My personal theory about wine is that I’m better off not learning too much about it, or I may no longer be able to enjoy some of the cheap trash I like to drink now. In other words, I can’t afford to be a wine connoisseur.
The first counter-argument that comes up is, “there are plenty of good, cheap wines. You don’t have to pay a ton to get a good wine.” Well, that’s true, hypothetical opponent. Thank you. The problem is, if I had the facilities to judge a really hot-roddin’ expensive wine, wouldn’t I be tempted to? At the moment, there’s absolutely no reason for me to drop $300, or even $30, … hell, even $12, for a bottle of wine. And I’m happy with that. Also, there’s something about wine snobs that makes me think, welcome to your Carlsberg years. (Er, if Carlsberg was a wine… Whew. Why do I find that slogan so terrifying?)
Anyway, why stop with wine? If I avoid learning too much about any given discipline, I will be perfectly content consuming affordable products of inferior quality. That magazine they give away in movie theatres, for instance, could replace Film Comment. I could pick up used Ratt singles at a fraction of the cost of obscure indie rock imports.
But, I think the most exciting option is to manufacture a personal aesthetic that makes up reasons for liking cheaper stuff. Plonkism, maybe? “Mmm… excellent vinegar burst. Old lamb aftertaste. 10 stars.” It’s not just blissful ignorance, it’s aggressive anti-knowledge.
Isn’t this really the best, and cheapest, way to live? It’s certainly not the easiest.
Okay, maybe not the best, either.