Graham Elliot Bowles on locavorism

ABC News wrote:One last point on the local farmer thing, we were laughing in the kitchen the other day, predicting that the next wave is gonna be putting, underneath the farmer [name], another layer of wording which would be the name of the migrant immigrant who picked your stuff on the farm. So it would be, Johnny's farm from blah, blah blah, picked by Manuel Ortiz from this part of Mexico who makes $3 an hour, so you feel nothing but guilt as you eat this food.

The standard old strawman argument rears its head again.

Quoting GEB, ABC News wrote:"To me, spring is this amazing abundance of things and because I'm located in this one spot doesn't mean that I'm not able to use things from other areas, ... this idea that because this person again chose to live this life that I'm supposed to support that because it's politically correct right now, I definitely don't follow that idea.

Uh, where are all of these ultra PC weirdo restuaranteurs of which he speaks? Even Mado, often rightly cited as one of the biggest supporters of local food, brings in ingredients from outside the area when doing so fits the chef's vision for a dish. And who are the chefs seeking out local food just because it's politically correct and not because they think it tastes great?

LAZ wrote:

ABC News wrote:One last point on the local farmer thing, we were laughing in the kitchen the other day, predicting that the next wave is gonna be putting, underneath the farmer [name], another layer of wording which would be the name of the migrant immigrant who picked your stuff on the farm. So it would be, Johnny's farm from blah, blah blah, picked by Manuel Ortiz from this part of Mexico who makes $3 an hour, so you feel nothing but guilt as you eat this food.

Thank you chef; may I have another?

I spent the weekend in and around New Paltz, New York. New Paltz, where you can't swing a pastured poultry without running in to local food. A community that, despite its relatively small population of less than 7K, manages to support dozens of restaurants that support local farms. Restaurants that proudly list said farms on their menus.

Why is this a problem or an issue or a point of fun? Maybe it's only possible for small communities to care about each other? My weekend experience indicated a truly symbiotic relationship can exist...businesses supported farmers so farmers had the $$ to support the businesses in turn. Standard disclaimer: My cousin owns Four Winds Farm, an organic local family farm. No hordes of underpaid illegal farm workers, just my cousin's four person family and one fairly paid employee.

Hence some of my head scratching over Chef GEB's reported comment. Just how big does he think these kinds of enterprises are?

Admittedly this is an anecdote and anecdotes do not a case make but here's what I saw happening: We went to dinner Friday night at a family run Japanese restaurant. My cousin knew the owner although hadn't eaten there in a while. After dinner the restaurant's owner chatted with Cousin: "How are your blueberries?" "We're picking them now" "I think I could use some" "Fine, I'll drop a few quarts off tomorrow"

For me, this is what local food is all about. For the lucky patrons of this restaurant it means a seasonal dessert with just about the freshest ingredient possible. For Cousin it means his small business made another sale. And around and around and around.

We were in the same area this weekend! Staying at the Mohonk Mountain House near New Paltz. On our way there from the airport in Albany, we stopped in Saugerties and had lunch at a place called Lucy's Kitchen, where we had "local corn bisque" to start and "local blueberry shortcake" to finish. Both gave local a good name.

Chef Bowles might want to look into having someone else do his media. Today he unleashed the following on Twitter/Facebook:

Three words of the day: FUCK CHICAGO MAGAZINE

I mean, I'm sure we've all felt that way at one time or another, but I'd be curious to know just what he's so upset about.

jesteinf wrote:Chef Bowles might want to look into having someone else do his media. Today he unleashed the following on Twitter/Facebook:

Three words of the day: FUCK CHICAGO MAGAZINE

I mean, I'm sure we've all felt that way at one time or another, but I'd be curious to know just what he's so upset about.

Saw that and then read the blog post (article?) on their site about the pre-lala tasting held on Monday night. I could not see what GEB had a problem with but of course, Chicago Mag. was not quoting me or rating my food

He's pissed about the kind of catty comments on each dish here. (Go to slideshow to see aforesaid cattiness.)

