I was idly leafing through "Food and Wine" magazine today, when I was surprised to find that it made me angry. I was surprised.
Now, I like food. I like fancy food. I too have been caught up in unwise entertaining-related flights of fancy - anxious dinner parties, a feverish desire to bake the finest scones. But as I read through the publication, I immediately understood the reason behind my reaction: The whole thing is perverse. It's not about food. It's about selling a fantasy world in which you impress your social circle with your gastronomic sophistication, purchased authenticity, and packaged warmth. It's hospitality porn.
In recent years there has been a trend for things that once were shameful signs of poverty and pronvinciality, in ironic inversion, to become luxury commodities for the typically white, privileged and middle aged . It's like hundreds of Marie Antoinettes, playing farm girl: it abounds with articles about with "wildcrafting" (a glitzy term for foraging), wood burning ovens, heirloom vegetables, and converted farmhouses. People practically compete with each other in shows idealized rusticity: I can just imagine someone rattling off to his friends about the vintage organic lemon press made from some Tuscan grandmother's peg leg hanging on the wall, while they nod, enraptured, over their glasses of wine. Isn't unfair that you can't buy an impoverished Ecuadorian family? That would really spruce up the patio.
This is very interesting to me. I had thought that about such magazines for awhile, though I did not read them, though I admit the idea that it was "hospitality porn" did not occur to me, and I really like that term, because... well, it is very apt.
I was unaware, but am unsurprised of this trend in idealized rusticity, because that has always been the purview of the powerful; the ability to decide that the "quaint", rustic demeanor is desirable because of itself. Take, for instance, the Greeks writing about how leisurely and simple life as a goatherd must be. The realities of actually herding goats and depending on those goats for your entire lively hood seemed far divorced from the depiction (I am thinking in particular of Daphnis & Chloe but there are others as well.)
I feel like that is one of the most puzzling things about people in general. What makes them decide that the "simple life" is... well, fashionable?
ETA: tag fail.
"Wildcrafting" ??? hehehehe. So I guess that's like picking mushrooms and stuff? Those damned middle-aged white privileged people, can't they just buy their "wild" mushrooms at Whole Foods, like everybody else?! Taking walks in the wood, the insolence. And converting farmhouses?? What are they thinking, can't they just let them rot and fall apart like 99% of the structures in rural areas? I guess that's below them or something.
And which of these things exactly were once considered shameful signs of poverty and provinciality? Because you seem to assume that all relatively rich families in "those days/100 years ago" were automatically aristocrats living in mansions with a staff of servants that would not be caught dead cooking, let alone picking their own food. Up here most well-to-do people were farmers, owning their farm and their land. They employed some people but it was mostly family business of course. They weren't above all that "shameful" rustic business especially not if it meant having nice mushrooms with the Christmas roast or whatever.
Or is this the "provinciality" you speak of? Which would be correct, however, this was shameful according to who? The silver-spoon-let-them-eat-cake aristocrats? And it makes you angry that this magazine is advertising the former over the latter?
Of course I understand very well that what really makes you angry is that the magazine is selling a fake "authentic" experience, consumerism, people pretending to live some life that they're not, et cetera. And it's a comforting thought that the non-white, non-privileged, non-middle-aged populations at least do not fall victim to similar ridiculous frivolities during the holiday season. At least they know it's not their place to cook their own dinner and order take-out instead.
(BTW don't take it too personal but I really feel this rant should have two sides to it).
Fucking RAH! to the OP.
I fucking HATE F&W, Gourmet, Saveur, etc. Useless tits peddling severely dumbed-down versions of the gourmand lifestyle to aspiring yuppies who aren't even cultured enough to realize that the image they're seeking is complete nonsense in the first place.
I can tell within the first 10 seconds of a food-related conversation whether somebody actually knows their shit (or doesn't but is genuinely interested in knowing) or whether they're just regurgitating the latest trendy crap they read in Saveur or saw on the Food Network.
FFS, I know someone who is so wrapped up in that bullshit that they've fucking taken to calling themselves a fucking amateur chef, as though such a thing were even possible.
I don't even know the definition of the word "chef". Is it one of those words where the professional connotation is built right in, like shopkeeper?
