
Simon (consumer):1 Fundamentally you can make the connection between
music, literature, art and wine. Without them life wouldn’t be worth
living. I think that’s the fundamental thing. You can certainly drop one or
two of them but if you didn’t have any expressive qualities in your life then
there would be no . . . way of growing as a human being.
This sentiment was repeated, although usually with a less metaphysical tone, by most
others. One exception was a focus group participant who discounted any similarity on
the grounds that wine—unlike artworks—conveyed no message:
Alison (consumer): But [wine] doesn’t tell me anything deep or meaningful.
A good artist will be often conveying a view about something. A wine isn’t a
social comment. You either enjoy it or you don’t.
Alison developed her argument more comprehensively than most other informants. As
well as the lack of a message she commented that wine for her had a social function,
promoting human interaction rather than being something that one spent time
evaluating closely. Additionally she noted:
I will appreciate something that aesthetically I might not find pleasing. But I
can appreciate it. If I don’t find the wine pleasing I don’t like it.
She observed that one can appreciate aesthetic objects without liking them (a point
made by other informants about wine evaluation generally). However, she did not
accept that preference could be divorced from evaluation with wine; rather she felt
that liking and appreciation were unified when drinking.
Other informants considered that there are some likenesses between the consumption
of wine and artworks, but noted that the former had a more substantial social context:
Tony (consumer): Yes to a degree [there is a similarity] . . . I mean, I do like
art—but I guess wine’s a more human thing . . . I think it’s just because [wine]
acts as a lubricant for the interaction between people. Whilst looking at art
you’re looking at a static thing to a degree.
For Tony wine facilitates social interaction and has social relevance in a way which art
does not. He did go on to observe, however, that even art can act like that:
Yes . . . you can have two people chattering vigorously over a Picasso in the
gallery. And I guess that is providing that interaction. But I guess wine is a
physical, you actually take it in, it’s intoxicating, a bit like a drug.
Ultimately, Tony suggests, it is the intoxicating element in the wine, as well as the
context of use, which means that its social dimension is far broader than that of art.
For the majority of those informants who considered that the response to wine
involves similar processes to the response to artworks, three key reasons were offered,
of broadly similar weight. The most significant of these seemed to be the pleasure
afforded by aesthetic processes. Nearly as important was the nature of the individual’s
aesthetic experience and especially the similarity of evaluative methods adopted
(involving cognitive processing, the importance of learning and education in develop-
ing evaluative skills, and the focus required). The third key likeness revolved around
the relevance of personal taste in response to wine and to artworks. Each of these
reasons is discussed in greater detail below.
Wine, Pleasure and Aesthetic Experience

