Chodorow's Response to Bruni's Review

[Nathan]

that's why I questioned the existence of food criticism qua criticism up the thread (why I said we might be "full of ourselves")...

but I also noted that if Trilling had or if Rothstein wanted to....write an essay on cuisine...I would love to read it.

of course, this has been done.

Fernandez-armesto wrote "Near a Thousand Tables" which is precisely a monograph using food as a cultural lens. I'm not even counting the Kurlansky pop-books on salt, cod and oysters

of course, the grand-daddy of them all is Brillat-Savarin's "Physiology of Taste".....which, indubitably, fits into the category of criticism and not restaurant reviews.

[Nathan]

an English version of the Physiology of Taste can be read (for free) here:

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/b/brillat/savarin/b85p/

[oakapple]

"Critic" v. "reviewer" isn't some new concept Nathan cooked up for the purpose of this thread.  It's this standard accepted distinction.

←

If there is such a difference in theory, it is not rigorously observed by any Times critic, in any field where it employs them.

It's not up to the WRITER to follow the distinction. It's up to the reader, to know what they're getting.

←

And what you do indeed get is a mixture of both. The distinction depends on the circumstances, as well as the knowledge and insight the writer brings to bear on the subject. Edited February 21, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

"Critic" v. "reviewer" isn't some new concept Nathan cooked up for the purpose of this thread.  It's this standard accepted distinction.

←

If there is such a difference in theory, it is not rigorously observed by any Times critic, in any field where it employs them.

It's not up to the WRITER to follow the distinction. It's up to the reader, to know what they're getting.

←

And what you do indeed get is a mixture of both. The distinction depends on the circumstances, as well as the knowledge and insight the writer brings to bear on the subject.

←

It doesn't, though. Andre Bazin, writing a movie review on deadline the night the movie opened, would have been fuctioning as a reviewer, even though his general status as a critic is indisputable.

[Sneakeater]

Think of it this way. This isn't a qualitative distinction as much as it's a category distinction (although most people would agree that one category is better than the other). Like you can have a one-star restaurant that's better at being a one-star restaurant than a certain two-star restaurant is at being a two-star restaurant. But the one-star restaurant's extraordinary success at being a one-star restaurant doesn't make it a two-star restaurant (or didn't until Bruni).

Or, Laurent Tourondel is a hamburger chef when he does BLT Burger and a three-star chef when he does (did) Cello. It's a category distinction.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[rconnelly]

A critic shouldn't "represent" anybody. A critic should represent the cause of excellence in cuisine.

←

No a critic should "represent" the dining public.

Unlike cooking, a review isn't only "about the food", it's about the experience.

You can have the most excellent cuisine, but if the service sucks, or the room is cold or the prices are over the top....this is what a review is about.

[Fat Guy]

Frank Bruni's designation, used repeatedly in the Times, is "restaurant critic."

"Frank Bruni was named restaurant critic for The New York Times in April 2004." (From his NYT bio page)

"Your hosts are Frank Bruni, restaurant critic for The Times . . ." (From the Diner's Journal blog)

"Frank Bruni, the restaurant critic of The New York Times" (From a Times article earlier this month)

[Fat Guy]

No a critic should "represent" the dining public.

←

That's the job of the Zagat survey. Real critics need to be able to say, for example, that a very popular restaurant (or film, or performance, or work of art, or book) is actually terrible.

[Nathan]

that's why I said:

to be fair, reviewers are often mis-entitled "critics" today...I think as an attempt to give them authority.

the Times refers to its art reviewers as "critics" as well.

yet everyone in art knows the difference.

Edited February 21, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

Frank Bruni's designation, used repeatedly in the Times, is "restaurant critic."

"Frank Bruni was named restaurant critic for The New York Times in April 2004." (From his NYT bio page)

"Your hosts are Frank Bruni, restaurant critic for The Times . . ." (From the Diner's Journal blog)

"Frank Bruni, the restaurant critic of The New York Times" (From a Times article earlier this month)

←

That's just loose terminology.

