Food Snobbery

[John Whiting]

I wish I'd written that! ["You will, Whiting, you will. . ." ]

[Deacon]

I doubt if any but a few insecure poseurs base all of their movie watching on "Sight and Sound's" . . . best 100 list.

Or foodies picking their restaurants from Gourmet's Top 100 Restaurants in the USA list. Exactly!

It gives you a place to start, nothing more. The responsibility for developing your own personal sense of taste is always up to you. (You can't fairly judge a place that you've never been to.) The places you've been to serve as landmarks on an otherwise featureless plain that give you reference points to navigate by. After awhile you don't need the list. Call it instinct.

[gknl]

Plotnicki's argument is the same old "some are born to follow, some (we) are born to lead," used by every Tory, Republican, Whig, etc. etc. who ever lived: "The people" cannot be trusted to run the government, and, if we're talking about food, they can't even be permitted to trust the evidence of their own senses if they say they want prune juice with their steak. I mean, my God, who does it hurt? I don't remember who it was here, but someone made the comment that the only people who divide the world up into two groups do so in order to put themselves on the favorable side of the fence. Always. The people who DEMAND that there be such a thing as "good taste" are doing so in order that they may feel superior to those who don't "have it," while the people who like milk and steak together continue to do so without permission from Plotnicki. And I think the crux of the situtation is that you don't hear the eccentrics acting as if they are SUPERIOR to those whose taste is DIFFERENT from theirs. (I shouldn't say "eccentric," I should say "minority." It's ALWAYS the minority that gets it from the majority, no matter what the subject under discussion, food, politics, art, or whatever.)

Bux: That's it exactly, put with more of a sense of style than I could muster: "good taste" = "fashionable."

The food fascist argument is really: more people think that X is good, so it is, and the minority who disagree are wrong, because we are more numerous than they.

Hey, the Liberals are pretty good at this crap too. Especially here in the Belly of the Politically Correct Beast that is the Bay Area.

[Tonyfinch]

And what's considered the best film criticism has changed markedly over even the relatively brief time people have been writing about film

It's worth pointing out that in the sixties Cahiers du Cinema magazine in France and Movie magazine in Britain had a policy in which films were reviewed by reviewers who liked that particular director's work. This sometimes meant that certain directors and films (David Lean and Lawrence of Arabia was the famous example) received no review because none of Movie's crirtics liked Lean enough to want to review the film.

The editor of Movie defended the omission on the grounds that the best review will be written by the critic who best understands the film, usually because he is the most sympathetic to it. Enthusiasm was the criterion for inclusion.

No-one thought or even questioned why this reviewer liked this and not that director. The critic's subjective taste in director's was taken as a given. His/her preferences were the starting point for a discussion on each film. There were no objectively agreed standards outside of those.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Deacon - I'm glad you were honest enough to bring the debate down to what I believe is driving the argument against my position which is politics. As we said when AHR and Jordyn and I were discussing this thread over dinner the other night, the issue here is really class warfare. It has nothing to do with food. But I can also tell you that my position has nothing to do with politics either. With being Republican, Tory, or anything else. In fact I think if you had a private discussion with me you would find my politics are quite liberal. But what does that have to do with calling a blue can of paint blue and insisting that its color isn't a matter of opinion? That's what my argument is, and that's the issue at hand here. Everything else that people raise is a fancy argument to avoid dealing with that issue.

If you give me latitude to deal with that question, as a can of paint gets more grey and less blue, is it blue or grey? And the answer to that question is it depends on how precise an answer you want. If you tell me my choice of answer is limited to primary colors, then an argument will ensue as the issue gets muddier and muddier. But once the choices you are given include some variation, the argument lessens because there is more room for agreement. That's the first part of why we can't settle this discussion. There needs to be an agreement as to what terms we are allowed to use to state our position. You and many others here want to deny me use of words like "right" or "correct" to state mine. You have gone so far as to call my use of the words "right wing." But how do I ever state my position by the stringent criteria I want to use if those words are unavailable to me?