I don't read any of those magazines (although I have considered advertising in them because my customer base does), but I forage and garden and raise chickens and have all the other accoutrements of an aging urban hipster. Is that bad? Or is there something special about me that makes it authentic when I do it, and fake when everyone else does it?
Is it because I was doing it before it was cool? ;)
I wasn't actually even talking about that stuff, strictly the culinary trends I see in those magazines (and I don't generally see them talking much about the stuff you're talking about, they're mostly a little too yuppified for that). I'm all for foraging/gardening/raising chickens and anything else that gets people more in touch with what food is actually supposed to taste like.
As for the word "chef", yes, it does.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 24, 2011, 12:29:26 PM
"Wildcrafting" ??? hehehehe. So I guess that's like picking mushrooms and stuff? Those damned middle-aged white privileged people, can't they just buy their "wild" mushrooms at Whole Foods, like everybody else?! Taking walks in the wood, the insolence. And converting farmhouses?? What are they thinking, can't they just let them rot and fall apart like 99% of the structures in rural areas? I guess that's below them or something.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with those activities. Not at all. I just thought it was obnoxious how this particular magazine was using the aestheticized idea/concept of "rusticity" that people needed to buy to have a fulfilling, sophisticated, and enjoyable dining experience . Really, anything can be marketed as a desirable status symbol, whether it's polished silver or a farmer's market tomato.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 24, 2011, 12:29:26 PM
And which of these things exactly were once considered shameful signs of poverty and provinciality? Because you seem to assume that all relatively rich families in "those days/100 years ago" were automatically aristocrats living in mansions with a staff of servants that would not be caught dead cooking, let alone picking their own food. Up here most well-to-do people were farmers, owning their farm and their land. They employed some people but it was mostly family business of course. They weren't above all that "shameful" rustic business especially not if it meant having nice mushrooms with the Christmas roast or whatever.
I know, I made a generalization. :oops: Of course there were such things as "gentleman farmers" and wealthy who embraced an agricultural lifestyle. But the majority of people who farmed for a living were at the bottom of the social scale, whereas those who didn't have to toil on the land were at the top.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 24, 2011, 12:29:26 PM
Or is this the "provinciality" you speak of? Which would be correct, however, this was shameful according to who? The silver-spoon-let-them-eat-cake aristocrats? And it makes you angry that this magazine is advertising the former over the latter?
In a pre-industrial agrarian society, foraging for food suggests poverty. It suggests your harvest is to meager to sustain you and your family. Can you imagine a 15th century peasant bragging about digging up wild root vegetables for dinner, like today's foodies do? To them it was just a fact of life, not something to brag and wax rhapsodical about . I just wanted to point out that irony.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 24, 2011, 12:29:26 PM
Of course I understand very well that what really makes you angry is that the magazine is selling a fake "authentic" experience, consumerism, people pretending to live some life that they're not, et cetera. And it's a comforting thought that the non-white, non-privileged, non-middle-aged populations at least do not fall victim to similar ridiculous frivolities during the holiday season. At least they know it's not their place to cook their own dinner and order take-out instead.
Yes, for the most part that's it's. But I don't at all take issue with "people being something they're not". I take issue with magazines that try to sell "The One True Path to Fulfilling Life Experiences" (be it food related or anything else), and people who buy into it and then act smug about it.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 24, 2011, 12:29:26 PM
(BTW don't take it too personal but I really feel this rant should have two sides to it).
It's okay. I know how you contrarian Europeans are. :p
Quote from: Nast on December 24, 2011, 08:03:44 AM
It's hospitality porn.
:lol:
I have nothing to add, except that your post is an absolute delight.
Welcome back Nast.
Quote from: Nigel on December 24, 2011, 05:21:05 PM
I don't even know the definition of the word "chef". Is it one of those words where the professional connotation is built right in, like shopkeeper?
I don't read any of those magazines (although I have considered advertising in them because my customer base does), but I forage and garden and raise chickens and have all the other accoutrements of an aging urban hipster. Is that bad? Or is there something special about me that makes it authentic when I do it, and fake when everyone else does it?
Is it because I was doing it before it was cool? ;)
No, see, all those activities are awesome and there's nothing inherently wrong with them
per se. It's just the aura of smugness that has come to surround them in recent years is insufferable.