The main similarity offered by drinkers between the experience of wine and music (or
any other artwork) was that of the experiential similarities between the consumption of
wine and consumption of the arts. Critically, pleasure, as a response, was seen as a
common link between the two:
Sue (consumer): It doesn’t matter [as long as] you enjoy the music. You don’t
have to know the ins and outs of it, if you just enjoy listening to it. And it’s just
[the same] enjoying wine. It’s just a pleasurable pursuit.
This was a perspective shared by some members of all reference groups. For much
of the time that experience seems to fit with a general sense of ‘hedonic pleasure’
(Holbrook and Zirlin, 1985); however, occasionally it can become much deeper, and
operate as a ‘profound experience’:
Tom (wine maker): It’s that unspoken thing, that all comes together . . .
where you just go “wow that piece of music!” I don’t have to hear it a lot
of times [it’s] just like ‘bang’, it makes my hair stand on end! And it’s the
same with a wine . . . it’s just this seamlessness. You keep looking at it, and
looking at it, and you can see more and more and more into it . . . I always
find that when I start to contradict myself about what I’m saying about a
wine, then I enjoy it.
Tom noted the impact of music on him in some detail, acknowledging that music may
be good or bad and evoke different response effects. Some music, though, makes such a
profound impression that it makes his hair stand on end and occasionally a wine can
also offer that same profound experience. An exchange in a focus group of wine
makers reinforced this perspective using terms that very closely reflect the concept of
the ‘flow’ experience (Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson, 1990):
Hal: It’s those great wines that you’ve had in the past that have had such an
emotional effect on you that that’s what you’re aiming for.
Maria: That’s true.
Hal: Great wines that flow through you like nothing else. It’s an amazing,
heightened experience that you’ve never had before. And you say that’s all
just coming from this thing in the glass. I mean that’s very intoxicating,
moreish, you want more of that.
This idea that the experience of wine could be uplifting or profound in its impact was
mentioned by a number of other informants, but invariably they were frequent and
interested drinkers, tending to respond to a wine in both sensory and very cognitive,
evaluative terms. Less committed and less interested drinkers appeared not to have
had wine consumption experiences which they could articulate beyond the description
of general hedonic pleasure.
Some drinkers see the aesthetic response to wine and artworks as being primarily
sensory. Thus, one respondent when asked about the similarity between the appreci-
ation of wine and of music responded as follows:
Ursula (consumer): [They’re] sensuous. Music can make you feel pretty
jumpy. Some art can make you feel pretty sick. I suppose it all requires a
sensual response as opposed to just an intellectual response.
For other informants the key similarities between the responses to wine and to artworks
were emotional. Just before the following extract Mary has been asked if she sees simi-
larities between the experience of wine and of music:
Mary (consumer): Yeah I do . . . All of those sorts of things that you do
because it makes you feel good. Or you listen to because it makes you feel
good. It’s similar in that respect.

