Culinary Bedpost Notching

[Busboy]

I like food quite a bit. But I find these people , I don't know, off-putting. You?

"By steering clear of time-consuming distractions like museums, historical sites and theaters, they managed to visit more than 28 of the city's better dining spots, including La Tour d'Argent and Le Jules Verne in the Eiffel Tower, not to mention several dozen specialty food stores and wine shops."

[citychef]

Off-putting? No way! Although I generally squeeze in museums and churches, I eat, eat, eat when I travel and when I am not eating, I am taking cooking classes and talking to people about where I ate and asking people where to eat...I plan all my vacations around eating and restaurants and I enjoy every minute...

[Chef Shogun]

Mr. Thompson and the Alderetes are members of a billowing fraternity in the American tourism industry: vacationers who plan their travels primarily - often solely - around food and wine. They are, to coin a term, "gastronauts."

Don't think they personally coined the term, but I'd like to slap them if they did.

tagliatelle with goose ("excellent").

Party on, Wayne!

[Fat Guy]

Since there are 89,300 hits on Google for the word "gastronaut," I hardly think the term is newly coined. But the Times will no doubt claim to have invented or been instrumental in its development, as it has with other inherited and already established ideas like low-carb diets.

[docsconz]

This is really no different than someone planning to visit Paris just to visit the museums and forego eating other than for fuel.

Personally, I like to plan my vacations around food, but preferably at a place with other interesting components as well. Great food with Interesting Culture is a Winner. Interesting Culture without good food (an oxymoron?) is a loser to me. In other words good food is a necessary ingredient to me for my travels.

[Busboy]

At some point it seems that people cross the line from dining for pleasure to food as status, or some bizarre culinary OCD. And I'd suggest that people able to take a few minutes away from the table to check out the Louvre or to marvel at the Tour Eiffel might even make better dining companions than those who've spent the day lurching from cafe to cave to boulangerie. I have vision of being trapped at a table with one of these types and every time you say something nice about the duck they have to top you with some duck they had six years ago at Taillevent, and every time you mention Baron Haussman, they start talking about the duck again.

Doc, agree with your comments, though I am willing to go several days without decent food if I know I'll get something good to eat eventually, or we've found a great place to camp.

[Andy Lynes]

The first time I heard the term "gastronaut" used was by UK chef and TV personality Keith Floyd in the 1980's. I'm pretty sure he "invented" it which this article by respected food writer Emily Green appears to bare out.

I do so dislike this sort of article that profers to be about something but is in fact about nothing. As a freelancer however, I can quite see how this "story" came about.

[MaxH]

Wow. People interested in food have of course traveled for the purpose for a long time, without need of buzzwords or boasts. I wonder if such an article (and possible sequelae) will have any concrete effects. Might it stimulate this activity? Or might there be a backlash or something? (I remember hearing of complaints a few years ago from Latin Europe, begging for a moratorium on Anglophone tourists buying old houses, fixing them up, and writing books about it -- after Peter Mayle's publication of A Year in Provence evidently ignited a fad.)

-- Max

[DaleJ]

My wife and I, both architects, have visited Italy spring and fall for the past six or seven years. After about two or three trips we confessed to each other that, in fact, it wasn't the buildings or great spaces that drew us back. It was, of course, the people, lifestyle and, above all, the food and wine. Next April we will be in Basilicata for the orechiette, in Sorrento for the limoncello, in Umbria for cinghalle and Rome for all of it at once.

[Mulcahy]

Personally, I like to plan my vacations around food, but preferably at a place with other interesting components as well. Great food with Interesting Culture is a Winner. Interesting Culture without good food (an oxymoron?) is a loser to me. In other words good food is a necessary ingredient to me for my travels.

←

Me too, for the most part. But these people seem to take it too the extreme. What's missing, if all you do is eat, and with the same dining companion no less, is the interesting culture part of the equation. Without knowing something about the place you're visiting, and actually meeting some of the people, how can you truly appreciate the food?

