I am a big fan of the SF Chronicle's Michael Bauer's blog, Between Meals, and have mentioned issues that he has brought up before. His post yesterday was particularly interesting though, bringing up the issue of whether food critics should somehow be licensed, after a commenter mentioned that there was a lack of standards in the industry. Such a task, however, might be nearly impossible. Would "taste" be judged? Writing ability? Tests could be implemented in all industries, but the reality of working is that the best way to get good at something is to do it - over and over again. Writers have to write and chefs have to cook. Critics have to learn how to convey the unique experience of dining at a restaurant to their readers because chefs do not all use identical recipes and there is no one "right" way to make a marinara sauce.
As Bauer rightly points out, "Good chefs rise to the top, and good critics develop a following." A good critic's readers can trust what they write and use their recommendation as a means to decide when to try (or not to try) a restaurant. Of the skills a critic needs - ability, knowledge and passion - only one can be taught or tested, while the others come naturally and over time.
The standards of taste are not hard and fast rules and people look to critics to create a baseline, a jumping off point from which they can form their own judgments. The only hard and fast rules I want to see are the ones that the health department enforces.
10 More Dirty Restaurant Tricks
5 Things You Didn't Know About Turducken
10 Catchiest Food Jingles We Love to Hate