I mean, you don't expect daily newspapers to respect the critic/reviewer distinction that academics created pretty much for the express purpose of dissing daily newspapers.

[rconnelly]

"Critic" v. "reviewer" isn't some new concept Nathan cooked up for the purpose of this thread.  It's this standard accepted distinction.

←

If there is such a difference in theory, it is not rigorously observed by any Times critic, in any field where it employs them.

It's not up to the WRITER to follow the distinction. It's up to the reader, to know what they're getting.

But really, Times writers mainly write about events, on deadline. That's classic reviewing. Sometimes, they get to write "Critic's Notebook" thinkpieces. And some of them (like Rothstein) only write thinkpieces like that. That's closer to criticism. (I'll spot you that given the restaurant reviewer's choice of what to write about each week, and hence control over his deadline, it's not strict deadline "reviewing" in the absolute classic sense.)

←

I never know what to call myself: reviewer? critic?

I'd guess I'm a reviewer if the owner likes what I wrote and a critic if they don't.

Edited February 21, 2007 by rconnelly (log)

[Sneakeater]

I don't want to sound snobby, but it just seems to me that talking about (let alone denying) the critic/reviewer distinction without having read any of the shelvesfull of materials about it -- or, as also happens, talking about whether cuisine can be art without having read any of the shelvesfull of materials on "how do you define what can be art?" -- is sort of like Frank Bruni writing restaurant reviews.

[oakapple]

I mean, you don't expect daily newspapers to respect the critic/reviewer distinction that academics created pretty much for the express purpose of dissing daily newspapers.

←

I'm not sure that any of us should respect that.

My questions are:

A) Is there such a thing as restaurant criticism? If you're saying that it doesn't exist at all, then whether Bruni is charged with writing it is utterly beside the point.

B) If such a thing exists, where else could it, would it, should it, does it, come from, if not from Bruni (or a more qualified occupant of the post he occupies)?

[Fat Guy]

that's why I said:

to be fair, reviewers are often mis-entitled "critics" today...I think as an attempt to give them authority.

the Times refers to its art reviewers as "critics" as well.

yet everyone in art knows the difference.

←

By "today" what do you mean? Forever?

[rconnelly]

that's why I said:

to be fair, reviewers are often mis-entitled "critics" today...I think as an attempt to give them authority.

the Times refers to its art reviewers as "critics" as well.

yet everyone in art knows the difference.

←

By "today" what do you mean? Forever?

←

I think we're getting into Bill Clintonesque here. What does "is" mean?

[Sneakeater]

I mean, you don't expect daily newspapers to respect the critic/reviewer distinction that academics created pretty much for the express purpose of dissing daily newspapers.

←

I'm not sure that any of us should respect that.

But Marc, that is EXACTLY the kind of pseudo-populist know-nothingism that we all criticize Bruni for (and frankly beneath you).

You wanna just disregard the work of people whose actual job it is to think hard about this stuff (i.e., what is criticism? what is the function of criticism)? Fine. But don't wear it like a badge of honor.

My questions are:

A) Is there such a thing as restaurant criticism? If you're saying that it doesn't exist at all, then whether Bruni is charged with writing it is utterly beside the point.

B) If such a thing exists, where else could it, would it, should it, does it, come from, if not from Bruni (or a more qualified occupant of the post he occupies)?

←

A. If restaurant criticism exists, it exists in periodicals that exist to discuss food and restaurants, that do it in a topical, general way. Are there such things? I assume there are. (I am NOT talking about Gourmet, obviously.)

Food criticism certainly exists, since there's an existing magnum opus by Brillat-Saverin (hope I spelled that right). (BTW, guys, spring for the M.F.K. Fisher translation.)

B. Bruni can write criticism in his periodic think-pieces. He chooses to write journalism instead -- which is a valid choice that I'm not criticizing. But the most brilliant food writer in the world couldn't write criticism in a short weekly review column. It's a different function.

