I got to thinking about food. I’m not an avid foodie per se but I like eating when I get to it. I admit I don’t have that much experience in terms of going out that much and sampling what fine cuisines there is to explore out there but I think there has got to be something wrong with a person who does not love food. We were eating at Amici the other day and as I was browsing through the menu I thought, what does it mean really when you say that the food tastes good? Good is very subjective and what tastes good to one might taste like shit to someone else. Like at Andrew Zimmern said in his show Bizarre Foods, “One man’s delicacy could be another man’s poison.” So how can someone say that something really tastes good? Food can be described in many different ways. You could describe how it tastes like, whether it would be sweet, salty, sour, bitter or any combination of it. Sometimes you’d go as far as describing the textures of a certain dish, or how it feels on your tongue. Most critics though usually describe food in reference to some other kind of, well, food. Interests peak at how certain foods can combine these different attributes and how they often remind you of eating something that was generally appealing or how a certain bite would give you amazing sensations with regular items which you never thought would combine quite beautifully. It’s more like chemistry but not as definite. I think it would be more fair to judge food according to truth. How true is it to how things should actually taste? Do the lemons taste like lemons and fish like fish? That’s a more absolute definition of what food should be like.
[Clearly, this was a post that could have ended a bit more tastefully, but who bothers to read this anyway?]
And now, images from the Frostings Mini Cuplet massacre. (Terry unforunately sat down on the whole tray of mini-cupcakes in the car. They look extremely sad because of all the weight.)