I have vision of being trapped at a table with one of these types and every time you say something nice about the duck they have to top you with some duck they had six years ago at Taillevent, and every time you mention Baron Haussman, they start talking about the duck again. 

←

Me too. It's a little scary.

[robyn]

I agree with Mulcahy. I don't think you can have a full appreciation of the food of a country or area without understanding its culture and its people - at least a little (and that's usually the most you can get - a little). And I try - concentrating on the things that interest me most. Also - just pigging out all the time - 24/7. Well it gets gross after a while. And the idea of going on a purge diet before a binge trip - well that's doubly gross. Robyn

[bloviatrix]

There's no arguing that many people plan their itinerary around food. The NY board gets questions about this all the time. And using food to design an itinerary isn't all that bad -- again, using NY as an example, you can see a lot of different parts of the city while on the search for great food -- Chinatown, Lower East Side, Upper East Side, Midtown, etc. My guess is that the people in the article tend to exaggerate the amount of time they spent on food.

[emhahn]

Being a "gastronaut" in Japan is a wonderful thing.

[Fat Guy]

I think Bryan Miller did a fun piece that presents a certain caricature. I can testify that, on New Year's Day afternoon, it was all the talk of the cocktail party (heavily populated by hardcore foodies) I was at, and at the level of standard cocktail party conversation it was well received. To dig a little deeper, as Busboy and Docsconz both intimate, I think you might find that the culinary equivalents of trainspotters are having the same sorts of empty experiences that the museum trainspotters, architecture trainspotters and opera trainspotters are. The phenomenon Miller describes is not about food. It's about a certain state of mind.

There are, however, plenty of genuinely engaged people who emphasize one thing or another when they travel, sometimes to the exclusion of all else. I have certainly chosen food over museums many times when allocating my time. And I would defend the choice of a restaurant over a museum for several reasons: A restaurant is an interactive cultural experience tied to a time and place, whereas the art in a museum can be sent around on a road show and it's exactly the same. I live five minutes away from the Metropolitan Museum of Art and I haven't even seen everything in there yet; why should I spend my vacation time visiting other museums? And, call me a philistine, but I enjoy looking at pictures artwork in books. No, it's not 100% of the experience of seeing artwork live, but let's call it 80%. Now what percentage of the restaurant experience can you get from reading about it? Call it 1% at most. So the arithmetic just works out in favor of visiting the restaurants and looking at art books.

That's the most extreme version of the argument. Of course I've been to plenty of museums in the cities I've visited. But not as many as I could have, because I've so often chosen dining over art, architecture and the like. Then again, in places where I feel the arts scene is more attractive than the food scene, like London, I have often chosen theater, opera and ballet over restaurant meals. The performing arts, however, are more interesting to me than museums when I'm on vacation -- they represent more of the inimitable type of experience that a restaurant does.

[Bux]

I have a friend who defines gourmets or food lovers as those for whom a good meal will inspire them to talk of other meals. I'd find it weird to look at a painting in a museum or a gothic cathedral and talk about food, just as I'd find it weird to talk about art when in the presence of good food. Of course I'm being facetious, but I do believe food can be the subject of good conversation and of intelligent conversation and what better place to have that conversation than at a dinner table with fellow enthusiasts.

There are also restaurant meals that are so riveting that they almost demand attention and response, just the way there are films that you just want to discuss -- or at least there were those kind of films in the 60's. There are people who love to eat, but not that kind of food just as there are people who enjoy reading books, just books that create a need to talk about them.

Those people in the article may take it to the extreme, but maybe by attempting to create a gastronaut icon that represents all people whose travel focuses on food, the author makes it appear more like that. I see a bit of myself in all of those people, though I'd not necessarily want to eat with any of them. It's interesting that busboy posted about people who "cross the line from dining for pleasure to food as status." I'm sure we've all known representatives of a similar group who visit museums as if each was a notch on their passport. They've been satirized in the movies and a good many of them might get as much out of a well done travelogue as from being there. I've seen the disappointment on their faces when they're not stamped crossing a border. A passport is a temporary tool. It gets one across borders, it is not the reason we travel. If you want a gut reaction to the local culture, you've literally got to eat the food and you'll get a greater sense of being there from it, that from just looking at the sights. I've spent a long time on travel newsgroups reading posts from people who want to eat quickly and cheaply, so they have money for comfortable beds and time to see the sights. They see the Culture and miss the culture.