For the record, I totally disagree about the pork belly bao from Sunda; the, er, two that I ate were about as good as Peking duck at Sun Wah, and nothing dry about the bun at all.

And the secret of eating a Kuma's burger without a plate is, cup it in a napkin or other paper sideways, so the egg runs to the bottom.

Currently on the Chicago Magazine blog, people are coming out strongly against what they see as a snobby, snide snark of a review (I snorted at comment, "reads like some snotty nosed fauxhemian's yelp review" -- that's gonna leave a mark).

Just looking at the pix, it's clear that what GEB and his chefly cohort are planning for this event is vastly more imaginative than anything I've ever seen at a concert...and it compares very well to the kind of stuff you'd expect to eat at events like Chicago Gourmet. It's tough arguing taste, of course, but comments like the one about "shellfish in the hot sun" seem pointless in that no one is going to have shrimp sitting in the sun waiting to be ordered, and, honestly, a cool shrimp on a warm day sounds just peachy to me.

I didn't think the slideshow was that bad. Although, I could see how "reviewing" food at what was supposed to be a press event was pretty poor form (not that I know how these things are "supposed" to work).

jesteinf wrote:I didn't think the slideshow was that bad. Although, I could see how "reviewing" food at what was supposed to be a press event was pretty poor form (not that I know how these things are "supposed" to work).

Not sure reviewing food at an event like this is a question of form. I mean, I believe people do want to know what kind of purportedly incredible food is going to be served at Lolla, so it seems CM's review is not out of line for that reason.

I didn't think the slideshow was that bad. Although, I could see how "reviewing" food at what was supposed to be a press event was pretty poor form (not that I know how these things are "supposed" to work).

Nobody seems to know how these things work. I actually critiqued one once and was pretty much disinvited for good by that PR agency (admittedly, part of what I critiqued was the nature of that kind of event, so I was hitting them right in the bread and butter). I wondered out loud what the restaurant is really getting out of feeding a bunch of "journalists" (who may or may not merit the term without quotes) who have already figured out that their continued invitation to free food is best served by never actually writing about what they're invited to. A point which I promptly demonstrated for them...

I think it's pretty obvious that the restaurants, chefs, PR firms and their ilk think they're buying buzz and positive publicity by giving away free food and kissing the asses of "media" people. That is how it works in their minds: they give you free stuff and special invitations, so you write nice things about them. Really, this is hard to figure out?

Kennyz wrote:I think it's pretty obvious that the restaurants, chefs, PR firms and their ilk think they're buying buzz and positive publicity by giving away free food and kissing the asses of "media" people. That is how it works in their minds: they give you free stuff and special invitations, so you write nice things about them. Really, this is hard to figure out?

And then you act like a five year old when they don't write what you want.

so you write nice things about them

Except, on the whole, for the writing anything part. That's my point.

UPDATE: There's more here.

I dunno, I think I could point out several people who continue to get invited to these things precisely because they do write about them, and because on the rare occasion that they have anything remotely negative to say about the food, they bury it way beneath heaps of praise and excitement for the people, the spectacle, etc. involved in whatever free stuff they were given.

Mike G wrote:

so you write nice things about them

Except, on the whole, for the writing anything part. That's my point.

UPDATE: There's more here.

GEB is digging himself deeper into a hole here. He doesn't need my business or advice. But he certainly is making me less likely to return to his restaurant.

I agree, but I actually think he's right - that Chicagomag writeup reads like a C-student's High School project. Every High School has its set of bratty C-students and its set of arrogant, self-entitled pricks. Both sides seem well represented here.

I think I could point out several people

I can't imagine who you're talking about, Kennyz!

Seriously, what always strikes me when I post something about such things is what an exception to the rule my sense of duty about putting something up about everything is.* Have someone who the PR agencies actually like wrangle you an invitation to your standard Wednesday afternoon graze at some place promoting Wines of Transylvania or whatever. Then go around the room, collect as many business cards as you can, and try to match them up later with coverage somewhere, anywhere. You will find it impossible to justify these things on a cost/benefit analysis, based on what little gets written later. But then, clearly the PR firms are going by the metric of "Look how full the room is," not "Look at the press we got." (Stating that obvious fact out loud is what got me in trouble last time.)