Edited February 21, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Fat Guy]

I don't want to sound snobby, but it just seems to me that talking about (let alone denying) the critic/reviewer distinction without having read any of the shelvesfull of materials about it -- or, as also happens, talking about whether cuisine can be art without having read any of the shelvesfull of materials on "how do you define what can be art?" -- is sort of like Frank Bruni writing restaurant reviews.

←

It's a very simple distinction. One doesn't have to read more than a paragraph, no less shelves of books, to understand the basic contention that "reviews are for people who are deciding whether to go to the movie; criticism is for people who have already seen the movie." The thing is, it's not a relevant distinction for this conversation. Bruni does both. For example, his "critic's notebook" pieces are criticism in the more formal academic sense of the term and his weekly reviews are more along the lines of reviews, sometimes laced with criticism. Big deal. What does it have to do with anything? How does it change the job?

The literature on the question of what constitutes art is a different kind of literature. The review/criticism distinction, though not particularly meaningful or relevant here, is well established. The question of defining art is not settled, and more importantly most of that literature has been put forth by people who are utterly ignorant about cuisine and it was written at a time when people like Ferran Adria didn't exist. More important than the pretentious literature defining art to exclude various arts is the historical reality that the definition of art has always expanded to include new art despite massive opposition every single time. The notion that cuisine is not art is laughable and will be viewed as such over time. This is well understood in Spain, where whole conferences are held based on the correct assumption that Ferran Adria is an artist.

[Sneakeater]

You know what constitutes restaurant criticism (as opposed to reviewing)?

Those posts where Fat Guy synthesizes some combination of elements and generates a theory that clarifies either a restaurant in particular or a restaurant trend.

[Fat Guy]

I should add, the distinction is really between reviews and criticism, not between reviewers and critics. You don't get barred from writing criticism just because you write reviews.

[Sneakeater]

I should add, the distinction is really between reviews and criticism, not between reviewers and critics. You don't get barred from writing criticism just because you write reviews.

←

I tried to make that point above. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

[slkinsey]

This seems to be getting awfully far afield. Regardless what some members of academia may have to say on the matter, a critic is one who offers criticism or, as Merriam-Webster puts it: "one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances" and criticism as "the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature; also : writings expressing such evaluation or analysis." I would suggest that the "art" part of this definition is a bit old-fashioned, as someone these days could certainly be a "sitcom critic," and I don't imagine too many of us think of "Joey" as "Art."

Yes, there may be certain areas of academia in which "criticism" has a different and more refined meaning. There are certain areas of academia in which all kinds of words have different and more refined meanings.

Edited February 21, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[oakapple]

No a critic should "represent" the dining public.

←

That's the job of the Zagat survey. Real critics need to be able to say, for example, that a very popular restaurant (or film, or performance, or work of art, or book) is actually terrible.

←

Bruni's job does require an element of "consumer reports." He needs to convey basic information like location, comfort, ambiance, price, service, etc. He reports on these items from the perspective of what he believes the typical diner would perceive. This part of the job, he has nailed. But it's only half the job.

[Fat Guy]

Perspective and representation are two different things. But of course, the perspective is fictional anyway.

[oakapple]

I mean, you don't expect daily newspapers to respect the critic/reviewer distinction that academics created pretty much for the express purpose of dissing daily newspapers.

←

I'm not sure that any of us should respect that.

But Marc, that is EXACTLY the kind of pseudo-populist know-nothingism that we all criticize Bruni for (and frankly beneath you).

←

I was not suggesting that it is noble to be ill-informed.

But if indeed the distinction was created "pretty much for the express purpose of dissing daily newspapers," then it isn't very helpful in a discussion about what we should expect from a newspaper critic.

I was also trying to drop the hint — which FG has now expressed better than I ever could — that the academics probably haven't thought much about cuisine as a subject of criticism.

Edited February 21, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

Reviews = Bruni's pieces every Wednesday

Criticism = Bruni's occasional pieces

Unabomber = Chodorow's new blog