It gets even more complicated then that. Even if you and I agreed to these terms, we would immediately run into the problem that Mr. Johnson and GKNL pointed out. If you drop a ball it will fall to earth 1000% of the time. Taste is not that precise. Except as I said a few posts back

Taste is objective but the standards change according to the issue and topic. That way the equation always balances. How "good taste" gets measured is dependant on what we are trying to measure. And if we frame the context and the variables correctly, we will always be able to tell right from wrong.

So let's take an example. Suppose I went to my mother and I went to Daniel Boulud and I asked them what is the right amount of a certain ingredient to add to a dish. My mother's answer would be appropriate for a home cook and Daniel would look at the question through the lens of haute cuisine and his answer would be appropriate to that. Which one is right? Well it depends on the question asked doesn't it? So when the same question is asked about what to drink with steak, it depends on what question is being asked doesn't it. You tell me, if anyone came on this board and asked about what beverage they should drink with steak, do you really think they are looking for an endorsement for milk or tea?

There are rules for everything in this world. It's just that in some fields, especially ones that have to do with aesthetics, the rules do not contain a formula to calculate winners and losers. Take writing a business plan or a computer program. They are artforms just like anything else and there is an aesthetic about them. But at the end of the day there is a way to measure how good they are. Good ones make money and work, bad ones lose money or crash.

But when it comes to food, art, music etc., people who partake in them have this funny need to reserve judgement for themselves. They want to reserve the right to say that the highest scoring restaurant in Zagat isn't the best one. But at the same time they want to be able to state their own choice as to best restaurant. But then when someone else comes along who has eaten significantly more high end meals comes along and applies a more stringent standard as to what is best, all of a sudden they switch to saying that taste is subjective and there is no best. The audience is always fickle. That's because as consumers of art they want to apply a standard that makes them feel good. Do you not see how applying that standard is wholly different from applying one that tries to put feelings, biases, and desires aside and tries to evaluate things according to a different standard? Are people who do that snobs?

The term snobbery is always invoked when the criteria invoked by a person or a certain group of persons is too stringent to allow everyone to participate. But in order for it to be snobbery, the criteria had to be chosen for the express purpose of exclusion. Of course that would describe the aristocracy. I mean what about them makes them different from anybody else? They are just flesh and blood. But why does it describe people who know more about food then you and I and who do nothing more than tell us that we got it wrong? We wouldn't be excluded because of any other reason other then our own incompetency. Calling those people snobs because of our own incompetancy is merely reverse-snobbism.

J.W. & Bux - The part about the Royal Albert Memorial was a joke intended to tweak the nose of my British antagonist. Fashion was the example. But your proffer that things change with time only says that the standards have flexibility to them. That doesn't respond to the point that the issue is what the standards are at the time the question is asked. If I asked you who the best chef is, the implication of my question is based on existing criteria. To say that because the criteria can change with time makes the question unaswerable is a non-starter. It just an attempt to prevent me from using of the word "best." Because I can keep narrowing the question until there is a "right" and "wrong" answer. Also I think that J.W.'s point about art being considered afterwards is a fabulous one. But it's really the same point I'm making. I say that artists (whether they be chefs or musicians) create something and then experts evaluate it. A marketplace of criticism ensues and people interested in the aesthetic adopt a generally held opinion about it, or maybe a series of opinions.

And neither should anyone be derided for enjoying something you don't. UNLESS they set themselves up as some official arbiter of taste (I think anyone who does that should be derided even if they're right ). And posting a personal preference on a message board is hardly that. There is a huge difference between explaining why you feel a certain wine matches better with a certain dish than does milk and saying that someone who prefers milk deserves to have their opinion pointed out as drivel.

Gknl - I read this to say that political correctness is more important then the truth. I have no quarrel with that position and it's an admirable one. But the price you pay is a lowering of the level of the discourse

Tony - Talk about critics trying to move themselves up to the head of the line. That entire theory adds up to we are going to replace objectivity with subjectivity in the first instance. After a film overcomes that hurdle, then each reviewer can be objective. Oy. It sort of sounds like Soviet socialism when they try and make the workers more important then the people who actually have the good ideas. Without people who have good ideas, the workers have nothing to work on. Fortunately there were more movies to write about then there was space to review them in because you would have seen that editor change his policy pretty quickly if the end result of the policy meant there were empty pages each month.