But that's also why I posted "hey look a party" about this thing but not, much, here's what I thought about X, Y and Z as cuisine. (Yes, I said I liked the thing from Sunda, in a sentence or two, less than Vettel had to say about the deer at Courtright's, I'm sure.) It would be bizarre to "review" a "Kuma's Burger" that came out of the kitchen at Graham Elliott as if 1) I'd never had such a thing before and 2) it was a normal meal at Kuma's. So I wrote a kind of fluffy piece about a party I went to, with a moderately interesting element to it (rock and roll wants real food now). Some days you're gonna plumb the depths of family memories, some days you just go to a party.

That said, I think the people who have the real reviewing gigs are right to stay away from such things, as the reaction here demonstrates. It's apparently way too easy for chefs to think that they're owed nice words in return for $22.50 worth of stuff, and that means it's way too easy for the writer to find himself weighing the value of stating an opinion versus the future free food one might be foregoing by stating it. I don't have an easy answer for that, nor am I going to claim that I don't find myself feeling compromised in some way from time to time. But I also know that the best things I do come out of being plugged into the scene in various ways. So I try to avoid the most obviously problematic situations (a fair number of invites to obviously mediocre places get turned down, so I won't find myself at 11:00 at night trying to be diplomatic about a train wreck), accept that there are certain chefs I already know and am not as impartial as a statue of Justice on (Bowles being one; you and I dined at another last Friday), and try not to pass off something (a fluffy post about a party) as something it's not (a serious review).

* There was a perfect example of this a while back when some LTHers were invited to a dinner by a restaurant group. I think I'm the only one who ever wrote anything about it, at least of any consequence, which included some criticism. Of course, I heard from one of the others that my minor criticisms had rankled. If I could have just shut up, it would have been a perfect PR event, twelve people fed and not one among them betraying the host by actually producing publicity from it.

In case there is still confusion, 312diningdiva has a perfect example of how you're supposed to write these things up. In that description, you'll see winning copy such as,

Even if you're not a fan of this year's music headliners, Lolla's ticket price just might be worth it to sample star dishes from these star chefs.

You'll also see an accurate description of the purpose of the event:

the city's culinary elite flocked to Graham Elliot Bowles' eponymous resto Monday to applaud the gastronomic lineup of chefs participating at this year's Lollapalooza." (emphasis mine)

The purpose was not to review, comment, or editorialize. The purpose was to applaud.

We can only study and learn.

When I grow up, I want to be a cog in a PR machine.

The only reason I reached for 'fauxhemian' was that after accepting a 'pr cog' meal, the in kind comments were bratty and silly. It seemed unnecessary to point out that Kuma's burgers etc. are not normal 'fair' fare [the entire outdoor appropriateness scale was incorporated to this end], and I truly do think it will be awesome to eat this stuff at Lolla.

I realize this is a member of the press writing that is free to share negative opinions...but to what end? Is the point actually to prevent this food from being served, prevent other risky/adventurous attempts to feed people good, well-made food at venues like Lolla, or stop concertgoers from buying it? I think that stinks.

gastrique wrote:The only reason I reached for 'fauxhemian' was that after accepting a 'pr cog' meal, the in kind comments were bratty and silly. It seemed unnecessary to point out that Kuma's burgers etc. are not normal 'fair' fare [the entire outdoor appropriateness scale was incorporated to this end], and I truly do think it will be awesome to eat this stuff at Lolla.

I realize this is a member of the press writing that is free to share negative opinions...but to what end? Is the point actually to prevent this food from being served, prevent other risky/adventurous attempts to feed people good, well-made food at venues like Lolla, or stop concertgoers from buying it? I think that stinks.

