susan d

Food can be art. This food is artsy. There's a place for this in the world. With a very few people being part of the club that could afford it. And could put up with the pretension. So be it. It's worth art for art sake. Edible art. The talking head interviews can be over the top - all heady stuff: "the tea tasted like enlightenment". Ugh. Since when did the tweezer become the chef's main culinary tool? Bourdain would gag. All the time spent foraging. This can't be sustainable really. The hillsides would be ravaged. When I was spending time in Peru, a Quechua man told me how the poor people were suffering there because quinoa had become hipsters new favorite food fad (they had depended on and eaten a lot of this formerly basic ingredient). I couldn't finish many episodes due to the self-absorbed quality. Chefs who are so honored to learn from indigenous peoples and pay homage to humble street food but only really cater to the rich. Some are up front about that - kudos. Spending time in South America I appreciated what seems like a lifestyle choice there: "Como en casa" - eating homestyle food. No fancy food trying to appear that it is searching for authenticity. Btw, if you have the highest quality ingredients, food will be better just based on that. I'd like to see what these chefs produce if they had to use "regular" ingredients. The more the world moves toward heterogeneity the more the chefs cling to finding their home country's original cooking and ingredients. More about the person themselves vs the food for those looking for a cooking show. In the end the food on most all of the tables really LOOKS THE SAME (carefully placed edible flowers, moss, big plates with three small morsels, etc) . So much for how "unique" they all are.