A big part of food-critics emphasises on the dining environment and experience. For example, Simon mentioning in his review of The Groove how long it took before his jacket was taken. Those finer details of the environment, sets the tone for the food mentioned and affects our behaviour to the food described.
Contexts such as whether your dinner was presented to you by a well-dressed waiter on a large white plate or by a minimum wage worker in a paper bag can significantly change others’ opinions not only on the food but also you as a person. Social and environmental differences between fine dining and fast food are undeniably present, and is a way to project our attitudes and differentiate our identities into the social environment. This extension of food as a social symbol is much more complex than food from fine dining to be a status symbol of wealth and sophistication and fast food as a symbol of cheapness and junk.
The differences in contexts and environments are always present and continuously reinvented in today’s society. However, with the emergence of civilian food journalism on platforms such as Instagram, the details between all dining environments and situations and the story behind them also revealed, allowing us to learn from others and overcome the differences. Through our ability to critic and share, we narrow the traditional differences between different food environments and reunite us as a society to value the true value of food as a mean of connection and relation.
I think the future for food reviewing is an interesting one and is subject to much change. We have always relied on the type of food we eat and the way we eat to demonstrate an idea larger than the simple act of consumption, and it is interesting to read your views on how this has been challenged with the emergence of social media. Food may always be an experience, but with hopefully with a wider coverage and more perspectives, the restrictive boundaries created may be dissolved.
I find that with the emergence of more localised social platforms, that there’s a great deal of personal interpretation taken on board and importantly shared; without being understood and interpretable on a more (inter)national basis. Therefore the audience gets a swayed review on something that might not necessarily have any validity to it.
I think it takes true acquired skills to be able to enter a situation without any predisposed perceptions and to leave that place without any held prejudices, for whatever reason. I think when a lot more people start becoming more popularized, it leads to authentication issues but contrastingly, it can also allow us a more ‘common’ understanding and mindset on a restaurant/branch (if the popularised person stays true to who they present).
When Simon walked into KFC, since it’s not necessarily his preferred niche, he had predisposed prejudices against the place and this was made clear in his review of the food and service, whereas for Madeline it was her preferred niche and therefore her review was a lot more understanding and forgiving of what bad service can be as she’s also witnessed the times it was good service.
The issue here being, that when looking at a review from a perspective unlike your own, they’re bound to pick up details you might not, but could also miss out on details that would be important to you, such as having your coat taken in a fast and orderly manner.
These predisposed perceptions can lead to authenticity questions on just how valid it can be to a restaurant, especially with the emerging amount of paid food reviews from influences simply looking to get paid.
So yes, while I agree with what you said on the opportunity of vocal freedom and less socio-economic exclusivity, I do also see the possible risks the rise could face.
I love your bit on how social contexts and environments are constantly being reinvented! It’s so important to be aware of these types of things and I think it’s super important to see just how those changes inform and influence the present society.
Although we may think fast and fine dinning experiences are very distinct, it is interesting how you highlight when the two environments collide. Since, in both environments I think most people agree that the food tastes good in one way or another, just in different ways and that preference is determined by other factors that you addressed.
For me, a hospitable experience defiantly influences my taste for food. If my waiter or waitress does not simply smile or is passionate about the food, then I am not excited or eager to eat the food, since it is natural for us to associate food with the feelings we have.
I am intrigued to know your thoughts when the two environments were to merge. If fine dining restaurants started selling fast food and fast food restaurants started selling fine dining food, what would peoples habits adapt to, the food or the environment?