Artwork in Gourmet, Not looking good enough to eat

[Mimi Sheraton]

One thing in favor of old Gourmet was the gorgeous artwork...No longer. judging by the June issue with a cover photo of charbroiled steak that looks cold, greasy, burnt, acrid with charcoal, altogether woebegone..like something forgotten on the picnic table..ditto the klutzy food shots of San Sebastian story with the really stupid conjecture that the city may have more great chefs per square mile than anywhere..or maybe not.

[Lesley C]

I agree.

That steak shot is the ugliest Gourmet cover ever, especially the subscription version where there's no copy on the page to hide the picture. The colours are poor, the styling is terrible. It looks like a mistake.

The old Gourmets had fabulous photos. In fact, I think I keep the old issues just for the dreamy covers. I can't think of one old cover as unappealing as that sad and sorry steak.

[Bob Musa]

you are absolutely spot on. just yesterday my wife and i had a discussion about the cover and concluded that it had to be the ugliest ever to grace a food magazine. her comment was "what's so appetizing about that?". i can't believe that that picture was chosen without the involvement of some sort of nepotism. it certainly wasn't on merit.

[glossyp]

This one trumps the bizarre Thanksgiving turkey photo (looked like either a charred skull or face of an evil creature) from Bon Appetit a few years ago as the least appetizing photo ever on a food magazine cover.

[Mimi Sheraton]

To say nothing of the scorched zucchini, wrinkled tomatoes and what is the white mush on the bottom of the plae? Say it isn't cottage cheese....

[Keith Talent]

Link to image in question Edited May 31, 2005 by Keith Talent (log)

[TAPrice]

Wow. I thought you guys must surely be exaggerating.

That's one of the most unappealing photos I've ever seen.

Maybe they wanted a realistic image of how most people grill? Yikes.

[JPW]

I can't tell if the white things are grilled eggplants or potato chips.

[TAPrice]

I can't tell if the white things are grilled eggplants or potato chips.

←

Soggy, scorched potato chips perhaps?

[Keith Talent]

Zucchini.

[Mimi Sheraton]

Then glance at Pages 146-147...uninspired plateful of dessert and all those knobby barefeet and bony knees....a long way from yummy, don't you think?

[marlena spieler]

the most boring image possible......an image to look at and think: i'm glad i'm not there, in that frame, and i'm so glad i'm eating something better than that for dinner.

is it a dumbing down thing? or is it arrogance, as in, we're so superior that we don't have to make the effort to look good.....the food too, so plain, so boring....

i see this attitude around, but never in america. still, gourmet mag has been a bit that way of late, sort of making a statement...about something, something other than irrisistably good food.

marlena

[Mimi Sheraton]

Could it be about egalitarianism? Beauty is snobbish?

[BuzzDraft]

Geez, it looks like those grill marks were burned on using a cheap Radio Shack soldering iron!

Edited May 31, 2005 by BuzzDraft (log)

[MT-Tarragon]

The editorial page is about how grilling is the province of men. So, my take was that Gourmet thinks that men can not grill food more appetizing than this.

[goldie]

Did you notice that the man's hand on 147? It looks like he has a dirty thumb nail!

My cover photo looks out of focus. Quite frankly, I'm also not interested in seeing models eating the food either. I'd rather have better photos of the food or said illustrations.

[Bob Musa]

Geez, it looks like those grill marks were burned on using a cheap Radio Shack soldering iron!

←

by god, i'm going to get the Maillard reaction if i have to leave this on the grill all day !!!

[marlena spieler]

Could it be about egalitarianism?  Beauty is snobbish?

←

yes, or beauty/beautiful food as elitism, and the photos therefore a stance of: "we are so down to earth we don't need/want our food to be beautiful..."

the thing is, a simple tomato can be the most beautiful food on earth. a slice of bread, a leaf of lettuce. an egg. and i don't think these snobby foods. unless they're kitted out within an inch of their life. in the gourmet photos foods were almost focussed on in an effort to make them ugly, perhaps in the mistaken idea that that was a way of bringing "real" food of the people to readers of gourmet? A reverse snobbism?

somehow something has snapped and it smacks of insincerity. image over passion. perhaps its a reaction to the gastro-porn photos that have been the brunt of criticism, perhaps they wanted to mark themselves as different in this regard. whatever, appetizing as an adjective is not one i'd use for that cold hard steak and boring vegetable cover.

.......and i don't like models with my food either, though i do kinda like seeing a bit of debris after eating, or food that is being eaten in process...sometimes...you know, a broken piece of bread, a plate of cassoulet with a fork and some signs of eating action having occurred....i like a bit of reality to intrude on my perfection...but you know, a sensuous reality, not a cold hard unadorned steak reality. and also why are there several slices of meat on the edge of that steak? is it to imply that the steak has been cut into? but the steak looks like it is made from plastic, and i didn't see a spot from where the steak would have been, could have been, cut (but i only saw the cover in the photo right here, not in person).

here's what i do like to see in food photos: real food, real luscious appetizing food that i can almost smell.....

marlena

Edited June 1, 2005 by marlena spieler (log)

[FabulousFoodBabe]

A food styling teacher told me a few years ago that Gourmet doesn't "style" for the camera: that the food is photographed as cooked. I don't mean that they don't try to pretty it up, just that it's not created for the camera. And still, it used to look better.

Ugly as it is, that steak is better than whatsisface playing air whisk.

