Compromised food critics

[ngatti]

>I want to go back to an example given here, where I was the subject. Let's give that example in a more realistic >manner: William Grimes wants to spend a week in a restaurant kitchen and write about it. I say great, let him do >it, let him write about it, and not only will I enjoy reading it but also it will make him a better critic. Now, let's say he >spends that week at Jean Georges. And then it comes time a year later that he has to review Jean Georges. So >what? Would anybody seriously say he shouldn't do it? I suppose the editor of the section should say, "Hey, Bill, are >you worried that you might pull punches? Want to let Frank handle it?" But if the answer is no, and the answer feels >honest, let him do it. What's the downside?

The restaurant critic for the New York Times should not act like Ceasers's Wife...He  is Ceaser's Wife!  Any departure from the most scrupulous of ethics would diminish him/her in the eyes of the professional community and ultimately (IMO) in the eyes of the general dining public.  He works for us (professionals) also.  The Times seems to take care to keep the fluff separate from the reviews and ( most importantly) to demand more than an avocational knowledge from it's writers before allowing them the serious work of a restaurant critic.  They instinctively understand that we derive at the least our living and in most cases our lives from what we do and that their honest writing has the power to enhance or destroy those lives.  There may be no actual downside to a critic wanting to do a piece on a restaurant that he may ultimately review and as an intellectual exercise there may be nothing wrong with it.  But why would you want to make even an incremental dent in a reviewers credibility?  Especially in as high strung a place as the New york restraurant world.

P.S. having trouble with the editor. Sorry for any confusion.

YMMV

[Bux]

 The Times seems to take care to keep the fluff separate from the reviews

I think they do.

The Times seems to take care to keep the fluff separate from the reviews

Probably so.

and ( most importantly) to demand more than an avocational knowledge from it's writers before allowing them the serious work of a restaurant critic.

That has struck me as less true if you're talking about knowledge of food and dining as opposed to knowledge of the craft of writing.

[Bux]

I hope I've come down on both sides of this issue from time to time. It's really contradictory for a critic to be both impassioned and impartial, yet the appearance of impartiality is not the red herring it should be only because of the power major newspapers have given to sole reviewers. In NYC, four stars from the NY Times is about as close as any restaurant can get to three Michelin stars. Those stars may not afford the same level of respect or be as bankable as the Michelin stars, but they are the NY standard. No matter how far removed the reviewer is from contact with any particular restaurant or chef, he or she, is still dependant on some sense of taste, but we pretend that the reviews are unbiased by a more controllable standard as it it's also a controlling standard.

When's the last time an art or music critic lost respect for championing a particular artist, not for championing a bad or untalented artist, but just for being a champion. Do we lose respect for the critics voice because he's been to the artist's studio or because he quotes the artist's own words in an article? I don't think so. The media has created a very artificial and all too powerful a role for "the restaurant reviewer." One of the things that makes Eric Asimov so popular and successful in his twenty-five dollar reviews is that these reviews don't rate restaurants and, for the most part, they don't knock restaurants. He searches out restaurants that meet his basic criteria and he tells you how he thinks you can get the most out of them. My strong feeling is that if the NY Times had four restaurant reviewers and they all competed for attention on a rotating basis, you'd get better reviews and above all, more useful information to the public. They'd each go after the restaurants they loved and explain those restaurants to the public and there might not be any stars. If the public craved stars, may the team could vote on a rating after the restaurant has been in business for at least a year or longer.

[ngatti]

That has struck me as less true if you're talking about knowledge of food and dining as opposed to knowledge of the craft of writing.

Maybe only a little less, at least in the specific case of the Times.

I think that by the time one reaches a career promontory such as restaurant critic for the New York Times, what may have started as a passing interest has developed well beyond the avocation stage. Ruth Reichel has a restaurant backgroud and during her tenure reset the bar not only for the Times but for reviewers everywhere.

I don't feel that a critic must be a trained chef or graduate from the CIA in order to review restaurants.  Quite the contrary.  It could be a serious detriment.  I understand that reviewers write about a holistic dining out experience.  The food may be the star but the nuts and bolts cooking of it needn't be.  that said good reviewers seem to have a feel for the back of the house and can bring it into the flow of a piece without specific mention.

I read with great interest Steve Plotnicki's report on Craft.