For Mary the key link between wine and music was their affective impact. Both can
make you feel good. However, for most informants the key form of response was
cognitive. This leads on to the next similarity offered between wine and artwork—
the importance of aesthetic evaluation in the response to both of them.
Whether sensory or affective, for many informants the consumption of wine and the
consumption of artworks are similar because both involve an evaluative process:
Diana (consumer): There is a point of similarity there. Music or art, theatre
or all those sorts of things—you’re making a judgement and deciding what
you want.
These processes—evaluation and judgement—meant that some informants stressed
that a key similarity between wine and artworks was the reliance on cognition:
Martha (wine educator): Yes, I like to think of wine appreciation as cere-
bral . . . And so I would think of art.
In turn, this cognitive process of evaluation was seen by informants to comprise three
elements. These are the need for focus, the importance of education and expertise and
the impact of exploration and challenge. Each of these is discussed below.
A number of informants developed the idea of aesthetic evaluation to suggest that
both wine and artworks require focus. Thus, comparing wine and paintings:
Tina (consumer): You need to pay attention, to take time to get into them. I
take time, as I don’t want other people to influence me. I try and try again,
and ensure that I’m complete with it . . . I think if you like looking at paint-
ings, you will like drinking wine as well.
For Tina this focus requires time and the expenditure of emotional energy. It is not
something that should be influenced by others, but a practice which she considers
her own responsibility. She argued that if you are prepared to undertake concentrated
attention with art, then you will probably enjoy doing it with wine as well. This need
for focused concentration would be recognised by many psychologists and philosophers
of aesthetics as typical of aesthetic engagement.
For informants who considered aesthetic evaluation to be part of the response to
wine, the gaining of knowledge and skill was often perceived to be important.
Knowledge and skill are what give the informed critic the ability to detect the fine
nuances necessary for effective evaluation:
Hal (wine maker): At the high end [consider] the difference between two
great tenors. A highly educated musician would be able to pick the subtle
differences and say “well this one was quite cluey, better than this one for
these reasons”. Whereas I’d say “well they were both pretty fabulous”.
That’s where we come to. I guess our expertise is in being able to say “this
bottle of Château Margaux . . . is better than this bottle of Mouton”—or
something. And some people mightn’t be able to see that.
This ability to appreciate is based on two related factors—the detailed knowledge accu-
mulated by years of study and the experience in seeing ‘subtle differences’ gained from
considerable application of that knowledge. Note that Hal, as an expert, made the point
that he had the ability to evaluate the nuances of his chosen field—wine—whereas he
would not have similar skills in other fields of aesthetic consumption.
For many informants the enjoyment of the process of evaluating wine and artworks
seemed to be rooted in the challenge of the works and the chance to explore them.
Challenge and exploration engage their knowledge and skill:
William (consumer): If it’s art there’s a wide range of choice there. And a lot
of people like the experience of everything—so that they can find their
preferences.
William saw the experience of a range of aesthetic experiences as positive, implying that
people enjoy the process of making decisions about their predilections. As well as the
exploration of that diversity, there is the challenge of understanding. What follows is
from an interviewee who raised the similarities between wine and music without
prompting:
Gerhard (consumer): I think in both cases you need to know what makes it
tick. In music you need to know how music evolved, what’s behind it. The
link between mathematics and music is an obvious one. And once you under-
stand certain things like that you can appreciate music, even if it’s not to your
liking. Sometimes you find if you realise the amount of work that has gone into
growing the wine, that’s gone into making the wine, that’s gone into storing
the wine—you can appreciate it for its quality even if you don’t like its style.
The challenge, for Gerhard, is to know what makes both wine and music ‘tick’.
Processes and philosophy seem crucial to his aesthetic appreciation of the product.
For many informants a key element of the aesthetic experience, and another major
similarity in the response to both wine and artworks, was personal taste. The latter was
almost as significant to informants as pleasure and the processes of evaluation as an
indicator that wine consumption has an aesthetic dimension. Thus:
Hetty (consumer): If I was looking at art or music I think it would come
down to my personal taste. Which is the same as wine—so in that way, I
think, [they are] similar.
Hetty makes the point clearly that one’s response to artworks is subjective and
individual.
A contrast to this emphasis on the relevance of personal taste as a link between wine
and other aesthetic products was the perspective of a few respondents that there exists a
‘commonality of response’ to wine and other aesthetic products. The effect of this was to
suggest that wine and artworks were similar not because they rely on an individual’s
personal taste, but because there is a common awareness of how good they can be.
This recalls the philosophical perspective on the objectivity of aesthetic judgements
(Hume, 1757/1998; Railton, 1998). Thus, in one focus group of wine producers,
Roger and Maria considered that there are similarities between wine and artworks:
Roger: Often a hallmark of a good work is that it’s appealing to everyone
regardless of their level of expertise. A painting might be appealing to every-
one. [They] will go “wow that’s really good, obviously someone’s talented,
they’ve put a lot into it. There’s no way I could do that—it looks really
impressive”. Off they go—the punter—and an expert comes along and goes
“wow that is amazing . . . their use of shadow and line and light and all of
that sort of thing . . . ”. Similarly with wine.
Maria: And if you took something that’s considered to be high quality into a
primitive, naive group they would still recognise the quality from the rubbish.
Roger maintained that the quality of an aesthetic product can potentially be recog-
nised by anyone, whether experts or amateurs (‘punters’)—even though the former
are more easily able to rationalise or explain their responses (the “use of shadow
and line and light”). This is the opposite of the approach which dismisses aesthetic
taste as no more than personal preference and was a perspective held by a few
informants.
Wine as an Aesthetic Object

