aberkok

I recently found out about and read a great article in The Atlantic. In it, author B.R. Myers writes about the foodie movement, citing examples from authors such as Michael Pollan and Anthony Bourdain who preach the solemnity of eating gourmand meals in general, and meat in particular. Myers also condemns the foodie movement as one of moral relativism:

The Moral Crusade Against Foodies - Magazine - The Atlantic

As a vegan, the article resonated with me. Since I've begun researching food culture as a vegan (in that "I research things in magazines and the internet" way and not the "I research in textbooks and peer-reviewed journals" way), I've long felt suspicion towards foodies like Bourdain and Pollan, and this article really crystallizes why.

My understanding of the main point of the article is that foodie culture claims to be sophisticated yet "with the people" so vegetarianism and veganism is seen as irrational and impractical sentimentality towards animals, and yet Myers makes it clear that the foodies are far more subject to sentimentality and desperate piety.

Some choice paragraphs:

Ridiculous.

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Baraka_Guru

I'm not sure I get your position. Are you saying that it's ridiculous because foodies are as guilty of moralizing their food choices/experiences as vegetarians and vegans?

Could you explain what about the foodies' position you have a problem with?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aberkok

These foodies are people who believe we ought to eat meat. Their reasons are irrational and sentimental. They often accuse vegetarians of appealing to sentimental reasons.

So basically, yes.

I have a problem with their hypocrisy, their hyperbole, and their notoriety as authorities in the discourse.

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

roachboy

pollan's main argument in the omnivore's dilemma has to do with the importance of the scale of production and the scale of distribution. there's a secondary argument that has to do with some notion of connectedness to the natural world---when i've taught the book, i've not found that terribly interesting. but the other argument is interesting. it cuts across simple categorizations like "organic" (its main target, really).

when i taught the book i was a vegetarian and found nothing particularly objectionable about pollan's piece from that viewpoint....but i also am of the persuasion that being vegetarian is a political and aesthetic choice rather than a moral one. in general, moral arguments aren't persuasive because the more adamant the premise the more its arbitrariness becomes clear. in my humble opinion of course.

bourdain i haven't read.

a roundabout way of repeating baraka's question, really.....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aberkok

I definitely think it's the moral authority thing that has my panties in a twist.

Roachie I read Omnivore's Dilemma and in retrospect, the hunting part of the book is unconvincing. The whole "commune with nature" aspect of his hunt is silly. It's just as much of a commune with nature to leave the pig alive. The rest of the book was an interesting and useful survey of modern food production, which is why his moralizing is so disappointing.

Do you folks have any opinions of the article?

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Baraka_Guru

I read your excerpts but not the full article. I hope to return to it soon; I just wanted to know your position before the thread became too convoluted.

As a summarization, I always felt Bourdain to be a bit of a sod. His position on vegetarianism is as you say sentimental if not emotional---so it would seem. I read an article (or maybe it was a part of one of his books) where he thinks vegetarianism is ridiculous.

And, sure enough, here is a quote I've pulled from one of his books:

Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter faction, the vegans, are a persistent irritant to any chef worth a damn. To me, life without veal stock, pork fat, sausage, organ meat, demi-glace, or even stinky cheese is a life not worth living. Vegetarians are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit, and an affront to all I stand for, the pure enjoyment of food. The body, these waterheads imagine, is a temple that should not be polluted by animal protein. It's healthier, they insist, though every vegetarian waiter I've worked with is brought down by any rumor of a cold. Oh, I'll accommodate them, I'll rummage around for something to feed them, for a 'vegetarian plate', if called on to do so. Fourteen dollars for a few slices of grilled eggplant and zucchini suits my food cost fine.

From Anthony Bourdain, Kitchen Confidential, p. 70.

I suppose my own view of foodies is that they are supposed to be broadly respectful of food of all cultures and cuisines. Sure, I don't expect them to respect fast food or prepackaged food or anything, but to come down like that on veganism and vegetarianism is nothing short of ignorant and disrespectful. I suppose he thinks practicing Buddhists and Hindus who are vegetarian if not vegan are just a bunch of zealots who are missing out on "real food" because of their superstitions regarding compassion towards living beings.

I'm indifferent about Pollan, but I didn't read Omnivore's Dilemma. I read In Defense of Food and thought that was decent enough. He suggests that we should be eating mostly plants and fresh food as grown, which I agree with generally. I don't recall him being against vegetarianism; he merely suggested it was okay to eat meat in principle, just not too much of it. I've been meaning to check out OD though. I'm beginning to question my eating habits again. I'm getting more concerned about my ignorance regarding what I put in my mouth.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

LordEden

I'll read and respond to the article when I'm not drinking (or if I drink to much), but I did want to say one thing about Bourdain.

Bourdain has come full circle from his rants on veggies (in Kitchen Confidential) to how he refers to them in Medium Raw. He doesn't come out and say, "You should eat meat" because meat is better, he actually understands the not eating of the animal because of the factory farming of livestock. He is a big support of the "naturist" movement in the chef world and often says, "A happier animal is a tastier animal."