This is an accomplished diner, something that I am not.  That was my point about avocation.  Being an accomplished diner may be an avocation, but it should be a serious one and the accomplished part should be bold-faced before setting pen to paper for public consumption.  We need unquestionably knowledgeable people to handle what I consider to be very important work.

[ngatti]

I hope I've come down on both sides of this issue from time to time. It's really contradictory for a critic to be both impassioned and impartial

I'm not looking for a sterile and sanitary style of restaurant critic perfection that all and sundry must hew to, although the tone of my statements may lead you to think so.  I have to plead the Supreme Court definition of a great restaurant review:  I can't define it but I know it when I see it

When's the last time an art or music critic lost respect for championing a particular artist, not for championing a bad or untalented artist, but just for being a champion. Do we lose respect for the critics voice because he's been to the artist's studio or because he quotes the artist's own words in an article? I don't think so.

I don't buy into the Chef as artist.  We are many things, we are craftsman,  we are artisans, we are businesspeople. Some very few may work as if they are artists, but perhaps not as many as think they do.  I am not Lichtenstein or Picasso

( maybe more of a Duchamp   ).   It is a much different process for me to improvise on my guitar or to draw with pen and ink or to solve a chess problem than it is to match ingredients to a dish, or create a special, write a menu or organize a culinary event.  The former I do for myself without regard for audience, (potential or actual) monetary reward, or critical acclaim, the latter is primarily motivated by audience and if I'm not paid I'm not doing it! If you agree with my assessment that Chef's are not artists than it may follow that restaurant criticism is not the same as art or music criticism.  A restaurant critics product is written for a much more immediate audience, much as the chef's product is an immediate creation constantly if minutely changing and gone within a few minutes. Perhaps a theatre critics work would be a closer analogy (shades of Bryan Miller). The same rules should apply.  Theatre critics should not cosy up to their subjects etc. etc...  .

Can an informed writer participate with and interact with chef's who may or may not benefit from a potential review?

Of course he can especially if his heart is true :).  But fences and warning signs are placed so that people will stop and give pause.  They are not absolute nor are they meant to be. They give people time to consider the potential risk involved in crossing those fences and ignoring the warnings.

My strong feeling is that if the NY Times had four restaurant reviewers and they all competed for attention on a rotating basis, you'd get better reviews and above all, more useful information to the public. They'd each go after the restaurants they loved and explain those restaurants to the public

Maybe 2 critics.  The Times does this in the New Jersey section of the Sunday edition and it works well.  I like ones writing  more than the other and tend to take that persons opinions more seriously (curious is that the one I don't care for as much is a CIA grad, the one I do like was probably the sports reporter).  Our local paper may have as many as 6 critics doing the reviews.  the inconsistency drives most of us in this region bonkers.  Consequently, although much lip service is paid there is very little respect given.

Thanks for responding to the post.

Nick Gatti

[Bux]

Maybe 2 critics.  The Times does this in the New Jersey section of the Sunday edition and it works well.  I like ones writing  more than the other and tend to take that persons opinions more seriously (curious is that the one I don't care for as much is a CIA grad, the one I do like was probably the sports reporter).  Our local paper may have as many as 6 critics doing the reviews.  the inconsistency drives most of us in this region bonkers.

Maybe the good one was a sports writer. I've read some interesting articles by a food writer who was a sports writer. Either you know your stuff or you don't. How you learned is immaterial. I think it helps to know how to cook and it helps to understand how a restaurant works to offer great criticism, but it may not be essential as you're talking to people who want to know about the dining experience, not learn how to cook or operate a restaurant.

I could see how inconsistent reviews could drive a restaurant crazy, but life is inconsistent and there's a safety factor in having multiple critics with different points of view. At least a restaurant is not tempted to aim at pleasing a single all too powerful critic's taste. A winemaker in France spoke about a new tendency among winemakers to "Parkerize" their wine. His own wine scored well by Parker and his bank was happy. Maybe with multiple reviewers the public will begin to understand that there's a lot of subjectivity in all this.

[mamster]

There's a great political reporter and columnist for the Oregonian, Steve Duin, who switched over from sports.  I think the best writers at any given paper are often in sports.  Whether this qualifies them to become food writers is a conversation we've, well, had.

[Bux]

 Whether this qualifies them to become food writers is a conversation we've, well, had.

And one we'll have again.