Say "cheese," cheese plate

 

The SF Chronicle raises the question of photographing meals in restaurants. (Via TFS) I've never been tempted to snap a picture of a plate while I'm out to dinner, but I appear to be in the minority. For me, would trumps should -- when I think about meals I have particularly enjoyed, I can't imagine how a picture of a dish could convey that. I suspect this is a function of both language and photography. Lacking a fork, I experience food through words, rather than images -- for instance, It's hard to imagine how pictures could add anything to MFKF or Liebling's adventures in France. Frequently, it seems to me that the photo functions as some sort of trophy of the meal. More generally, professional food photography, and its inevitable food stylists, has about as much to do with food as porngraphy has to do with sex, and thus the visual image distorts the experience.
    Even if you have the skill to be the Helmut Newton of hash browns, it seems to me there are still good reasons not to photograph each course of a meal. Generally speaking, a meal is a social occasion, which involves implicit contracts with the other folks at the table, as well as the surrounding table. If I were out, especially at a special restaurant, I'd move from nonplussed to actively pissed off if one of my companions halted the flow of the meal to snap shots of each course. Also, and especially if there is a flash, it is disrespectful to fellow patrons. Dining rooms are for dining. Companions and fellow diners aside, it might not be the best thing for the person with the camera. I imagine that some of the other folks who write about food who read this have caught themselves trying to turn a meal into a post before the entrees were served. Transforming experience into representations instantly is a boon of our age, but also a trap. Yes, lady at whatever they call where the Giants play taking cameraphone pics of the tv monitor just after Barry Bonds hit #715, I am talking about you, not to mention folks talking on their cell phones and waving from behind home plate at Fenway to their friends back home. Compusively turning experiences into images or texts robs them of some of their value as experiences, I think.

Turning to could from should and would, Pim offers a defense of the shutterbug:

And they are vocal about their right to snap away. Though she tries to be sensitive to restaurants' concerns, Pim Techamuanvivit, who authors the well-known blog Chez Pim (chezpim.typepad.com), has no qualms about bringing her camera: "I'm entitled to take all the photographs because I paid to eat the meal."

I must respectfully dissent from Pim. Her own statement gives the reason: "I paid to eat the meal." Exactly. A restaurant meal is not an experience as much as it is a commodity, and the purveyors of the experience have the right to control it. Unless it is carryout, you do  not own a meal on your plate in quite the same way that you own a brooch or a scarf. You are entitled to eat the meal because you paid for the meal. 

Comments

[ann]

yo cod, did you see this article?
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2003/5/foodporn-oneill.asp

i think the points she raises are pretty inline with what you're saying and i have to agree with both of you
i'm tired of too beautiful pictures
i'm REALLY tired of people taking piccies of dinner
and i'm tired of people not writing about interesting stuff (even though i'm probably guilty of that last sin)
rawk

[augieland]

I started shooting pictures of the food I was reporting on at the request of readers. I, too, think in words so it seemed unimportant to me before the requests. As a result however I have come to find the pictures evocative of even more memories.

The truth is I do most of my reporting and therefore photographing at what I think would be considered destination restaurants and therefore am seldom the only one taking pictures (there is no way that everyone who ate at El Bulli on the night I did has a blog.)

For some a picture is indeed worth a thousand words, it would seem awfully self-centered to begrudge them a simple discretionary flash during your or my dining. Would you consider it such an intrusion if the cause of the flash were a family portrait (or thirty) of someone’s grandmother’s ninetieth birthday at a particularly special restaurant?

As far as food as a commodity suppose you were a gear head and wanted a picture of your car which some person drove themselves mad creating, and they asked you not to shoot it for any reason? Food is a commodity and as long as you are paying for it you have taken ownership of it and it is yours to do with as you wish be -- that take pictures or take it home. If you are paying for it you are buying it and it is yours to do with as you see fit. Of course you should be polite to all others at the same time, but polite is not bowing to the whims of someone so easily distracted they can be drawn away from their own good time by a couple of pops of a flashbulb.

[the patriarch]

To paraphrase John Hughes: You don't take a picture of it, you EAT it!

[thanksforruiningmy300dollardinner]

NO FLASHES! NO FLASHES! NO FLASHES! you cretini.

[pierregagnaire'sgirlfriend]

bring your toddlers and take flash pictures of them slurping the amuses and spitting them out. why don't you?

[Rebecca]

A photo of the outside of the restaurant is just as good for illustrating your post on the meal. Then you can concentrate on eating when you are inside and just enjoy yourself.

[Pim]

The Grand Lady Chron and their 'fact' checking department. Heh.

I did not say such a thing. What I said, and I am quoting myself, was "I paid for the privilege to eat the meal, NOT TO take photograph of it". That's why I am always respectful of the restaurants' wishes. I ask before I take photographs, I don't use flash at fancy restaurants, and I put my camera away when refused permission -though that only happened once, at Hakkasan in London.

This is my view, and the same view I've expressed repeatedly to quite a few people when asked about this issue.

[Fesser]

Gosh. That is a pretty significant difference. Putting the "chronic" in "Chronicle," I guess.