I'm with Bourdain on this matter, I want my animals to be treated in the best way possible as it will make a taster meal. I may not eat as much meat in my diet anymore, but I want it to be farm raised and freshly sourced.

In Medium Raw, he doesn't bash veggies and says he has come to terms with their non-meating ways. The only veggie he has bashed in recent years is Woody Harrelson for his "raw only" diet (as relating to his trip to a Vietnamese temple where he turned down all foods based on his diet). He sees it as rude to a host (mainly in 3rd world countries) not to eat the precious food given to the guest because of a dietary concern.

I've not read Omnivore's Dilemma (it's on my read list), but from what Cinn tells me (a veggie herself), he doesn't say you should eat meat. Granted this is third party info, but what I've heard about it, it's about eating more veggies and being organic.

Let me read the article and get back to you on that (as it's 6 pages long).

I'm also trying to find the passage that was quoted from Medium Raw because I think it was taken out of context.

__________________
Vice-President of the CinnamonGirl Fan Club - The Meat of the Zombiesquirrel and CinnamonGirl Sandwich

Baraka_Guru

I read your rant about raw food recently. Have you actually read about the principles behind it? Some of it is somewhat flaky, but other parts make sense. I think eating a larger proportion of our food as raw would be a good idea, but a lot of food is just begging to be cooked.

What Harrelson did was disrespectful considering his diet is based on his belief from a materialistic view, rather than a moral or spiritual (I think---I'm not sure raw food proponents go beyond the molecular in their beliefs).

The thing I always say about being a guest is that even Buddha ate meat if it was served to him. The only exception was that the meat should not have been killed specifically for him, i.e., in his honour.

There are also ascetic Buddhist monks who live only by the compassion of others through alms. If these alms include meat, they will eat it just the same.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

CinnamonGirl

I haven't read The Omnivore's Dilemma, but I own Food Rules and In Defense of Food, both by Pollan, and he never struck me as being particularly meat-centric. In the two I own, his catchphrase is "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

In fact, in one passage (that I was sure I remembered, but had to go look up to confirm, and get the wording right), he says:

Sure, he's a meat-eater, and he kind of missed on the "no good health reasons" line, but from what I've read, he's just outlining a sensible way to eat. I don't know, maybe we interpreted his tone differently.

Anthony Bourdain is another story... Eden tells me he (Bordain) has lightened up on veg*ans quite a bit lately, but I can't confirm that until I read the specific book to which Eden's referring. At this point, I just know I liked the man until he was very pointedly an asshole about being veg in general, and I stopped watching "No Reservations" because of that.


***

Good gracious, I need to refresh the page before submitting.


The way I really look at it is, there are jerks who eat meat, and there are jerks who don't. There are totally awesome people who eat meat, and totally awesome people who don't. Hypocrites and assholes can be found in all walks of life, regardless of their personal beliefs. The fact that some of them are in the public eye doesn't concern me all that much.

Oh, and also---the fact that I've read stuff by Ted Nugent makes a lot of the stuff in the article seem mild in comparison.

__________________
"...for though she was ordinary, she possessed health, wit, courage, charm, and cheerfulness. But because she was not beautiful, no one ever seemed to notice these other qualities, which is so often the way of the world."


"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?"

LordEden

My big thing on raw diets is the why, no more than that. I just can't wrap my brain around someone not wanting to cook their food. Not in a no-meat way, just a "why limit yourself to raw foods" way. I just don't understand it, but that's all there is to it. I understand not eating meat, just eating raw throws me into a "Duh.... What?" state of mind.

People all over the world eat food in different ways and that's fine with me. The Indians (country India not native americans) I met on the cruise ship were mostly veggies (they did eat some shellfish) and I sat down to their simple meals everyday without saying a word. I could have been a dick and said, "You guys should put some meat in here", but then I wouldn't have been invited back. I ate like they did because that is what you should do.

__________________
Vice-President of the CinnamonGirl Fan Club - The Meat of the Zombiesquirrel and CinnamonGirl Sandwich

Baraka_Guru

(Not to get too sidetracked...)

The proponents of raw food look at food on the enzyme level, etc., and suggest that raw foods are more nutritious on the principle that our bodies will get more nutrients from them because of said enzymes. Cooking destroys things, they say, which is true to a large extent but not universally. Many foods have better properties when cooked. Tomatoes are one, especially when cooked with a bit of fat. Lycopene'd!

Where I draw the line is raw dairy and meat (though I do loves me some sashimi now and again). That gets a bit iffy with me.

Generally the theories regarding raw food are hit and miss, but I do think there are a lot of hits.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

LordEden

You can't post a vegan/veggie thread on here without being sidetracted. Look at every single veggie thread that has been posted on TFP in the last year, no one cared about the OP about 5 posts in.