As outlined in the review of literature, the second key aspect of the aesthetic experience
focuses on the aesthetic object which acts as a stimulus to the experience. Informants in
this study suggested two key ways in which wine could be an aesthetic object: the sense
of beauty which it engenders; and its similarities to other artworks.
There was a strong sense in the responses of some informants that wine, as a product,
has an element of beauty in the aesthetic sense of the word. This was rarely directly
referred to, probably because in common parlance beauty is a term most generally
used for what is visually appealing. However, it remained implicit in much of what
was said, and with one informant it emerged explicitly:
Wendy (wine maker): [At a concert, art gallery or wine tasting] you’re
looking for something that’s going to be inspiring and beautiful. Yeah, I
guess beauty can be seen in all things. And I see [that] wine production—
perhaps not the commercial end so much—should be creative . . . Special
bottles of wine, certainly I’d rate in that category [as beautiful].
There is a tension in what Wendy is thinking through. She is not sure where to place
mass-produced wine styles as objects of beauty. Nevertheless, special bottles—ones
which are not necessarily drunk on a day-to-day basis—should be considered
“inspiring and beautiful, just as a concert could”. Although not articulated as
clearly, Wendy’s perspective was shared by a few other professional informants.
However, it became more apparent as an implicit perspective, as in the previous
comment of the wine maker Tom that there are some wines which “just like ‘bang’”
make his “hair stand on end”.
Whereas most informants considered that the consumption process of wine and
artworks had similarities, a few also made a direct link between wine as a product
and other aesthetic products. This point was generally made by suggesting that wine
is an artwork itself. Thus:
Ellie (consumer): It involves creating something, if you’re creating music or
you’re creating art or you’re creating a wine.
This perspective was held by a range of informants but as one might expect was best
formulated by the ‘artists’ themselves, the wine makers:
Danielle: I really think there’s a huge similarity between art and wine, I
really do. I just think it is a true artist that comes up with a very good
quality, unique wine . . . So the way I see it is you use like a palette and a
canvas. And something that is unique in the art world is not dissimilar to a
bottle of wine in the wine world.
[Later.]
Danielle: Well I think of Torbreck wines. The guy who makes Torbreck
wines—he’s an artist. He hasn’t had much training or whatever. He’s done

lots of vintages but . . . apparently he hasn’t done a wine science degree or
anything. But his wine is just amazing to me.
Danielle was explicit that a good wine is like a good work of art, created from a palette
of material (grapes), and unique. She used as a specific example a current Australian
wine with ‘cult’ status, and noted—approvingly—that the wine maker does not actu-
ally have a formal wine-making education. There is possibly an implicit suggestion that
this freedom from the constraints of being trained in a particular way has allowed the
wine maker’s artistic side to flourish.
There were, however, dissenting perspectives, even amongst wine makers. Not all of
them saw their role as identical to that of the artist:
Clive: Art is more an expression of emotions, whereas wine is more scientific,
or agricultural or industrial. It’s got creative elements in it but also at the end
it’s pragmatic.
By ‘pragmatic’ Clive seemed to mean crafted. He accepts that there is an element of
creativity in what he does, but he works in a more scientific way than the artist. He
fabricates a product which has, in his perspective, less emotional content than a
work of art. Another wine maker, however, when asked about the similarities
between wine and music, viewed the wine/art link as less one of creativity than of
interpretation:
Mark: I was thinking about this the other day when I was listening to [some
music] . . . Yeah, you can get 20 different musicians and you ask them to inter-
pret one piece of music and they’ll all do it fairly differently. But there might
be only two or three that you really like personally.
Mark’s perspective is that the impact of wine and the impact of music are similar—
because in each case one is responding to an interpretation of art. Wine makers ‘inter-
pret’ the grapes (and perhaps the vineyard) in what they make, as musicians interpret a
piece of music—but the consumer may make selective evaluative judgements about
that interpretation. This perspective—that the similarities lie in interpretation, not
creation—was repeated by consumers as well as professionals.
Aesthetic Judgements of Wine

It was suggested in the review of philosophical aesthetics that there may be common
evaluative criteria across a range of aesthetic products. These criteria comprise the
balance (unity or completeness), complexity and intensity of the product. Whilst
informants were not prompted about these criteria, many of those who made the
link between wine and artworks referred to them. The most common link
was made on the subject of balance—the importance of balance in wine and in
artworks:
Waldemar (consumer): If [wine and art] balance within themselves it works.
If they are out of balance—no matter in what direction—it won’t work.
Waldemar’s viewpoint was repeated by a number of other informants.

Some informants explicitly used the term ‘complexity’ about wine and artworks.
One described it in a slightly different fashion when questioned about the wine/
music correspondence:
Sally (wine journalist): The complexity thing is similar . . . I agree, I think
that’s a really interesting comparison to make with wine tasting.