It's fine to say the review in Chicago Mag was done poorly. But it doesn't make sense to say that the food shouldn't be critically reviewed in the first place. Why bother going then?

Darren72 wrote:

gastrique wrote:The only reason I reached for 'fauxhemian' was that after accepting a 'pr cog' meal, the in kind comments were bratty and silly. It seemed unnecessary to point out that Kuma's burgers etc. are not normal 'fair' fare [the entire outdoor appropriateness scale was incorporated to this end], and I truly do think it will be awesome to eat this stuff at Lolla.

I realize this is a member of the press writing that is free to share negative opinions...but to what end? Is the point actually to prevent this food from being served, prevent other risky/adventurous attempts to feed people good, well-made food at venues like Lolla, or stop concertgoers from buying it? I think that stinks.

It's fine to say the review in Chicago Mag was done poorly. But it doesn't make sense to say that the food shouldn't be critically reviewed in the first place. Why bother going then?

Darren, did you miss it? You go so that you can applaud.

The only thing worse than being talked about...



Also, Nagrant just retweeted The Southern's shrimp cocktail, so everybody's corrupt now.

Kennyz wrote:

Darren72 wrote:

gastrique wrote:The only reason I reached for 'fauxhemian' was that after accepting a 'pr cog' meal, the in kind comments were bratty and silly. It seemed unnecessary to point out that Kuma's burgers etc. are not normal 'fair' fare [the entire outdoor appropriateness scale was incorporated to this end], and I truly do think it will be awesome to eat this stuff at Lolla.

I realize this is a member of the press writing that is free to share negative opinions...but to what end? Is the point actually to prevent this food from being served, prevent other risky/adventurous attempts to feed people good, well-made food at venues like Lolla, or stop concertgoers from buying it? I think that stinks.

It's fine to say the review in Chicago Mag was done poorly. But it doesn't make sense to say that the food shouldn't be critically reviewed in the first place. Why bother going then?

Darren, did you miss it? You go so that you can applaud.

What about validating your membership in the "city's culinary elite"?

[quote="Darren72"]
It's fine to say the review in Chicago Mag was done poorly. But it doesn't make sense to say that the food shouldn't be critically reviewed in the first place. Why bother going then?[/quote]

Why bother going to Lolla? The food is a bonus, but mostly for the music/experience. If you're saying why should the Chicagomag people bother to go to the preview if their opinions should be positive de facto---I don't know. I guess I'd feel like going to a soft-open restaurant, reviewing before the game begins is a bit amateur hour. Thus, the yelp dig.

I guess I shouldn't say a review is out of the question...at the venue, or in context of this food vs. what the alternatives are. So really I just take issue with this one, you're right. Maybe what I mean is, the review mocks the Taste [a 'typical standard' for temporary outdoor food offerings], says this food is good and an improvement, and then dismantles each offering for not being more like standard temporary food offerings... it read to me more like a more large scale dismissal of trying to do something different. That's what stomped on my enthusiasm.

Vital Information wrote:What about validating your membership in the "city's culinary elite"?

Oh yes, definitely. The purpose for the organizers is to garner applause. The purpose for many of the attendees is validation, at least in (large) part.

And Nagrant lost his immunity to this stuff long ago.

gastrique wrote:

Darren72 wrote:It's fine to say the review in Chicago Mag was done poorly. But it doesn't make sense to say that the food shouldn't be critically reviewed in the first place. Why bother going then?

Why bother going to Lolla? The food is a bonus, but mostly for the music/experience.

I guess I shouldn't say a review is out of the question...at the venue, or in context of this food vs. what the alternatives are. So really I just take issue with this one, you're right. Maybe what I mean is, the review mocks the Taste [a 'typical standard' for temporary outdoor food offerings], says this food is good and an improvement, and then dismantles each offering for not being more like standard temporary food offerings... it read to me more like a more large scale dismissal of trying to do something different. That's what stomped on my enthusiasm.

I meant why bother going to GEB's press event, not why bother going to Lolla.