I understand about the loss of nutrients after cooking and understand that some raw foods are better... well raw. It's the "diet" word afterwards that kills me, it's the restriction of food because of a moral ideal. I eat a few foods raw, because they taste good, not because I "have" too.

__________________
Vice-President of the CinnamonGirl Fan Club - The Meat of the Zombiesquirrel and CinnamonGirl Sandwich

roachboy

well, the article is mostly about the "best food writing" anthology (-ies) and doesn't stray terribly far from that. bourdain is the main thread. some of pollan's writing is operative, but mostly it's caricatured. as is alice waters.

the disadvantage the article puts me at personally is that not only have i not read the best food writing anthology, but after reading the article i am not at all inclined to read it. and i wonder who edited the anthology (-ies) and what their aesthetic actually is. and what the project is. and the extent to which food writing as it is collected in the anthology is a space of food-related fantasy--in which case the moral rhetoric---and it seems nothing more than rhetoric---is merely a feature of a type of food porn. because that seems what it is, really.

at the same time, i've read a bunch of pollan until i grew weary of it mostly because the assumption seems in place that reader of book x hasnt read book y and so the whole apparatus from x can and should be repeated in y. but i'd still recommend the debate between pollan and the president/ceo of whole foods about the question of scale vs. the designation organic in determining a politically informed relation to food---it's smart on both sides and well done. it's in the whole foods ceo blog somewhere. i dont remember where. what i've read of pollan has little to do with the version of pollan that's apparently in the anthology. i dont doubt that version exists--i just am not interested in it because it's a version of the omnivore's dilemma (and other) things, the less interesting stuff.

bourdain i've not read.
the sub pollans and sub bourdains that fill the anthology i dont know.

so.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Lindy

An omnivore can enjoy all of the advantages of raw vegan eating. Well, except for the feelings of moral superiority.
She can also enjoy all of the additional advantages of cooked vegetables and the concentrated protein available in meat and fish. How many pounds of raw vegetables do you need to eat to get six ounces of protein?

Lindy

Baraka_Guru

What's stopping them?

It's just over 2 lbs. (soybeans), which is why vegans and vegetarians use sources other than raw vegetables. In a way it's like how omnivores don't just walk up to a grazing cow and bite it.

Besides, 6 oz of protein is well above what the average human requires in a daily diet; most only need 4 or 5 oz.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

CinnamonGirl

If you're consuming enough calories (which, most people are), you're probably getting enough protein. Protein's in everything except fat, sugar, and fruit. Granted, if you're only eating Cheetos and drinking soda, you won't be getting much, but I suspect if Cheetos and Coke are the staples of your diet, you aren't too concerned about your protein intake anyway.

***

Back to the article... the whole host/tourism thing is a little lost on me. If you're vacationing somewhere, I don't think you have ANY obligation to people selling food on the street, or really, selling food anywhere. You shouldn't be RUDE about it, but politely saying no isn't a crime. I very politely don't buy things in the US all the time

__________________
"...for though she was ordinary, she possessed health, wit, courage, charm, and cheerfulness. But because she was not beautiful, no one ever seemed to notice these other qualities, which is so often the way of the world."


"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?"

genuinegirly

I shop at "foodie Land" AKA Jungle Jim's International Market. It happens to be the closest grocery store to my home. I consider myself a bit of a foodie, especially in comparison with the rest of my siblings, I tend to go for new outlandish dishes and enjoy cooking wacky things. I relate to the foodie movement and haven't felt ostracized or otherwise hassled for being vegetarian. On the contrary, when someone learns that I don't eat meat, I find it's an excellent opportunity to discuss the exciting meals that I eat, opening their eyes to the fact that it is not a limiting lifestyle choice. Foodie friends often get excited about finding new ways to adapt their old recipes into being more veggie-friendly.

I relate to the foodie movement. There are many breeds of foodies, and your short list of controversial authors is hardly enough to be a fair representation.

__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

LordEden

I don't think I have a clear understanding of what a foodie is. I thought it was more of a "food snob" than anything else. I dislike people who turn their nose up at any food especially when it's simple comfort food.

Are we saying that a foodie is someone that goes out of their way to try new food? I know I will go out of my way to try something new or even a different version of something I thought I didn't like. Example, Cinn and I were at the farmer's market yesterday and the guy had free samples of banana bread. I dislike bananas and banana bread, but I tried it anyway. The conversation that followed is attunted more to what GG said.

Me: "Wow, that's good and I don't even like banana bread."
Cinn: "Why did you try it if you don't like banana bread?"
Me: "'cause I never pass up a chance to try something new."
Cinn: *Look of bewilderment that is always on her face when I talk*

So... does that make me a foodie? Is there a definition for foodie we can look at for this thread?

Once again, I'm confused.

