The LA Times ran a piece yesterday on blogs becoming a new tool in many chefs' arsenals, and how they're entering a blogosphere that used to be reserved for us commonfolk. The difference, according to the author? Primarily, style and choice of content: commonfolk tend to "natter about what they fed their boyfriends last night, and fuzzily photograph their latest batch of heart-shaped cookies" while REAL chefs tell the stories behind the food, taking more time to detail the food's inspiration and its history.I beg to differ. I'm biased, yes, but I think our Slashfood Flickr group is a perfect example of primarily amateur photographers and chefs taking outstanding photos of food, ones just as good as any in a cookbook. And I think people read food blogs to take in the "nattering" about day-to-day life and how it fits in with what fix and eat. And chef's blogs can be personal, too - they don't all fit neatly into one (bread) box, as this author seems to imply.
The article details several chef blogs that have been making waves, and how the chefs are using their platforms to make a statement. For some chefs, like Alison Barshak, a blog is a way to show off and advertise your new restaurant under the guise of giving viewers a tutorial on opening up an eatery. For others, like Michael Laiskonis, blogs are a chance to describe eloquently, albeit verbosely, how they got the inspiration and found the ingredients for their extravagant meals.
A fraking amazing Battlestar Galactica cake
Iced Tea 101
Pierogies + cheese + onions + kraut = Parmageddon!