Sally sees issues of complexity of wine and music and disentangling the complex
components (such as oak usage in wine or an oboe in an orchestral piece) as related
processes. For her, complexity is key to the evaluative process of aesthetic products.
The sense of ‘profound experience’ which some informants felt with ‘great’ wines has
been alluded to. In describing these experiences some informants used similar terms to
intensity in the context of the aesthetic:
William (consumer): You can go to the theatre and listen to a piece of
music . . . and it’s quite an experience. And that’s fullness and that’s richness
of character. And you get a completely different appreciation of the perform-
ance and perhaps the quality of music . . . [similarly] if you were in the bowels
of some nice winery having a 10-year-old red or something. And having a
special experience that you haven’t had before.
The great experience can have ‘fullness’ or ‘richness of character’—something evident
in a concert, but also replicable as part of a special experience in a wine cellar with a
venerable wine. Intensity is not explicitly mentioned—but is nevertheless implied in
this comparison.
Discussion and Conclusions

Informants generally saw similarities between the consumption of wine and the con-
sumption of aesthetic products—notably music. This does not necessarily qualify
wine as an aesthetic object, yet the experiences and responses offered by informants
on the subject of wine tended to match generally the criteria set down for aesthetic con-
sumption as outlined in the literature review.
Most notably the correspondences observed by informants cover three main areas.
Some informants considered wine to have the elements of a work of art. However,
more widely noted was the fact that wine, like artworks, can invoke a sense of
pleasure—focusing on an awareness of the beauty of the product. This includes both
a ‘hedonic experience’—the general awareness of pleasure—and a deeper, more pro-
found aesthetic experience. Such a perspective, which sees the intensity of the aesthetic
experience as being on a continuum, is not necessarily accepted philosophically but is
acknowledged by some researchers in the social sciences (Holbrook and Zirlin, 1985).
Second, it has been noted that there is a debate about the sensory, cognitive and/or
emotional nature of the aesthetic response, with at least some research suggesting an
interaction of all three (Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson, 1990). This interactive
process was implied in the data provided by informants. However, just as the weight
of philosophical analysis has tended to focus on mental activity, so these informants
emphasised the cognitive evaluation of both wine and music. This cognitive attention
in turn seemed to comprise a number of elements. Crucially, and in reflection of the
common philosophical view that aesthetic ‘consumption’ requires concentrated
aesthetic attention (Dickie, 1971; Scruton, 1979; Sibley, 2001), a number talked
about the focus that was needed when evaluating wine.
A third issue is that, as with the appreciation of art, there seems to be a paradoxical
response to wine. It can be seen to reflect not just personal taste—a subjective
reaction—but also a shared evaluative response, reflecting the idea that everyone
may appreciate both its quality and its qualities. This in turn mirrors the classic
philosophical debate about the subjectivity or objectivity of aesthetic judgements
(Dickie, 1997).
Additionally, there seems to be the perception of an element of beauty in wine,
although few informants directly referred to it. Some wines may have such an
impact on drinkers that they are considered ‘inspiring or beautiful’. Other drinkers,
without being so explicit, could still refer to special bottles or being lost for words—
both concepts which are suggestive of a sense of the beauty of the object. This again
reflects the focus of aesthetics on the response to the “moving, or beautiful or
sublime” (Blackburn, 1994, p. 8).
Finally, it is clear that the criteria suggested by Beardsley (1980) for the evaluation of
artworks—unity/balance, complexity and intensity—are perceived by some informants
to apply in the same way to wine. Although they may not have considered it previously,
and indeed may not believe it to be important, most informants seemed to view the con-
sumption of wine as an aesthetic process. This is not the place to discuss whether or not
Beardsley’s (1980) tripartite evaluative structure is correct—even his supporters may
disagree with elements of it (Sibley, 2001). Nevertheless, this correspondence is reveal-
ing as it is indicative of the aesthetic nature of the evaluation of wine, if not categoric
evidence of it.
Where informants did not perceive similarities between wine consumption and more
formal aesthetic experiences, two reasons tended to be given. The first was that wine
conveys no message, whereas art does. This is predicated on the idea that artworks
have a meaning, a view strongly held by some philosophers of aesthetics (for a
complex and influential example of this see Goodman (1968)). However, this is not
universally accepted philosophically. The mere portrayal of beauty may preclude
the need for a message and the ‘intention’ of the artist may have no bearing on the
aesthetic experience (Dickie, 1997). Indeed, academics from non-philosophical
traditions may find substantial aesthetic meaning in the experience of a meal or a
wine (Douglas, 1987a; Heath, 2000). The second reason given by informants for
discounting the similarities in the experience relate to the more social nature of wine
consumption compared with the assumption of the more ‘private’ experience of
‘high art’. There may well be some validity in this perspective, although one can
note that even for high art there is a range of ancillary social experiences from the
public reading of a poem through to a group tour of an art exhibition.
As already noted, the perspective of a range of consumers neither ‘proves’ nor
‘disproves’ that wine consumption is an aesthetic experience. It does, however, shed
new light on the debates about what constitutes such an experience, and crucially
the informants’ views offer some essential similarities between the two. The specific
social function of wine (Douglas, 1987b; Grunow, 1997; Demoisser, 2004) may mark
it out from more obvious art forms (or from ‘high art’), so a solution may be to consider
wine (and perhaps by extension food, and maybe clothing) as a quasi-aesthetic object.
Nevertheless, its appreciation seems to have much in common with that of music or the
arts in general.
Note
1. All informants have been given pseudonyms.
References
AMERINE , M.A. and ROESSLER , E.B. (1976) Wines: Their Sensory Evaluation, New York:
W. H. Freeman.
AUBERMAN , A.M. and MILES , M.B. (1994) Data management and analysis methods, in:
DENZIN , N.K. and LINCOLN , Y.S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand
Oakes: SAGE Publications.