__________________
Vice-President of the CinnamonGirl Fan Club - The Meat of the Zombiesquirrel and CinnamonGirl Sandwich

aberkok

I think a nuanced reading is necessary. You can look at the title of the article and think he's attacking anyone who might call themselves a foodie.

I look at it as though he is holding that specific crowd of authors under a magnifying glass. Those authors that dominate the discourse and the "lifestyle" section of your favourite national newspaper.

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Charlatan

The term "foodie" gets thrown around a lot and I, like Eden, don't really know what it means anymore (if I ever did).

I find this article is attacking the wrong people. The authors quoted above (Bourdain, Pollan, Waters, Fearnley-Whittingstal) are not the rapacious consumers of animal protein they are being painted as. If anything, they are the ones that are asking for proper animal husbandry at a scale that is *not* industrial. If anything, the author of this hatchet-job of an article is taking aim at those who are at the vanguard of responsible eating. I suppose this comes from the fact that the author is a vegan and would like *all* to follow this lifestyle.

Let's face it. The average American eats way too much meat and they do so because it can be had cheaply. It's cheap because of the industrialization of meat production. It treats animals as a cog in a big meat making machine. It's not pretty. It's not healthy. And it's not tasty. It is impractical to assume that Americans (Westerners) are going to give up eating meat en masse. It's not a realistic proposition. If anything, people should be adopting a more balanced way of eating.

Here's what Pollan has to say about it: "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants."

I don't have the quote at hand but Bourdain has suggested that people eat more like Asians where the meat is a condiment rather than the focus of a dish.

Waters and Fearnly-Whittingstal have done more in their respective countries to campaign for eating locally produced, seasonal food as well organically and humanely reared animals. Do a Google for Fearnly-Whittingstal's campaigns: Landshare, Chicken Out, and Fish Fight. These are not the actions of someone who is not concerned with the welfare of animals. He has done more to change people's thinking in Britain about food and where it comes from that probably anyone else. And he has had results.

The author of the article, in my opinion is a cloistered wanker. He can't see beyond his own myopic need to justify his choice of veganism. I am of the opinion that there is a real problem with our food supply. There is, perhaps, even a moral element to be taken into consideration. Things need to change for the better but campaigning for universal veganism is a waste of bandwidth when a more nuanced discussion is needed.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

aberkok

"Campaigning for universal veganism" is a huge stretch, and I don't know any among us who believe it will happen within our lifetimes, if ever. We are just trying to do our best as voices for those who have none.

Advocates for "humanely raised meat" have never convincingly answered the question: "if it is humane then why does it end in the death of the animal?" So: humane until we need to eat you.

It is not that I don't believe in piecemeal change, but for me that means attracting people, one by one, to a lifestyle without meat and not being satisfied with things until there is less death of innocent animals. Myers may be focusing too much attention on opinions which form the minority of these folks beliefs, but I think it is an important caution against the kind of rhetoric which shows up in so called food journalism.

It is also clear from the article that though Myers is a vegan, he definitely underplays this in his writing, focusing mainly on the foodie quotations. If you see this as a call to veganism, it is because the examples cited are so abhorrent that it becomes the preferable option. At no point does Myers explain veganism as "the way to go."

If you didn't know he was a vegan, would you read the article differently?

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Charlatan

Interesting. I didn't know he was a vegan. I just surmised it from his stance. Thank you for confirming it.

I stand by what I wrote, he is nit-picking the wrong people. If he really wants to bring about change, he should be supporting the very writers upon which he is heaping his vitriol. These writers have collectively done more to change people's minds about food than most. They are not the enemy. Myers is picking and choosing quotes to support his thesis while, apparently ignore their arguments for the humane rearing and slaughter of animals.

I don't think anyone can answer the question, "if it is humane then why does it end in the death of the animal?" to the satisfaction of someone who sees the death of an animal as not an option. There is no bridging that gap as far as a vegan is concerned. For my money, there are two things that need to happen that can make things better:

1) The industrialization of animal husbandry needs to change (if not stop). Battery hens, cattle farms, etc are not good for the animals and not good for the end product, to the point that many of the issues we've had with e-coli, etc. are a direct result of the processes we use to bring food to the table.
2) People need to get involved and closer to the animals they eat. People should learn where their food comes from. They should get up close and personal with the rearing of their food and the slaughter of their food. I don't mean to suggest that everyone becomes a farmer but they should be more directly exposed so that meat is not just something in a Styrofoam package at the supermarket.


If you want to read someone who isn't, strictly speaking, a vegan, who espouses much of what Myers says, but in an increasingly nuanced matter, try reading some of what Mark Bittman has been writing of late. He has made a large move in the last year or so from being someone who ate what he wanted, when he wanted to someone who consistently flirts with veganism.

His thinking is more along the lines of what I have suggested above... eat less meat. He has said that he eats like a vegan all day and consumes meat at dinner. It is a solution, not the solution. Everyone needs to find their own path.

