thinking out loud.

today our morning class was the introduction to gastronomy. perfect for our first monday of a full week of classes. it seems as though gastronomy doesn't have a very clear definition or understanding in any language - which i guess is why we're all here, why we have no idea what we'll do with this degree. if you take into account the significance of what astronomy or economy represent to you then gastronomy is the all-encompassing subject that deals with everything food. our teacher explained the concept of critical thinking and how it's important to go into depth about a subject, think outside the box, ask a lot of questions, and to analyze enough to create a different frame of reference than what's presented in front of you; we learn from these food experts and understand their ideas to be true, but what and who can we really trust? he challenged us to question what is "good"? berchoux wrote about "good" food rules, brimod wrote about what he considered "good" food places/restaurants and brillat-savarin wrote about his opinion of taste in his book, physiology of taste, which has been famous since he wrote it, mainly due to the fact that he had a "good" publisher. these men are all historically the origniators of food writers but we cannot accept their "goods" as absolute truths.

one of the first questions our teacher asked us was to tell what our roommates don't like about gastronomy. i could only think of things we had in common and things that arina likes - fresh fruit juice, cheeses, crackers with cheese, her pepper mill, pistachio gelato, the hand-held food processor, spicy food :) - we hadn't much talked about what we don't like. but around the room the question went on being answered, and besides different foods that people don't like for allergy/religious/taboo reasons, a common theme was the idea that gastronomy creates a sort of thought of elitism. interesting idea because especially in NYC, everyone wants to write about food and restaurants, find the best hamburger, the best cup of coffee....what does it mean to be an elitist? our teacher said that anyone who knows how to read portrays an elitist because it means you know how to read, you had to ability to learn how to read.

as the class delved further into different revolutions that have changed the world of food, we focused on modernity and media. he compared Rachael Ray to the opposite of a gastronome and called her a "she-devil." she is not a chef, she has never claimed to be, but is instead a tv personality. this celebrity figure appeals to the mass audience - which is why she is so popular on the food network (or not popular, but still, most everyone at least knows who she is). didn't we just learn that gastronomy is about including all aspects of food - whether its "good" or it's bad? didn't we just discuss how we hated that gastronomy exuded elitism? in her defense, maybe she doesn't cook, or create recipes of the healthiest foods, but she is popular because she appeals to the mass public of most of america. not everyone has time to cook for their families, nor have the money to spend a lot of money on food (didn't we learn that good food doesn't have to be expensive?) but she encourages the nation to cook at home and to share their meals with their families rather than a drive through/quick dinner in the car. i am not a fan of her cooking or her talk show, but i have respect for the concept of her tv show and for what she has made of herself - she might be annoying and quirky, but she has built an empire just as wolfgang puck has - he has tinned soups and restaurants in airports - who's complaining about him?

part of modern media is blogging - oh, hell0 - it's important to think about your audience. rachael ray has a distinct audience. julie/julia was a blog and who cared about reading that? hollywood did, and now she has a book and a film starring merryl streep. but how can you compare julia child with rachael ray? yeah they might not have the same food concepts (and considering different time periods esp in the world of gastronomy), but for some reason julia child has way more respect. i feel weird defending rachael ray because working at the food network, i found her to be annoying too, but i understand her 30-minute concept and appreciate who's she's reaching out to to encourage cooking at home. but if we're going to understand gastronomy in this course, it should be about all food aspects - the good and the bad. if rachael ray is popular, there is a reason. if we're going to complain that people think gastronomy is perceived as elitist, then how can we think we're better than rachael ray?