Scared of a little granola perfume
May 6, 2005
In Dutch we have a term, ‘doorheenbijten’ that means literally ‘to bite through something’. We use this term to describe the painful process of exploring unchartered territory. Think for just a moment about what could have motivated someone to invent such an idiom. Now, think about the circumstances that would have caused an entire culture to embrace this idiom enough to use it regularly!
The images above show the author about to take her first bite of paan without any idea what paan could possibly smell, taste or feel like. It is quite strange to try something with very little previous reference, and having never tried chewing tobacco, paan was unchartered territory for me.
In a neat little kiosk by the side of the road the paan wallah prepared the leaf for me with all manner of goos, crystals, flakes, shavings and sprinkles – none of which seemed familiar. Although I would like to say that I bravely put the roll into my mouth and enthusiastically started chomping away, the photograph above reveals the utter lack of trust and relax I had in approaching this new foodstuff. You can also see how such an utter lack of trust and relax results in a particularly unaesthetic portrait. That fact alone should be motivation enough to drop some food taboos.
Good news is that as I reported earlier, paan is delicious, something like eating granola perfume. And like the photograph that I keep of myself in the freezer to remind me of what I looked like in a bikini in 1998 (to avoid an over-consumption of ice-cream), I have decided to keep this picture at hand to remind myself to be more trusting of new foods.
(Please read more… )
debra at 12:36 | Comments (1) | post to del.icio.us
Restaurant for anorexics
May 5, 2005
Sehnsucht, (means longing in German) is the name of a Berlin restaurant for anorexics. Owner Katja Eichbaum, formely anorexic, started this project with private funding (only her father would lend her money) as a therapy for her own condition. The chef is anorexic as are several members of staff. Sehnsucht’s menu items have names that don’t include words for food to avoid confronting anorexics with the fact that they are about to eat. ‘Hallo’ (lobster bisque), ‘Pirate’s Eye’ (2 fishfingers and a fried egg), and ‘Heissehunger’ (ravenous hunger = rack of lamb) are all dishes that non-anorexics might order in ‘normal’ restaurants. But one item on the menu consists simply of a fork, knife, and an empty plate. It is titled ‘Thieves Platter’ and facilitates the anorexic diner to steal (or share) from those dining with her.
As expected the restaurant has received a huge amount of international publicity. And although I have not yet eaten at there, relying solely on restaurant reviews to inform myself, if Sehnsucht is an attempt to create a location for anorexia patients in the guise of a regular restaurant for the people that love them, it is also a wasted opportunity.
Why not revel in anorexia? Why not serve food items so refined and ‘stretched’ like anorexics themselves create on the spot each night at the family dinner table? Anorexics are master chefs and food stylists when placed in the harsh context of the family; hardboiled eggs with the yolks surgically removed, crackers deconstructed so that their total surface area has been increased twenty-fold, slices of bread with each visible grain extracted and displayed on the edge of the plate, utterly dissected broccoli. I say this without having seen Sehnsucht’s menu but hope sincerely that it is not just another do-gooder resto in which the real food on the menu functions only to lure the paying and eating guests.
(Please read more… )
debra at 8:38 | Comments (12) | post to del.icio.us
Far away is the new *onrein
May 3, 2005
Maybe it comes from the fact that I’m reading up on dietary law combined with reading John Thackara’s book, In the Bubble about sustainability and design, but I’m starting to wonder if distance is the new unkosher. In Patrick Faas’ Volkskrant article titled, The prophet Mohammed’s favourite dish, (18.02.1997) about Islam’s flexible standpoint on whether one may eat ostrich and camel, I couldn’t help but wrinkle up my nose at the thought of ostrich farms far far away and poor slabs of beef having to travel first by air and then by freight truck to get to the supermarket and then our tables. According to In the Bubble we spend more time transporting ourselves to our grocery shopping than actually doing our grocery shopping. And I don’t want to bring down any wrath upon myself, but it seems that a lot of religious dietary law is based upon cultural food preferences and taboos rather than hygiene. Proof? Both Jewish and Islamic law are quite arbitrary about which foods are considered clean and unclean. I can’t help but wonder why in this day and age hygiene should have preference over sustainability when it comes to dietary law.
*Onrein means unclean in Dutch, unclean in the religious sense of the word.
debra at 5:59 | Comments (1) | post to del.icio.us