If I could have my own farm and raise, chickens, lambs, cows, etc. I would do it. I have a feeling though, my own lack of preparedness would be more cruel to the animals than the abattoir.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Baraka_Guru

I think the industrialized food industry is too entrenched to make any meaningful change. Most processed food has some kind of meat and/or dairy in it, and a lot of that has to do with how the system is set up. I'm referring mostly to subsidies and "marketable byproducts."

The challenge within this system is that it's dysfunctional from the ground up. You have a heavily subsidized meat and dairy industry that benefits from artificially cheap foodstuffs. On top of that, these industries benefit from any grain and legume subsidies that relate to their feed. This "double dipping" makes for a much cheaper food product, making it much more affordable to make one's diet up with meat and dairy (think beyond milk and into cheese, ice cream, yogurt, etc.).

So cheaper foodstuffs make for greater demand. This is what the subsidies are supposed to do, and it works. The dairy industry is huge. But it doesn't stop with milk: it's also the prime source of veal.

This is the problem with a highly industrialized system. They maximize their profits through certain practices. Dairy farmers sell their male calves for veal, while selling their milk producers for meat when they're done with them. Even so-called humane farms that go for as long as 14 or 15 years before selling their cows for meat are doing so some 5 or 10 years before the cow's natural lifespan. Some operations sell off their cows after 3 years, while most have done so after 7 years.

I haven't yet talked about chickens, but let me just say it probably sucks to be born male as well.

The problem is, in this respect, is that we have a system where consumers are buying one thing and essentially supporting another. Even so-called "lacto-ovo" vegetarians are supporting an industry that operates on the assumption that it's expected to sell male calves for veal, sell female cows for slaughter before the midway point of her lifespan, and destroy male chicks as an unnecessary expense.

Unless a lacto-ovo vegetarian can get a guarantee from their sources that these things don't happen, they are likely failing on the moral front regarding animal welfare. Even if you're not a vegetarian, I'm not sure how many are aware of or are ultimately okay with the idea of these practices in principle.

I have no answers, unfortunately. Only information, only questions.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Charlatan

FYI: male chicks are gassed, en masse, shortly after birth. This happens regardless of whether or not the operation is industrial or free range organic.

I agree, BG, industrialization isn't going to go away anytime soon. That said, there are aspects of the system that could be improved to make the short lives of our livestock less miserable and the end product better tasting and increasingly healthier.

For example, the corn industry and its use as feed in cattle feed lots (not to mention the feed lots themselves) or the number of chickens squashed into battery cages (not to mention the batter cages themselves).

There are many better practices that would make things better but would increase the cost of food and reduce the amount of meat and dairy available on the market. It would take a massive shift in how and what Americans consume to bring about this sort of change.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

monkeysugar

Damn...I was hoping that this was a thread about food bloggers/yelpers with no industry experience, and about whom nobody really cares about save other food bloggers/yelpers/other associated fouchebags. Unfortunately this was not the case. Long story short: Whether you completely condemn or endorse partaking in animal based proteins, in any number of ways, good for you. To the extremists on either side: Get off the cross, the lumber is needed elsewhere. In short: You live your life, let others live their lives as they see fit. Extend the same amount of tolerance for the beliefs/values/morals/wtf ever you *expect/demand* from others. Extremists are almost never taken seriously, regardless of their message. On the contrary, they are almost universally regarded as self-serving, self-involved, self-entitled losers who have no grip on reality, which is why everyone other than like-minded individuals completely ignore them.

__________________
I've got the love of my life and a job that I enjoy most of the time. Life is good.

Strange Famous

The issue I have is more the raising of the simple act of cooking to some kind of art form. There are multiple cookery programs (in the US even a whole channel) dedicated to this, and the deification of certain cooks. An obsession amongst those who see themselves as a part of this movement to eat things "in season" even though with modern farming and transport it is no longer any cheaper to do so. People spending money on expensive ingredients that they cannot appreciate the difference in.

The fact is that food preparation is a simple act that people have performed for themselves and their families for all human history. To me, there is nothing artistic in it, nor any particular skill. I find it simply laughable that someone will pay £100 to eat a Michelin starred restaurant and come home hungry because all they've had is tiny portions of "gourmet" food.

The purpose of food preparation is to:

Create food that will taste nice, do your health some good, and satisfy your basic requirmnt to fuel your body

Nothing else. It doesnt matter how it looks, it doesnt matter how much money you spend on it, it doesnt matter what "beautiful" ingredients you use and then make poetic comments about.

There should be a war against this foodie movenment, but not from vegatarians, but from ordinary working class people who simply want to eat ordinary food. Imagine if there was this kind of hero worship of cleaners, and big hotels and restaurants had celebrity "chief cleaners" and we had to tolerate a TV show a night listening to how they did the ironing, the £800 hight tech hoover they needed; people got together on week nights to scrub the floor together and swap tips on which detergent they use...

Whats the difference? Cooking and cleaning are both pieces of housework, requiring an equal amount of skill and "art".