Mrs. B and I have been traveling on and off for more than forty years. Food became important early on and eventually a central reason for visiting any place. Think of food as an art or a craft. Think of chefs and cooks as artists, artisans or performers. If a friend said he was taking a trip to hear a famous orchestra, a rock star, or opera company would anyone think he's eccentric? I doubt it.

[robyn]

...There are, however, plenty of genuinely engaged people who emphasize one thing or another when they travel, sometimes to the exclusion of all else. I have certainly chosen food over museums many times when allocating my time. And I would defend the choice of a restaurant over a museum for several reasons: A restaurant is an interactive cultural experience tied to a time and place, whereas the art in a museum can be sent around on a road show and it's exactly the same. I live five minutes away from the Metropolitan Museum of Art and I haven't even seen everything in there yet; why should I spend my vacation time visiting other museums? And, call me a philistine, but I enjoy looking at pictures artwork in books. No, it's not 100% of the experience of seeing artwork live, but let's call it 80%. Now what percentage of the restaurant experience can you get from reading about it? Call it 1% at most. So the arithmetic just works out in favor of visiting the restaurants and looking at art books.

That's the most extreme version of the argument. Of course I've been to plenty of museums in the cities I've visited. But not as many as I could have, because I've so often chosen dining over art, architecture and the like. Then again, in places where I feel the arts scene is more attractive than the food scene, like London, I have often chosen theater, opera and ballet over restaurant meals. The performing arts, however, are more interesting to me than museums when I'm on vacation -- they represent more of the inimitable type of experience that a restaurant does.

←

You don't like the food in London? I thought it was better than the food I had in New York this year. Don't mean to denigrate the theater (that was better in London too the last few trips). And why should one have to choose between those things unless the trip is a short business trip?

BTW - there's a lot of museum stuff that "doesn't travel". The Tut exhibition is a good example. The first US tour bore no relation to what was in the Cairo Museum - both in terms of what was displayed - and how it was displayed. And the second US tour will bear even less relation (the second tour is being used to raise lots of money so maybe the Cairo Museum can hire someone to dust things once a year <sigh>). Of course - parts of this collection *can* travel. The same can't be said of things like sculpture gardens - or gardens for that matter.

Maybe I am missing something here. Unless one sleeps 12 hours a day - and eats 12 hours a day - there are an awful lot of hours in a day to do other things when one is traveling. Robyn

[Busboy]

Mrs. B and I have been traveling on and off for more than forty years. Food became important early on and eventually a central reason for visiting any place. Think of food as an art or a craft. Think of chefs and cooks as artists, artisans or performers. If a friend said he was taking a trip to hear a famous orchestra, a rock star, or opera company would anyone think he's eccentric? I doubt it.

←

In fact, if I had a friend spending a week in Paris who didn't intend to spend a little time revelling in the food culture because they were too busy with museums and the opera and such, I'd consider him to be quite off his chum.

And I'd consider someone who would talk only about food, especially over the course a lenghty, multi-course meal to be missing out on one of the great pleasures of a good meal and good friends: that is the tendency of fine dining to carry the conversation in random directions while seeming to increase the wit and insight of all those taking part. Besides, you can't talk about the concert at the concert or the movie at the movie (I hear the Paris movie theatres are hotbeds of 60's and 70's film afficianados), that's what the cheese course is for.

Hey -- the occasional "let's try every BBQ joint in Johnson County" binge is fine. And I'm sure I keep food uppermost in my mind when planning a trip. But you don't see as much of the world as I'd like if your schedule only carries you from tasting room to cheese shop to dinner.