[yvonne johnson]

Your only recourse is to quoting the majority opinion. By that argument, GWB is 'objectively' the best person for US president.

I must take exception to the argument that GWB being the president is an example of majority opinion. This man did not win the popular vote. Did not. Did not! Therefore, neither 'objectively' nor otherwise is he the best person for US president. Duh.

Sorry, I should rephrase: 'GWB is objectively the best president because he was elected by a majority of those qualified to judge, i.e., the Supreme Courtl'.

Edit: g.johnson posting under an alias.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I got it now. It's okay for you to say with specificity that the Supreme Court was wrong about Bush but the same level of specificity isn't available to someone criticizing your opinion of food .

[g.johnson]

the issue here is really class warfare

It's true. I really don't care for hoi polloi.

[g.johnson]

I got it now. It's okay for you to say with specificity that the Supreme Court was wrong about Bush but the same level of specificity isn't available to someone criticizing your opinion of food  .

It would be easier to teach a goldfish chess than to explain irony to Plotters.

[Jinmyo]

the issue here is really class warfare

It's true. I really don't care for hoi polloi.

I don't like poi.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I don't like poi.

It tastes better than a placenta does.

[Jinmyo]

I don't like poi.

It tastes better than a placenta does.

I have no basis for comparison so I'll take your word for it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Yuck who would ever taste one. Have you ever seen one? They are quivering. I've seen a double delivery and it wasn't a pretty sight .

[Jinmyo]

Oh, I've seen them. Three times with three kids.

But people do eat them.

Still don't much like poi either.

[John Whiting]

SteveP writes

In fact I think if you had a private discussion with me you would find my politics are quite liberal.

Justice demands that I confirm that this is, to an amazing extent, true.

But at the same time they want to be able to state their own choice as to best restaurant.

For myself, and for most of my friends, there is a point above which we do not attempt to establish a hierarchy -- if only because, in a certain mood, one dish or restaurant would definately be the best; in another mood, some other dish or restaurant would take precedence. To establish an *absolute* best, one would first have to establish a qualitative scale of one's emotions. Only the pathologically compulsive would even attempt it.

[John Whiting]

It's true. I really don't care for hoi polloi.

You can tell that he's an elitist because he omits the unnecessary and incorrect extra "the".

[Deacon]

It's worth pointing out that in the sixties Cahiers du Cinema magazine in France and Movie magazine in Britain had a policy in which films were reviewed by reviewers who liked that particular director's work. . . .  Enthusiasm was the criterion for inclusion.

It's the same way all across publishing. You notice that no one gets asked to write a preface or foreword who *dislikes* the book or the author.

[Jinmyo]

But Deacon, that's not at all the same as a review. It's basically advertising.

[Deacon]

Plotnicki, I'm not trying to categorize your politics across the board, BTW, just your politics of food. I think it's entirely possible to be politically liberal and also gastronomically conservative.

. . . calling a blue can of paint blue . . .

But these are not matters of mathematics that admit of only one solution, they are matters of taste.

. . . Taste is not that precise. . . .

Exactly. You can always ASSERT that your taste is better, but I don't think you can prove it, except by being tautalogical: "My taste is better because my taste is better." The business of some people having more taste buds than other people was at least an attempt to scientifically quantify and explain food preferences, I grant you that. But even among "supertasters" there are differences of opinion. The number of taste buds on a person's tongue doesn't go far enough to explain why some people like Southwestern food more than Thai food, or why some people prefer Chez Panisse to the French Laundry. The "supertaster" theory doesn't cover THAT.

. . . Suppose I went to my mother and I went to Daniel Boulud . . . . Which one is right? . . .

More tellingly, try going to Daniel Boulud, Alain Ducasse, Charlie Trotter, David Bouley and Thomas Keller and asking the same question, and see how many different answers you get.

. . . There are rules for everything in this world. . . . Good [computer programs] make money and work, bad ones lose money or crash. . . .

Another tautology: The good ones are good because they're good.

. . . Zagat . . .