Let's get back to the recognition that following a recipe requires about as much skill as cleaning the shower. That every one of these so called masterchefs is simply a food maker. What they do is no harder than a kid who works at Subway making a sandwich. They might have more expensive ingredients and more complex recipes, but its the same process.

And at the end of the day, your subway sandwich probably tastes just as nice as your poached quail egg with asparagus foam and thrice cooked mushroom bathed in the essence in the truffle oil and saffron and blah blah blah.... and is a lot cheaper and more filling.

Charlatan

For the moment, let's not touch the global food economy and how people are massively exploited and local food supplies threatened in order to supply the western maw with more and cheaper produce. Given your previously ascribed to politics SF, I'd find it hard to believe you could knowingly support it.

Let's instead focus on the idea that food cannot be art. To me, this is better said that food doesn't have to be art. Just like the arts and crafts that my daughter makes in her room is not art. The tools and subject matter are frequently the same as that used by great artists to create art but we can see that they are not the same thing.

The same can be said of food. I can make a meal for my family and I would never dream of calling it art. Sometimes it's just sustenance and other times, I put a lot more effort into it and it's special (think Christmas dinner). And yet, it is not art. It is just food.

There are, however, people who train and work very hard to make very special food. These chefs take food to another level. Does everyone appreciate it? Probably not. Are they all successful in their attempts. No. Sometimes (many times) this haute cuisine is shit. But sometimes, it's magical.

Of course, like anything, there are all sorts of things in between the humble grilled cheese sandwich I make my kid for lunch and the sort of dishes turned out by someone like Feran Adria or Rene Redzepi. My favourite meals are simple and uncomplicated. Foams and sprays, I can do without. But that is besides the point. All art is not about anything but pushing boundaries, trying new things and concepts.

I find the pedestrian, out of hand dismissal of haute cuisine to be the same sort of things as those who are quick to dismiss art or fashion. You don't have to like it, but you can at least appreciate the effort and thought that went into it.


I, for one, am thankful that food is not just sustenance. I take a lot of pleasure from making and eating food and would be gutted if we reduced our consumption of food to paste from tubes. It would be the culinary equivalent of making everyone wear the same coveralls for clothes. I would rather celebrate difference and abundance than mediocrity and sameness.

---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------

Furthermore... just as there are in the world of art, music and fashion... there are snobs. Snobs are to be mocked... music snobs, art snobs, fashion snobs, food snobs all suck. Again, don't get me wrong. I think art should be embraced and celebrated, in all its forms (fashion, food, painting, music, etc.) by all. I don't think it should be the exclusive realm of the few, or those who can afford it. It should not be used as an excuse to encourage more us vs. them.

To me, art is about expanding an ongoing discussion about life through one person's interpretation of it.

To be clear, just like not all clothing is high fashion, not all food has to be high cuisine.

In fact, I agree with SF, that more people need to realize that food preparation should be increasingly embraced by all, regardless of the level of your particular skill. I think everyone should be able to make their own food (and by this I do not mean sticking a frozen puck of food into the microwave). I mean, everyone should know how to roast a chicken or make a basic pasta sauce. How to sautee some vegetables and boil some potatoes.

At one time, not too long ago, most people (women at least) had these simple house hold skills. Today, it's a different world.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

aberkok

And don't forget that probably all the forms of art we consider as art today (music, painting, sculpture, etc.) had very functional origins.

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Baraka_Guru

And yesterday's pornography is today's art.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Strange Famous

Ok, yes.... I do understand that the "cash crop" economy, while enriching certain local farmers, isnt the best for ordinary working people in a lot of countries. I just mean that, for example you can grow most fruit in a greenhouse most the year round in the south of the UK. Of course, its nice to grow your own food. When I lived with my parents we had about 1/3 acre and nothing can beat the satisfaction of just going picking some of your own veg, cooking it up and eating it... but at the same time the obsession with "seasonal" food just for the sake of it is just a form of snobbery. I think thats the term you used and its a good one to describe the trends I dislike.

What really annoys me about this movement, or parts of it is the way they treat to make cooking real quality food as out of the reach of ordinary people. To me, a really nice wholesome stew with good brown bread is more satisfying than any meal I have ever eaten in a restuarent, however intricate or clever.

Cooking good, simple, honest food is NOT difficult. This is the core of the whole "food challenge" that I initially was talking about. I dont think that I know as much about food as a guy who works as a cook or has done in his life, obviously. The angle I was coming at it from is that I dont need to. I really dont think you need any special skill or knowledge to cook well and make good food.

To me, I would state that food can NEVER be art in itself, in the same way as cleaning cannot be. I have a friend who decorates cakes for living and some of the stuff she does is amazing - but its not the food itself that is, but the things she can make out of icing. At the end of the day, as impressive as the decoration is, underneath it you just have an ordinary sponge cake. And I'd apply the same judgment to real gourmet cooking. Sure, some of it takes skill, some of it can look or taste special, but underneath it - its just something to eat.