I think the thing that I found most bewildering in the "gastronaut" approach was the hyper-yuppie, overprepared approach they seemed to take-- the exhaustive research, the endless printouts, the tight schedules. Where's the joy, where's the spontenaity? It's too much like work, too much like, as Fat Guy (that color plate number 23-appreciating Philistine ) put it, trainspotting -- checking off little boxes just to say you did. Yuck. Whether it's museums or Michelin stars or movie star's homes you're checking off, it seems an un fortunate way to travel.

Besides, walking around museums is a great way to work up an appetite.

Edited January 4, 2005 by Busboy (log)

[Carlovski]

I'm pretty sure I heard the term first used by Keith Floyd - would have been at least early nineties.

Whoops - Just saw Andy beat me to that titbit of knowledge.

Edited January 4, 2005 by Carlovski (log)

[Daniel Rogov]

Forgive me being Cartesian but language does count and I believe the term "foodie" incorporates the "gastronaut"? And if I am not mistaken that much more honorable term was perhaps not invented by but certainly brought to renown with good taste and excellent humor by Anne Barr and Paul Levy quite a few years ago.

Edited January 4, 2005 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[Bux]

Fat Guy and I have a very similar approach, though as he notes he's just a philistine, while I've refined my appreciation of life by rising above my baser interests in the physical things a materialist can collect such as art, and by rejecting those things one can enter temporarily such as architecture in favor of cultural aspects with which one can literally become one -- the food.

The thing about obsessive people is that their obsessiveness is always relative to the people judging it. We've had many members who live in small communities where their interests in food is seen as obsessive and who come to the eG forums with a sense of relief as they realize they spend far less time and energy thinking about food than the average member here. As for that article, the subjects were chosen for their value in making a point. Would anyone pay much attention to a couple who lives well and has a good meal when they travel? If you were a good journalist, you'd find the most obsessive subjects or you'd find a way to make them sound obsessive. In either case, we all generally tend to think those who pay less attention to food than we do, must not care all that much about food, and that those who pay much more attention, must be abnormally obsessive. I've been told I couldn't possibly be as interested in food as I think I am if I hadn't eaten such and such a dish when I was in some particular place, or if I hadn't barged into so and so's kitchen and demanded to have him teach me his secrets. More often, I'm just told to relax, it's only dinner. Sometimes I feel I'm the only one who knows how to reach a happy medium.

I will relate one story I find amusing, although you may not all come down on the same side in reaction. Years ago, my sister insisted it would be a good idea to travel with us in Italy. So we set out, Mrs. B, myself and our young daughter, and my sister and my niece. One morning in Florence, my sister and I both arrived for breakfast at the same time, each of us with a guide in hand to help plan the day. My sister looked at her guide book and suggested a few sites and sights to see, asking which I thought were most interesting or most important for us to see. I looked up from my restaurant guide and told her not to worry, this was Florence and that I was sure we'd find a world class monument, museum or edifice around the corner from wherever I chose for lunch. Bear in mind that on my first trip to Florence as a young student of architecture, I stretched a visit planned for six days into one of eight days simply because I hadn't been able to make arrangements to get to Michelangelo's Lorentian library and I had to wait through Sunday to see it on Monday. But I can excuse that to the frivolity of youth. By the time of the trip in question, I was beginning to form more mature values.

My mature and sophisticated writing style also eschews the use of smilies for good reason.

[Kit]

I think something that makes a big difference in how we view these people is whether or not this is thier first trip to where they're going. Chances are, people who have the cash to go eat in every fabulous restaurant in say, Paris, have probably been before. They might have already seen the other stuff. They might not care.

Would it upset people if someone wrote and article about how I'm basing a future trip to London to visit the sites that were in a book I read? They happen to be historical and I'm dying to visit everything Sir Christopher Wren built, but if it wasn't in the book, I probably won't see it. It's kinda the same thing.

I'm sure there's people like the article described out there, just doing it 'cause they want to say they ate at such-and-such place; just ticking off boxes as someone else said. The people I feel sorry for are the ones that are going to go plan culinary tours of wherever because that's how they want to experience the place and then get labeled snobs because they're associated with the people in this article.