BEARDSLEY , M.C. (1980) Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism, 2nd edn, Indianapolis,
IN: Harcourt, Brace and World.
BLACKBURN , S. (1994) Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CALDER , B.J. (1977) Focus groups and the nature of qualitative marketing research, Journal of
Marketing Research, 14, 353– 364.
CHARTERS , S. and PETTIGREW , S. (2002) ‘Gladdening the heart’: a perspective on wine quality,
paper presented at the Bacchus to the Future Conference, St Catherines, Ontario, 23–25
May.
COLEMAN , F.J. (1965) Can a smell or a taste or a touch be beautiful?, American Philosophical
Quarterly, 2, 319– 324.
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI , M. (2002) Flow: The Classic Work on How to Achieve Happiness, London:
Rider.
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI , M. and ROBINSON , R.E. (1990) The Art of Seeing, Malibu: J. Paul Getty
Trust.
CUPCHIK , C.G. (2002) The evolution of physical distance as an aesthetic concept, Culture and
Psychology, 8, 155– 187.
DEMOISSER , M. (2004) Contemporary lifestyles: the case of wine, in: SLOAN , D. (ed.) Culinary
Taste: Consumer Behaviour in the International Restaurant Sector, Oxford: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann, 93 – 108.
DICKIE , G.L. (1964) The myth of the aesthetic attitude, American Philosophical Quarterly, 1, 56 – 65.
DICKIE , G.L. (1971) Aesthetics: An Introduction, New York: Pegasus.
DICKIE , G.L. (1997) Introduction to Aesthetics: An Analytic Approach, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
DOUGLAS , J. (1985) Creative Interviewing, Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.
DOUGLAS , M. (1987a) A distinctive anthropological perspective, in: DOUGLAS , M. (ed.)
Constructive Drinking: Perspectives on Drink from Anthropology, New York: Cambridge
University Press, 3 – 15.
DOUGLAS , M. (ed.) (1987b) Constructive Drinking: Perspectives on Drink from Anthropology,
New York: Cambridge University Press.
FEATHERSTONE , M. (1991) Consumer Culture and Postmodernism, London: Sage.
FERRY , L. (1993) Homo Aestheticus, trans. R. DE LOAIZA , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
FUNCH , B.S. (1997) The Psychology of Art Appreciation, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
GALE , G. (1975) Are some aesthetic judgments empirically true?, American Philosophical Quarterly,
12, 341– 348.
GLASER , B. and STRAUSS , A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
GOODMAN , N. (1968) Languages of Art, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
GRUNOW , J. (1997) The Sociology of Taste, London: Routledge.
HEATH , D.B. (2000) Drinking Occasions: Comparative Perspectives on Alcohol and Culture, Ann Arbor,
MI: Taylor and Francis.
HOLBROOK , M.B. and ZIRLIN , R.B. (1985) Artistic creation, artworks and aesthetic appre-
ciation, in: BELK , R.W. (ed.) Advances in Nonprofit Marketing, vol. 1, London: JAI Press,
1 –54.
HUME , D. (1757/1998) Selected Essays, Sydney: Oxford University Press.
JACKSON , R.S. (2002) Wine Tasting: A Professional Handbook, London: Academic Press.
JANESICK , V.J. (1994) The dance of qualitative research design, in: DENZIN , N.K. and
LINCOLN , Y.S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oakes: SAGE Publications.
KANT , I. (1790/1987) Critique of Judgment, trans. W. S. PULAR , Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