_

As for the stuff about pornography, that reminds me of a video I saw one time when I was a youngster featuring these two girls, a big tub of ice water, and a banana... and that also, while it was something to look at, I wouldnt call it art.

Baraka_Guru

Of course, as with all the arts, everything is subjective and relative.

Speaking of relative, art, and food, here is a prime example:
Furor over horse meat on food show - Arts & Entertainment - CBC News

People are absolutely scandalized that a cooking show should feature horse meat! OMG!

This despite the likes of cows and pigs having comparable intelligence and social capabilities by means of categorization. You know, like cats and dogs.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Strange Famous

In France they eat horse meat. Not really in the UK.

I agree - I cant see any moral evidence thats its any more problematic to eat a horse to a cow. And if I learned nothing else from Animal Farm its that pigs are cleverer than both.

roachboy

i don't understand the argument above that cooking is not and cannot be an art.

it seems motivated by some associations that are piled onto the word "art" more than anything else. and one of the main associations is that art is somehow a sham. which sits in a very strange relation to notions of praxis from marx---transformation of objects from nature into the socially meaningful through the expenditure of labor, and the transformation of oneself in the process.


seems to me that cooking is among the most democratic of the arts, really, in that most anyone can produce artful food with adequate attention and patience and a certain skill set that is simple enough to acquire practically. and if one is inclined to produce delicate or layered dishes, why not?

it seems to me fundamentally different from cleaning. what is the basis for the comparison? that they're both domestic activities?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

Centuries ago, musicians had the same problem as chefs (I guess) do today: their craft was viewed merely as entertainment or a pastime or a job.

In some cultures (I'm thinking parts of Medieval Europe), music was considered a pale/indulgent entertainment in comparison to, say, the highly aesthetic if not divine arts of painting, sculpture, poetry, etc.

What was the case, however, was not that music was incapable of being an artform. Even the novel was considered a base form at one time. The case was that a society placed values on various endeavours based on opinion and taste.

I think the same thing happens today in such forms as food, fashion, and even video games. People have a tough time calling certain forms art because they don't see it as being valid in contrast to other forms. Yet, the hangup isn't in the compare and contrast; the hangup is in the viewer/experiencer/consumer.

It's like the debate over whether golf or autoracing are sports. Sort of.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Charlatan

I am sure we can agree that snobbery of all sorts is a plague. That said, the global food economy has fucked up not only people in place like Africa (let's plow under the crops we need to feed the locals to grow crops that will net us a lot of cash when we sell it in the west... the money does not stay local by the way) but it has also hit your local English farmers. They cannot compete with the prices. It has also brought about the Industrialization of our crops and livestock. It has not only produced an inferior product it has produced products that are not good for our health (see hoof and mouth, e-coli, bacteria laced lettuce and peanut butter, etc.).

The push to eat seasonal that is so strong in the UK, is an effort to get people to support local farmers. Something, again, I would think you would support given your political leanings. Granted the best would be if you have the time to grow your own.

All of that said, I am the last person to make any of this an absolute must. I would suggest eating local and seasonal where possible. If not for the flavour then for the environment. I know it's more expensive but my wish is that if enough people do it, the prices will drop due to demand.


You are right. Absolutely right. Those who would tell the average person that they cannot cook unless they get all fancy, are wankers and should be scorned. Again, I don't think snobs like this are in the majority.

I watch a lot of UK food television and read the magazines as well. And I don't see this sort of snobbery. What I do see is chefs and hosts encouraging people to cook. Stop with the takeaways and the ready made meals and start cooking. It's only been a generation since everyone ate home cooked meals. Today in the UK, like in many parts of the West, people are not cooking. They are re-heating or getting takeaway.

The shows I am watching (and again, I watch most of them - it's what I am paid to do) are not about snobbery but rather empowerment.


I don't know that I can explain this to you. You have clearly dug in your heels and will not budge.

All I can say is, like haute couture, which is pretty much unwearable and is really only meant to be seen on the runway, haute cuisine is not really meant to be replicated in the home kitchen. It is more than just something to fill your belly, just like haute couture is more than something to cover your body.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

LordEden

Who says you can’t appreciate the difference? Let’s look at a tomato that was grown a 1000 miles away and then was harvested while still green so that when it finally lands in your grocery store it is over-ripe and starting to rot if you don’t cook it in a day. Compare that to a tomato that was picked out of a garden a few days before (or that morning) and sold to you fresh at your local farmer’s market. I know I can taste the difference between the two and I know it makes my meals taste better because of the ingredients.

I still want to know what Michelin starred restaurant you ate at. I seriously don’t think you have every eaten fine dining food before, I still stand that all you know about food is from the TV and movies. I'd explain to you about tasting meuns or sampler meuns, but I doubt you would understand.

