sorry, now i changed my mind again. this guy is definitely a troll and deliberately starts threads to get into pointless arguments and to get under people's skin.
论坛
McDonald's
Magnifico, you are absolutely incorrect. Anyone who knows me, knows that I take food very seriously. This is a part of my life. A troll is someone who says stuff for a reaction, but I feel very strong about this issue.
By the same token food is never objectively good, it can be objectively well prepared, fresh, nutritious, or culturally significant, but never good. As for the profession of foodies, get back to us once food critics require a phd, postdoc, and publishesd research, and then ill be glad to call it a science.
valid: (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent. Basically the opposite of whatever you say on this forum.
Gastronomy may be one letter away from Astronomy but its completely different. One is using evidence to test theories and learn about our universe, the other is pissing about with a blow torch and making truffle flavoured foam for people with more money than sense.
@Magnifico
Troll or not I'd still like to see the outcome of mm 's thoughts on this -
'I will go and eat at McDonald's next week. I will write an objective review based on the principles of gastronomy, with photos included'
Just after reading so many of his points on food since been on this site, I'd like to see the outcome of a week of the golden arches ;)
It is the entire week mm?
@Kate: you can argue about too expensive and unhealthy - the rest I'll leave to the foodies. mmkunming talks about objective standards of goodness in food - maybe there are some, but I don't know what they are, I'll leave it up to him. Anyway, if it's not science, it's still art, and one can argue about art, though I don't pretend to know of objective standards, although I'm not saying there aren't any. I do know that the more you pay attention to art and the more experience of it that you have, you begin to develop a few standards of your own - first glance/taste etc. is usually pretty crude, and some tastes can & are developed, to the benefit of the person who takes the trouble to have the experiences.
yeah, ok. you're serious?
food/cooking is NOT science!
food is only a science from a health perspective. it's quite verifiable scientifically that certain foods promote good health while other foods deteriorate one's health.
apart from health issues, food is ART.
the gods must be laughing themselves silly at human beings having arguments about "objectively good food."
it reminds me of the scene in Dead Poets Society where robin williams has the students rip out the pages that measure how good a poem is. "Armies of academics measuring poetry on a scale. We will not have that here."
please, rip out the pages.
Roberta Schira - journalist and food critic for the major Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera appareantly just wrote a whole book about it.
There are 7 rules on how to judge a gastronomic experience:
"1. Ingredients
Must be the best the market can offer, fresh and of quality.
2. Technique
Must know how to manipulate and transform the ingredients in a dish respecting its essence, tradition and science.
3. Genius
The capacity to transform something that already exists into something new.
4. Equilibrium/Harmony
A sense of harmony within oneself and the world during the culinary experience.
5. Atmosphere
The ensemble of details that makes one utter "I feel good here".
6. Project
Place an idea behind a dish, a place, move forward.
7. Value
What we think is the right compensation for the gastronomic experience."
MM,
1)
I don't understand why you don't report your experience...and that's it!
Your egocentrism wants that you troll even before doing something.
2) Are you a food critic or you can also professionally cook? Or both?
This makes a lot of difference.
3)If you can cook professionally, where we can see and taste your dishes?
Thanks,