[Chris Amirault]

In fact, if I had a friend spending a week in Paris who didn't intend to spend a little time revelling in the food culture because they were too busy with museums and the opera and such, I'd consider him to be quite off his chum. 

[snip]

I think the thing that I found most bewildering in the "gastronaut" approach was the hyper-yuppie, overprepared approach they seemed to take-- the exhaustive research, the endless printouts, the tight schedules.  Where's the joy, where's the spontenaity?

←

As usual, I think Busboy hit the nail on the head here, and I share his bewilderment. I'm reminded of the difference between the tourist -- here, the hyper-yuppie, guides in hand, ready to choose the "perfect" thing to do, eat, or experience, so as to produce a commodity called "experience" for future consumption by others -- and the traveller. While I certainly spend a good deal of time trying to figure out what fun things there are to do in advance, I try to embrace the spontaneity and chance opportunities that any kind of travelling presents.

This seems important especially if you're interested in food (or any sort of) culture, which is by definition a lived, not merely documented and rated, entity. When last in glorious Paris, we stayed a week in an apartment with a kitchen in Montmartre, and ended up shopping on rue Lepic for most of our meals. Each time I went back to that great rue, I was treated with greater interest by the shopkeepers, got ever more wonderful stuff, and we had spectacular meats, fish, cheeses, wines, breads, and sweets just by taking advantage of our neighborhood.

Of course, we could have headed out the door to the Metro station every day with our "To Experience" list and never even gotten over there....

[robyn]

...I think the thing that I found most bewildering in the "gastronaut" approach was the hyper-yuppie, overprepared approach they seemed to take-- the exhaustive research, the endless printouts, the tight schedules.  Where's the joy, where's the spontenaity? It's too much like work, too much like, as Fat Guy (that color plate number 23-appreciating Philistine ) put it, trainspotting -- checking off little boxes just to say you did.  Yuck. Whether it's museums or Michelin stars or movie star's homes you're checking off, it seems an un fortunate way to travel.

Besides, walking around museums is a great way to work up an appetite.

←

I'm not a yuppie (too old) - but - like some people here - I've traveled a fair amount over the last 30+ years or so. And you can't criticize the work that's done in advance of a trip. One doesn't just meander around in the French countryside and pop into a 3 star Michelin restaurant for dinner/rooms without a reservation (well one can do it - but one shouldn't have a realistic expectation of getting a meal and a place to sleep ). When we dined in London last year - we had to reserve the big deal places well in advance.

But there should be a balance. You have some reservations at big deal restaurants - and you have "free days" - where you leave time to explore and stumble into things. Still - there has to be some structure to a trip once you get past the backpack stage. I'm planning 3 trips for 2005 now (one of the things I usually do in January is plan our travel for the year) - and I won't arrive anywhere without transportation/hotel/big deal restaurant reservations. The world is a crowded place these days - and the last thing you want to do when you're thousands of miles away from home is spend half the day on the phone trying to find a place to sleep for the next couple of days.

But - after rereading the article - I still really don't understand how people can do 4 or 5 big deal restaurants in as many or fewer days. It's just too much food - and frequently too much rich food. On my part - my normal rule of thumb (subject to exceptions) is I usually can't take a world class restaurant more than once every 3 days or so. Robyn

P.S. I agree about the walking. Not to work up an appetite - but to work off the calories .

[Luckylies]

The dinner is the art in some places. why not visit it, try to understand it. try it some more, understand some more. try it again. there is nothing odd or disconcerting about visiting a place solely for the food (it brings to mind China in the winter). To wear your food conquests like a medal is a bit lame but especially lame if you could care less about them. It's like romance. no kissing and telling, but if you must tell....describe fondly.

[Fat Guy]

To the average semi-upper middle class international tourist, food is neither art nor art-like. The whole notion of all of us being members of a "culinary arts society" probably seems risible to most folks, especially those who've never experienced culinary artistry and even many of those who have but upon whom it has been lost. (Part of our mission here is to help as many people as possible see things differently, by increasing culinary awareness.) I think it's helpful to bear that in mind when thinking about how the audience is likely to react to this story.