Winemaking: what % science what % art - poll

[SVEN]

I am an old retired scientist, specifically, a polymer chemist. (take little molecules and make them bigger).
Being new to wine-making, I started to immerse myself in all the intricacies of fermentation, i.e., the glucose / saccharomyces cervisiae reaction. Understanding these exceedingly-complex reactions is of interest but certainly not requirement to produce a good wine.
So many of you have many, many years wine-making wine experience that, outside of documenting pH, TA, SG, MLF, etc., as CMASON mentioned, the whole process has become largely empirical....you have relied on your past successes and failures to help you strive toward making that "perfect" carboy of fine wine.
Sorry for the lengthy reply, bottom line: 20% science / 80% art.

 

[beano]

For me, I had to learn the science first. Then the art came along. Now, I use the science in a background sort of way, but always thinking forward to the tweeks and other things I can do to get where I'm trying to go. Kinda like following the rules when you learn to drive, but then being able to drive mindlessly with a little experience. If you can relate.

Beano Joe

 

[beano]

This is a trick question...right?

 

[Scooter68]

Wine making requires a little knowledge of science to get started - just to understand basics like pH, SG, the fermentation process. I think that's one reason so many first timers get well into a batch before they realize the measurements and actions they should have done before the pitched the yeast. Like the song says: 'You can't go back to what you never had.'

The more you know can be helpful or it can get in the way too if you drag in too much in the way of questions without studying 'the art' of wine making.

The art is knowing how to obtain the balances with the least intervention and the right selection and timing for steps, materials and adjusting 'the mix.'

 

[pgentile]

Science can explain the components of the art and their interactions. Science can help guide the art process. Science can quantify the final art product. Art can benefit from the science.

The art existed before science for a very long time.

Bur if someone wants the whole thing can be scientific.

 

[mainshipfred]

Science can explain the components of the art and their interactions. Science can help guide the art process. Science can quantify the final art product. Art can benefit from the science.

The art existed before science for a very long time.

Bur if someone wants the whole thing can be scientific.

I find your statement "art can benefit from science" to have a lot of merit.

 

[SVEN]

Is this art / science discussion analogous to the science / religion dialogue?

** POWER AND MORAL VALUES LIE WITH RELIGION (AS BEAUTY LIES WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF ART) BUT FACTS ARE LEFT WITH SCIENCE **

 

[jgmann67]

When you say “art,” are we talking Picasso or Garfunkel.

When things are going well, I lean towards art; when things are going poorly, I lean towards science.

Okay - thinking about it. Since I view winemaking, when done right, as an artistic expression generally, I’m leaning 70% art, 25% science and 5% blind luck voodoo...[emoji485]

 

[Boatboy24]

As a guy who works with numbers for a living, winemaking is a creative outlet for me. If anything, I probably spend less time on the science than I should.

 

[cmason1957]

As a guy who works with numbers for a living, winemaking is a creative outlet for me. If anything, I probably spend less time on the science than I should.

Based only on what I hear about your wines from others on here, you probably spend about the right amount on the numbers.

 

[mainshipfred]

When you say “art,” are we talking Picasso or Garfunkel.

When things are going well, I lean towards art; when things are going poorly, I lean towards science.

Okay - thinking about it. Since I view winemaking, when done right, as an artistic expression generally, I’m leaning 70% art, 25% science and 5% blind luck voodoo...[emoji485]

You're right, blind luck should have been in there somewhere.

 

[bstnh1]

Doesn't science always control the final outcome in wine making? Aside from taste which is always subjective, isn't science the determining factor behind success or failure in making wine even if you're approaching it from the standpoint of "art"?

 

[Scooter68]

BUT do you KNOW the science or shall we say the Chemistry that made your wine what it is?

Sometimes the outcome defies what we thought we knew - for better or for worse.

"I followed the recipe exactly but...."

 

[bstnh1]

BUT do you KNOW the science or shall we say the Chemistry that made your wine what it is?

Sometimes the outcome defies what we thought we knew - for better or for worse.

"I followed the recipe exactly but...."

If I had to rely on my knowledge of the chemistry involved in wine making, my wine production would be a solid "0". I know wineries have a hoard of chemists on their staffs and plenty of labs where they do their Frankenstein things. But no, I don't know all the chemistry involved in making my wine. But I do know that without chemical processes and reactions there would be no wine.

 

[Scooter68]

The artisans of wine making probably know more than they let on about the chemistry but that's part of preserving their secrets.
The best are certainly aware of what effect different seasonal weather does to the fruit and how to extract the best that will be available from that fruit.

I agree my hard knowledge of chemistry is about as solid as chocolate pudding but I respect it and understand that I ignore it at my own peril.

My chemistry knowledge is limited to things like knowing NEVER to joinig a copper pipe directly to a galvanized pipe - Galvanic reaction = bad water leaks.

 

[Arne]

Personally I don't have to worry much about the science. I have a winery full of wine gremlins and they take care of the winemaking. As long as I don't complain about wine disappearing out of the carboys overnight they keep the wines going. Arne.

 

[Scooter68]

Personally I don't have to worry much about the science. I have a winery full of wine gremlins and they take care of the winemaking. As long as I don't complain about wine disappearing out of the carboys overnight they keep the wines going. Arne.

Arne - Do you suffer from expanding carboys? Maybe the carboys are growing and the amount of wine remains the same.

 

[Arne]

Arne - Do you suffer from expanding carboys? Maybe the carboys are growing and the amount of wine remains the same.

Ya know, never thought of that but could be a possibility. But have never got a look at the gremlins either. Have a good one, Arne.

 

[heatherd]

I found this fun graphic from Wine Folly about art versus science:

 

[BernardSmith]

I voted for other: IMO, it's 100% science and 100% art because the science is what underlays the art and it is the art that directs the science.I think that it is a lot like medicine. I'm not a doctor but I am a sociologist of medicine. Good doctors must have an incredible grasp of the science but they must also have a wonderful grasp of the people they are asked to treat. It's not "science" that says how to treat someone who is 90 with the same life threatening condition as someone who is 15. That does not mean that it is 50% of one and 50% of the other. The artist needs to be a scientist and the scientist needs to be an artist. I don't think a machine can produce a great mead or wine by the numbers but I would also argue that the artist who eschews the science will not be able to help shape the activity of the yeast in ways that make this or that harvest of fruit the best wine possible.