You want things to “taste nice” but you don’t want to use any quality ingredients. You want it to be healthy, but you want everything from a can or processed. I think you need to hop off the fence and pick a side. You seem to want it cheap, healthy, tasty, AND simply prepared. You don't always get all 4 of those.

Eating with your eyes is a huge part of cooking, I want my food to look good and taste good. Do want I a crapton of stuff on my plate I can’t eat? No. Would I like it arranged on the plate to look good and not like I just stood in line for the chow line and someone just dumped it on my plate? Yes. Then again, you are only seeing plates from Top Chef or whatever Gordon Rasmey is making someone cook today.

You have never worked in a restaurant in your life, have you? Hell, have you ever cooked anything in your life? When you make statements like that, I wonder if you have even stepped into a kitchen to cook a single meal.

You need to read this. Stop watching TV cooking shows and read about real chefs. Not that fucking wanker Gordon Ramsay, I mean a real chef. The one who taught Rasemy (and made him cry in the corner during service hours) and was the first (and youngest) BRITISH chef to win 3 Michelin stars. Read it then look at what Marco is doing now with British food. Look at how he is trying get rid of the reputation that a British meal is the worst meal on the planet. Read about a real chef, not this TV bullshit that you seem to be spoon-fed on.

I love how you compare two completely different levels of food preparation and think they are the same. They are not. They are not even in the same ballpark. It’s like comparing a 8-9 year old little league team to the professional all-star team (sub in football or some other sport). Yes, the 9 year olds can play the game, but they can’t play as well as the All-Stars. Is it the same sport? Yes. Is there a skill difference? Oh fuck yeah. Are there people that will watch both the little league and the all-stars and still enjoy the sport? Yes. Are there people that will only watch professional sports because they want to see real players playing the sport? Yes. That’s the difference. People pay for professionals to cook their food. Some places, it’s just to be seen at the up-incoming trendy restaurants. Some places, it’s because the food is fucking worth it.

There are chefs/cooks that have your attitude (pre-you leaving the forum a few weeks ago) where they think they are the greatest motherfuckers to ever cook and all those “chefs” on TV can kiss their ass, because they know how to cook REAL food and none of that shit you see on TV. They usually crash and burn fast, because they don’t abide to the basic rules of cooking or they just cook tasteless crap.

It’s not about snobbery, it’s about giving back to your community and then knowing where your food comes from. Knowing that it is free of pesticides, chemicals and other crap they put on food now-a-days. It’s strange that a person who grew up with a small garden (and eating the food out of it) would hate a movement that wants you to give back to the people who continue to grow the food to this day.

So, the best meal you have ever eaten is a bowl of brown stew. This explains a lot.

It pains me to agree with this, but I am. Everyone should learn how to cook a few simple meals or learn the basics of cooking.

You contradict yourself on a regular basis, you know that don’t you? You just “want something to eat” but at the same time you want it to be healthy and taste good. If you really thought that food was just “fuel to the body”, would you really care about taste or being healthy? You seem to want this magical meal that is healthy for you, super cheap, takes less than a minute to prepare (and on the skill level of a untrained monkey), and tastes good. When you find this amazing super-fast-cheap-easy-healthy meal, do use a favor and share the recipe with us.

*****

I got more to break down and fix some of the paragraphs I written in response to SF's virtual garbage he has dropped on here, but I'll hit it up later. Fucking work, interfering with my Internet playtime.

__________________
Vice-President of the CinnamonGirl Fan Club - The Meat of the Zombiesquirrel and CinnamonGirl Sandwich

Strange Famous

According to Marco Pierre White he didnt make Gordon cry, Gordon "chose" to cry...

Yes, there are some chefs who dont try and mystify the process. As much as I find Jamie Oliver an annoying mockney twat, I do admire that he has made a real effort to get people to learn basic and wholesome recipes, and to replace processed fast food with wholesome food in school meals.

I havent ever eaten in a Michelin Starred restaurant I would admit, but I have eaten a £25 steak in a posh place and found it tasted the same as a £10 steak in a nice pub.

As for liking stew and bread... what can I say. Perhaps it does explain a lot. I am a man of the people... some tomato's, some onion, some garlic, some mushrooms, some ham, some beans, some herb, touch of lemon... cooked nice and slow over a long period. To me that meal has given me more satisfaction than expensive dishes like lobster I have had. I dont like exotic things and I am not especially open to them. I dont deny that.

Let me give a concrete example of what I mean though: in terms of meat.

On many cooking shows I see on TV, chefs INSIST on serving meat rarer than most people are comfortable with, because THEY think it is the right way for it to be served. Genuinely on "Masterchef" you see this happen two or three times every season. This is arrogance to me. This is elitism.

_

And.. there ARE some people with small holdings who struggle and also, yes dairy farming is pretty tough. But the most farmers in the UK with sizeable holding are millionaires. some billionaires (and in part because of the Common Agricultural Policy as well as selling off land for development, battery farming, etc etc)