KORSMEYER , C. (1999) Making Sense of Taste, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
LYOTARD , J.-F. (1984) The Post-modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. G. BENNINGTON
and B. MASSUMI , Manchester: Manchester University Press.
MARSHALL , C. and ROSSMAN , G.B. (1989) Designing Qualitative Research, Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
OSBORNE , H. (1977) Odours and appreciation, British Journal of Aesthetics, 17, 37 – 48.
OSBORNE , H. (1979) Some theories of aesthetic judgment, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,
38, 135– 144.
PLATO (n.d./1951) Symposium, trans. W. HAMILTON , London: Penguin.
RAILTON , P. (1998) Aesthetic value, moral value and the ambitions of naturalism, in:
LEVINSON , J. (ed.) Aesthetics and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 59 – 105.
SCHAPER , E. (1983) The pleasures of taste, in: SCHRAPER , E. (ed.) Pleasure, Preference and Value,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SCRUTON , R. (1979) The Aesthetics of Architecture, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
SHINER , R.A. (1996) Hume and the causal theory of taste, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,
54, 237– 249.
SIBLEY , F. (2001) Approach to Aesthetics: Collected Papers on Philosophical Aesthetics, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
TOWNSEND , D. (1997) An Introduction to Aesthetics, Oxford: Blackwell.
WALLENDORF , M. and BELK , R.W. (1989) Assessing trustworthiness in naturalistic consumer
research, in: HIRSCHMAN , E. (ed.) Interpretive Consumer Research, Association for Consumer
Research, 69 – 83.
WILLIAMS , D. (2002) The interview, Harpers, 7 June, 19.

Charters 2005

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Charters 2005

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]

On: 17 October 2014, At: 08:30

Journal of Wine Research

Is wine consumption an aesthetic experience?

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571260500327663

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Is Wine Consumption an Aesthetic Experience?

STEVE CHARTERS and SIMONE PETTIGREW

ISSN 0957-1264 print/ISSN 1469-9672 online/05/020121-16 # 2005 Institute of Masters of Wine

The Nature of the Aesthetic Experience

particularly evident in the work of Csikszentmihalyi and his collaborators

experience encompasses mental, emotional and sensory processes (Csikszentmihalyi,

Does Wine Have Aesthetic Dimensions?

Wine, Pleasure and Aesthetic Experience

good. It’s similar in that respect.

Wine as an Aesthetic Object

wines—he’s an artist. He hasn’t had much training or whatever. He’s done

Aesthetic Judgements of Wine

Waldemar’s viewpoint was repeated by a number of other informants.

that’s a really interesting comparison to make with wine tasting.

Discussion and Conclusions

Oakes: SAGE Publications.

KANT , I. (1790/1987) Critique of Judgment, trans. W. S. PULAR , Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

Você também pode gostar