Quote from: Nast on December 24, 2011, 10:22:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 24, 2011, 05:21:05 PM
I don't even know the definition of the word "chef". Is it one of those words where the professional connotation is built right in, like shopkeeper?
I don't read any of those magazines (although I have considered advertising in them because my customer base does), but I forage and garden and raise chickens and have all the other accoutrements of an aging urban hipster. Is that bad? Or is there something special about me that makes it authentic when I do it, and fake when everyone else does it?
Is it because I was doing it before it was cool? ;)
No, see, all those activities are awesome and there's nothing inherently wrong with them per se. It's just the aura of smugness that has come to surround them in recent years is insufferable.
I understand what you mean by the "smugness". For reasons I have never understood, someone's mother decided to buy me a subscription to "Country Living" for Christmas 1998. It was full of bullshit twee furnishings and decor, a nightmare of manufactured wholesomeness.
I know exactly what you mean Nast, even though I still couldn't describe it if my life was on the line... :lol:
It seems to me like they're mistaking the fact that locally sourced ingredients taste better and are generally more nutritious with the notion that there is some sort of charm inherent in the enviroment where you traditionally found those ingredients; and also with the trend of "cheaper cuts" (i.e. less lean, but more flavor), often known as "peasant cuts", with the lifestyle of the people who have usually eaten those cuts.
Almost literally, they've mistaken the menu for the meal.
Quote from: Nast on December 24, 2011, 08:03:44 AM
It's like hundreds of Marie Antoinettes, playing farm girl
Holy precise.
"Let them have Tuscan pegleg lemon presses!"
:lol:
btw - Good to see you here again, Nast.
Quote from: Nast on December 24, 2011, 08:03:44 AM
I was idly leafing through "Food and Wine" magazine today, when I was surprised to find that it made me angry. I was surprised.
Now, I like food. I like fancy food. I too have been caught up in unwise entertaining-related flights of fancy - anxious dinner parties, a feverish desire to bake the finest scones. But as I read through the publication, I immediately understood the reason behind my reaction: The whole thing is perverse. It's not about food. It's about selling a fantasy world in which you impress your social circle with your gastronomic sophistication, purchased authenticity, and packaged warmth. It's hospitality porn.
In recent years there has been a trend for things that once were shameful signs of poverty and pronvinciality, in ironic inversion, to become luxury commodities for the typically white, privileged and middle aged . It's like hundreds of Marie Antoinettes, playing farm girl: it abounds with articles about with "wildcrafting" (a glitzy term for foraging), wood burning ovens, heirloom vegetables, and converted farmhouses. People practically compete with each other in shows idealized rusticity: I can just imagine someone rattling off to his friends about the vintage organic lemon press made from some Tuscan grandmother's peg leg hanging on the wall, while they nod, enraptured, over their glasses of wine. Isn't unfair that you can't buy an impoverished Ecuadorian family? That would really spruce up the patio.
Nast, I think you have isolated a whole new branch of Pinkness. Hospitality porn. Look how back to basics I am. Or maybe, "Observe that I am a Don, but still a man/lady of the land".
And there's nothing wrong with that sort of thing, I suppose, except that it is so obviously done to impress, rather than to satisfy a personal urge. It is no different than the hipster who spends 3 hours perfecting the "I don't care what you think/I couldn't be bothered to dress up for this" look.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 04, 2012, 09:06:30 PM
Quote from: Nast on December 24, 2011, 08:03:44 AM
I was idly leafing through "Food and Wine" magazine today, when I was surprised to find that it made me angry. I was surprised.
Now, I like food. I like fancy food. I too have been caught up in unwise entertaining-related flights of fancy - anxious dinner parties, a feverish desire to bake the finest scones. But as I read through the publication, I immediately understood the reason behind my reaction: The whole thing is perverse. It's not about food. It's about selling a fantasy world in which you impress your social circle with your gastronomic sophistication, purchased authenticity, and packaged warmth. It's hospitality porn.