[marlena spieler]

A food styling teacher told me a few years ago that Gourmet doesn't "style" for the camera: that the food is photographed as cooked.  I don't mean that they don't try to pretty it up, just that it's not created for the camera.  And still, it used to look better. 

Ugly as it is, that steak is better than whatsisface playing air whisk.

←

but i'm sure there was an editorial a year or two ago about a photography session, with details etc about what was going on, the food etc. i mean it all sounded like it was being styles pretty much like other food photog sessions. also, the choice of ingredients for the shot: the plate. the steak. the grill marks. the vegetables. the stiff way the little slices of meat or whatever are laid alongside. the accompaniments to the steak are franky not only unappetizing but pretentious.

anyhow, i have a thing about cherry tomatoes on the vine anyhow, having been told about them as a marketing tool rather than any boon to deliciousness or sign of freshness.

its just that the photo is cold. stark. pretentious. uninspired. just the facts, ma'am. and i wonder if this is a statement. ie a reaction against the overly styled lavish photos of other publications or time.......or what is the psychology behind it? maybe they had a reason but it went wrong?

i'm sure that the gourmet editors, at least one or two might be lurking, so maybe they can join in with an explanation of what they were trying to put across to the readers?

marlena

ps i'm with you: no whatshisface playing with a whisk on my covers, nor whatsherface. i want a cover that promises me delight. (some of the old covers of places as well as food did just that.......) something with some interest and content....

Edited June 1, 2005 by marlena spieler (log)

[Osnav]

I think it is a problem with the publishing at Gourmet.

They have let the quality and passion lag at the magazine. A few years ago they made a decision to move away from a food magazine and move it into the "food lifestyle" catgegory. I have been reading Gourmet since the 70's and now when I pull out an old issue and compare it to the new Gourmet I am always disappointed with the new product.

The product has become more of a travel magazine with food. The emphasis being on the travel portion.

As to the food part of the magazine:

I think their recipes have gotten worse, their photography certainly has lagged, and their covers show no inspiration. I know everybody loves Ruth; but let's face it she's at the helm and the product is suffering as a food-related product.

The product she is putting out is vastly inferior to what it used to be (for "foodies").

The Gourmet Cookbook she put out last Holiday Season was an embarassment to the Conde Nast name.

She was really catty and defensive when talking about Chow Magazine when it first appeared.

Probably her greatest asset is her ability to write. She can spin a pretty good food-related story. Unfortunately, she is the Editor of Gourmet and being a good writer is not the most important skill to have as Editor.

I am sure Conde Nast is making more advertising dollars with the new focus, so I doubt anything is going to change the focus of the magazine in the near future.

We are left to find our food-related information in other magazines a media outlets. I personally like Saveur much better than Gourmet right now. I was also very incouraged by the 1st issue of Chow magazine (but I haven't seen a 2nd issue yet).

I find Cooks Ill. losing energy (probably too much energy spent in doing America's Test Kitchen and trying to sell a gadzillion books).

Thank God we have sites like eGullet where we can go and read and talk about Food.

[Rebel Rose]

After finally picking up the magazine and reading the editor's opening piece (I hadn't been interested in the issue until now ) I think what Reichl's trying to convey is that the issue is a Father's Day theme, a tribute to men. And she closes with a sentence declaring that she's learned how to light a grill.

However, the tone of the editorial is unfortunately condescending and one dimensional. I suspect the cover photo is some flippy food stylist's impression of what a "real man" would slap on a plate. Well, do we buy Gourmet magazine to see a redundant picture of what Uncle Bubba used to fire up for the family, or do we buy Gourmet to get inspired, and to improve our skills as cooks?

Maybe next spring, Gourmet will actually get original and ask women what they're grilling for Mother's Day, and what their favorite grill toys and recipes are! Like this experiment with salmon topped with honey tangerine and starfruit on a bed of herbs. Or the lobster tails brushed with bay branches.

In fact, if the editors wanted to make all their readers happy, the magazine should have featured some women in pretty aprons grilling up treats and fixing proper cocktails for their men on Father's Day.

[jtcookie]

Ditto the above regarding culinary content! I'm seriously doubting the future of a 20 year subscription.

When we saw the cover the first question was "Why the hell are they serving boiled rice under a steak?"

Ill conceived, poorly constructed, and sloppily executed, though not bad for a glossy travel brochure! Maybe the editor should stick to her desk, and leave food styling to others.

John

[bilrus]

After finally picking up the magazine and reading the editor's opening piece (I  hadn't been interested in the issue until now  ) I think what Reichl's trying to convey is that the issue is a Father's Day theme, a tribute to men.  And she closes with a sentence declaring that she's learned how to light a grill.

However, the tone of the editorial is unfortunately condescending and one dimensional.  I suspect the cover photo is some flippy food stylist's impression of what a "real man" would slap on a plate. 

←

Or maybe they should check out what "real men (and women)" can do without the help of a food stylist and professional photographer.

[malcolmjolley]

I am continually surpised at how much hostility there is for Gourmet here at eGullet. I've never really thought of it as bleeding edge, so I don't get too dissapointed when there's a crappy issue, which I think happens to all magazines from time to time. I admit I'm not a big fan, but I kind of expect it to be boring.

I guess Ruth Reichl's appointment raised some hopes that the magazine would be somehow different or would raise the bar somehow. Is that what's happening?

I also wonder if it's popular outside of our rarified circle and whether circulation has grown over the last few years. Anyone know?