See the thread titled "Zagat Bashing: Partially Unjustified." Everyone was ragging on Zagat, so I went to the site and looked at the stats myself. Amazingly, the results were far from middle-brow: places like Le Bernardin, The French Laundry, and The Inn at Little Washington all got the highest marks. I didn't see one single city that voted Claim Jumper or Fatburger as the best restaurant in town. So much for the myth that if you let the "great unwashed" speak, they'll vote for mediocrity.

The elitists are continually asserting that there's a mountain because they want to be on the top of it. There is no mountain, it's a plain. However, there ARE landmarks on that plain, and different landmarks serve as beacons to different people. There are, as Bux pointed out, fashions in any artistic endeavor. What you are trying to do is to get everyone to navigate by the same set of landmarks.

I have no problem with a person who wants to drink milk or prune juice with his steak. Good for him. I have no business telling him how to eat. It doesn't affect me one bit what he eats.

I think the whole business of "my taste is better" arises from an attempt to justify the money and the time it takes to indulge in this hobby. The people who do that are trying to defend their choice of hobby, and the money they've put into it, and the "better" argument is the only payoff they can find.

Finally, perhaps it's a question of presentation. "Try the French Laundry--I've been there and I enjoyed it, and I think you might as well" goes a lot further than "I've been to the French Laundry and anyone who doesn't like it is a boorish Philistine with no taste."

[John Whiting]

As a child, in our teetotal household I *always* drank milk with my steak, and I loved it! I could still do it, as readily as I could eat beef stroganoff.

[Tonyfinch]

.

Finally, perhaps it's a question of presentation. "Try the French Laundry--I've been there and I enjoyed it, and I think you might as well" goes a lot further than "I've been to the French Laundry and anyone who doesn't like it is a boorish Philistine with no taste."

Deacon, I agree with a great deal of that last post. However the true snob is into the exclusivity of his elite. S/he doesn't want people enjoying The French Laundry because it ceases to be exclusive and s/he will have to move on somewhere else. This is a bore, so the snob will try to discourage not encourage the great unwashed from going there.

It is this meanness of spirit that characterizes the snob above everything else. Anybody who says "hey I've found a much better restaurant than any YOU might know,come and join me" might be an irritating sod but they are not a snob.

[g.johnson]

It's true. I really don't care for hoi polloi.

You can tell that he's an elitist because he omits the unnecessary and incorrect extra "the".

Greek O level, grade 3.

[gknl]

And neither should anyone be derided for enjoying something you don't. UNLESS they set themselves up as some official arbiter of taste (I think anyone who does that should be derided even if they're right ). And posting a personal preference on a message board is hardly that. There is a huge difference between explaining why you feel a certain wine matches better with a certain dish than does milk and saying that someone who prefers milk deserves to have their opinion pointed out as drivel.

Gknl - I read this to say that political correctness is more important then the truth. I have no quarrel with that position and it's an admirable one. But the price you pay is a lowering of the level of the discourse

No, you have it exactly wrong. But then, as others have pointed out, you do have this stunning ability to read what you want to read. Much as I dislike pop-Freudian psychoanalysis, it's hard to read your response as anything but projection.

How is explaining WHY you think something is better rather than simply telling someone their taste is drivel "political correctness?"

How does civility and intellect (explaining rather than telling) LOWER the level of the discourse?

It's been my experience that political correctness results in far more of "this is obviously right and if you disagree you're wrong" non-discussion. I would characterize your rhetoric as "Food Correctness" in which what critical analysis you do offer is buried beneath dogmatic assertions that you're right.

What is your continued appeal to that mythical group of the top-however many chefs in the world (all of whom undoubtedly agree with you since it's your list) than an attempt to create some etched in stone, final arbiter of taste authority you can use in place of having to explain yourself?

As for lowering the level of discourse, how does one get any lower than "those who disagree with me and my imagined legion of experts deserve to have their opinions pointed out as drivel?" That's just so much infantile "mine's bigger" posturing. And about as useful too.

But it's so much easier than thinking.

[g.johnson]

Obviously a bloody commie.

[mixmaster b]

(You might even get a job as a sommelier of work in the mine industry, and possibly be viewed as an authority.)

"Put down those drills and pick-axes, boys! It's time for some zinfandel!"

And I thought I could type...