In recent years there has been a trend for things that once were shameful signs of poverty and pronvinciality, in ironic inversion, to become luxury commodities for the typically white, privileged and middle aged . It's like hundreds of Marie Antoinettes, playing farm girl: it abounds with articles about with "wildcrafting" (a glitzy term for foraging), wood burning ovens, heirloom vegetables, and converted farmhouses. People practically compete with each other in shows idealized rusticity: I can just imagine someone rattling off to his friends about the vintage organic lemon press made from some Tuscan grandmother's peg leg hanging on the wall, while they nod, enraptured, over their glasses of wine. Isn't unfair that you can't buy an impoverished Ecuadorian family? That would really spruce up the patio.
Nast, I think you have isolated a whole new branch of Pinkness. Hospitality porn. Look how back to basics I am. Or maybe, "Observe that I am a Don, but still a man/lady of the land".
And there's nothing wrong with that sort of thing, I suppose, except that it is so obviously done to impress, rather than to satisfy a personal urge. It is no different than the hipster who spends 3 hours perfecting the "I don't care what you think/I couldn't be bothered to dress up for this" look.
It's that sort of thing that sets in me a feeling of distasteful indifference, which is to say I'm insulting that kind of behavior because it is beneath my notice, and whenever I deign to look upon it I'm like "Oh. You do
this sort of thing? How adorable."
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on January 04, 2012, 09:10:08 PM
It's that sort of thing that sets in me a feeling of distasteful indifference, which is to say I'm insulting that kind of behavior because it is beneath my notice, and whenever I deign to look upon it I'm like "Oh. You do this sort of thing? How adorable."
The Japanese have traditionally made an art out of contriving hospitality, while scorning anyone who gets caught at it. They may be Pink, but they at least put some fucking EFFORT into it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 04, 2012, 09:12:29 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on January 04, 2012, 09:10:08 PM
It's that sort of thing that sets in me a feeling of distasteful indifference, which is to say I'm insulting that kind of behavior because it is beneath my notice, and whenever I deign to look upon it I'm like "Oh. You do this sort of thing? How adorable."
The Japanese have traditionally made an art out of contriving hospitality, while scorning anyone who gets caught at it. They may be Pink, but they at least put some fucking EFFORT into it.
Yeah, and they have the excuse of they've always done it, as flimsy and weaksauce as that is, and what have
Better Homes and Gardens got to say for itself? It's this season's rage? It's a huge load of horseshit, all of it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 04, 2012, 09:06:30 PM
Quote from: Nast on December 24, 2011, 08:03:44 AM
I was idly leafing through "Food and Wine" magazine today, when I was surprised to find that it made me angry. I was surprised.
Now, I like food. I like fancy food. I too have been caught up in unwise entertaining-related flights of fancy - anxious dinner parties, a feverish desire to bake the finest scones. But as I read through the publication, I immediately understood the reason behind my reaction: The whole thing is perverse. It's not about food. It's about selling a fantasy world in which you impress your social circle with your gastronomic sophistication, purchased authenticity, and packaged warmth. It's hospitality porn.
In recent years there has been a trend for things that once were shameful signs of poverty and pronvinciality, in ironic inversion, to become luxury commodities for the typically white, privileged and middle aged . It's like hundreds of Marie Antoinettes, playing farm girl: it abounds with articles about with "wildcrafting" (a glitzy term for foraging), wood burning ovens, heirloom vegetables, and converted farmhouses. People practically compete with each other in shows idealized rusticity: I can just imagine someone rattling off to his friends about the vintage organic lemon press made from some Tuscan grandmother's peg leg hanging on the wall, while they nod, enraptured, over their glasses of wine. Isn't unfair that you can't buy an impoverished Ecuadorian family? That would really spruce up the patio.
Nast, I think you have isolated a whole new branch of Pinkness. Hospitality porn. Look how back to basics I am. Or maybe, "Observe that I am a Don, but still a man/lady of the land". And there's nothing wrong with that sort of thing, I suppose, except that it is so obviously done to impress, rather than to satisfy a personal urge. It is no different than the hipster who spends 3 hours perfecting the "I don't care what you think/I couldn't be bothered to dress up for this" look.
I don't want to sound dumb, but what is Pinkness? It's a Subgenius term, I think?
Quote from: Nast on January 08, 2012, 05:05:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 04, 2012, 09:06:30 PM
Quote from: Nast on December 24, 2011, 08:03:44 AM
I was idly leafing through "Food and Wine" magazine today, when I was surprised to find that it made me angry. I was surprised.
Now, I like food. I like fancy food. I too have been caught up in unwise entertaining-related flights of fancy - anxious dinner parties, a feverish desire to bake the finest scones. But as I read through the publication, I immediately understood the reason behind my reaction: The whole thing is perverse. It's not about food. It's about selling a fantasy world in which you impress your social circle with your gastronomic sophistication, purchased authenticity, and packaged warmth. It's hospitality porn.
In recent years there has been a trend for things that once were shameful signs of poverty and pronvinciality, in ironic inversion, to become luxury commodities for the typically white, privileged and middle aged . It's like hundreds of Marie Antoinettes, playing farm girl: it abounds with articles about with "wildcrafting" (a glitzy term for foraging), wood burning ovens, heirloom vegetables, and converted farmhouses. People practically compete with each other in shows idealized rusticity: I can just imagine someone rattling off to his friends about the vintage organic lemon press made from some Tuscan grandmother's peg leg hanging on the wall, while they nod, enraptured, over their glasses of wine. Isn't unfair that you can't buy an impoverished Ecuadorian family? That would really spruce up the patio.
Nast, I think you have isolated a whole new branch of Pinkness. Hospitality porn. Look how back to basics I am. Or maybe, "Observe that I am a Don, but still a man/lady of the land". And there's nothing wrong with that sort of thing, I suppose, except that it is so obviously done to impress, rather than to satisfy a personal urge. It is no different than the hipster who spends 3 hours perfecting the "I don't care what you think/I couldn't be bothered to dress up for this" look.
I don't want to sound dumb, but what is Pinkness? It's a Subgenius term, I think?
Pinkness is the act of trying to be something you're not, for the approval of others.
There's a little more to it, but that's the gist of it.
The intake of food is a natural function. To glamourise it is pretty pretentious really. Especially to the extent of having every other program on TV about cookery. There is (In the UK, at least) a fucking plague of "Celebrity Chefs". And "Trendy foods" on every Supermarket shelf. Don't get me wrong, I love food, and I'm not a fussy eater. I'll eat pretty much whatever is put in front of me. (Unless it's Tripe, or fish roes) Being a lifelong angler, I have eaten most fish that it's possible to catch around our shores, and one of the finest, is Bass.
I've noticed in the last few years (ever since it became 'popular' in the 'right' kind of restaurants) we've started referring to it as "Sea Bass". As opposed to . . . . . . ? We don't have any other kind of Bass here! It's fucking Bass! I know in the US you have a fine freshwater Sporting fish called the Largemouth Bass, but we don't have them here. And I've never heard of anyone eating the big ugly bastards anyway. So why make the distinction?
Pretentiousness. That's why.
Making a virtue out of pretentiousness. And forcing it upon a public who largely, don't eat any fish other than Cod or Haddock. They've done the same thing with Pilchards. Pilchards used to be a poor man's meal, eaten only by Cornish beach dwelling wildmen. So to market them, the pretentious arseholes at the John West cannery called them 'Sardines'. To imply that they were exotic. But lately, they've turned around, and stated calling them Pilchards again. And selling them fresh. (Only, I suspect because the commercial fleets have fished the fuckers out in the Mediteranean) So now, for about £20 a pound, you can buy "Locally sourced Pilchards". A fish that, 20 years ago, the same people who are buying them now, wouldn't have fed to their fucking cats.
Now there are some beautifully tasty fish around, but no-one ever eats them unless they are dressed up as something trendy. Turbot, Brill, Flounder, Lumpsuckers, all delicious, but largely absent from the Supermarket shelves. I like to eat dogfish, but even the coastal fish and chip shops market that as "Rock fucking Salmon" because no-one wants to eat anything as un-trendy as dogfish. Although they'll eat Shark steaks for £60 a time and that's the same thing. With Japanese Shitake mushrooms, at £3 each. Don't piss in my wineglass, and call it Chenin-Blanc, fucker! Go and get me some sausage, egg and fucking chips!
These Foody wankers need to be rounded up and starved for a week. Then made to scrounge around Supermarket skips for a meal. See what trendy names they can come up with for stale doughnuts, or out of date processed reconstituted ham. Professional Turd polishers, every last one of them.