Why my blog does not have pictures of the food I eat

Somone asked me why my blog, which is about food most of the time, was so scant when it came to food pictures.

Because there are already enough food blogs out there with endless pictures of food, and not enough food blogs out there with WORDS in 'em. That's why. Especially Malaysian food blogs.

It makes you wonder why they are even called blogs if they are just full of pictures. A blog, lest we forget, was supposed to have originated as an online diary/journal which whilst it is appropriate that it includes photographs, should be more about WORDS.

From wikipedia

A blog (an abridgment of the term web log) is a website, usually maintained by an individual, with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Entries are commonly displayed in reverse chronological order. "Blog" can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog.

Many blogs provide commentary or news on a particular subject; others function as more personal online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability for readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs. Most blogs are primarily textual, although some focus on art (artlog), photographs (photoblog), sketches (sketchblog), videos (vlog), music (MP3 blog), audio (podcasting) are part of a wider network of social media.

So that is one of the reasons why I do not have an endless pile of food pictures on my blog. This is a blog where I talk about food - it is not a catalogue of every meal I have eaten, or for that matter, only about what food I have eaten.

Another reason: I'm not a professional photographer and my food pictures would just look like amateur food pictures anyway. Why would I want to insult the chef or restaurant owner by publishing amateur photographs of their food?

A professional photographer, assisted by a food stylist and further assisted by an army of assistants is how pictures in food magazines look so good. Since I am neither professional, not assisted nor willing to invest in the equipment or time to learn how to do it well, I refuse to accordingly do injustice to the food and to the Chef by photographing his or her food in bad light (or just lousy light), using a snappy camera and failing to complement what's on the plate with an appropriate styling.

Admittedly, most Malaysian food blogs are not pro-blogs wherein the bloggers are full-time pros who earn their living from their blog or who use their blog for purposes of showcasing their work as writers/photographers/food writers. So really, they can write whatever they want, and use as many pictures as they want. But I maintain that the biggest problem we have towards educating people on gastronomy and culinary arts and sciences in Malaysia is simply that there is insufficient exposure to quality writing about the subject of food. And a slew of food blogs that are picture driven don't help.

Which brings me to the conclusion: Malaysians are lazy readers and lazy reviewers.

Why bother to work at describing what you ate when you could just show a picture right? Save time writing mah. And no need to describe so much. After all, why crack one's brain trying to figure out a comparative descriptive of what you are eating when you can just slap a picture there and tell people - nah, so obvious right what it is no? And why bother to arrive at your own conclusion about whether what you ate was of a high standard compare against an objective standard, or revolutionary, or exciting, or unique - slap a picture there and let people see for themselves lah!

And heaven forbid if Malaysians are actually asked to IMAGINE what something tastes like using their brains, and taste memory, or composite two flavours through their imagination (think Ratatouille) and based on a description written in text form. Yes, photographs cut across the language barrier, but they also function as an intellectual barrier. They ultimately reflect the absence of a need for critical thought when it comes to how we approach the subject of food.

Which naturally results in Malaysians becoming IMHO faux gourmands and lazy foodies.

Admittedly, food should not be a complex exercise. It is after all about enjoyment. But it is another thing to entirely remove any measure of intellectualising from food - that is to simply downgrade all food into two categories: YUK or YUM. No, I do not ponder and contemplate every mouthful of food that I consume, but I am particular about what I will eat and will not eat, am very clear about when I am eating nonsense food and when I'm having a serious gastronomic experience (and also all those experiences in between).

Does anyone bother to wonder why it is that top notch restaurants do not provide you with PHOTOGRAPHIC menus? You can't be a serious foodie/gourmand if you're too lazy to read the menu or the description of the food. Photographs are only fit for fast service restaurants or in places where the menu is in a foreign language or the food is extremely foreign and you need a photograph to know that 'pesce' is 'fish'.

Check out a food review in The Times or the Guardian - guess what? There are NO food photographs. The focus is on the food, but you don't get pictures of the food. You might get a photograph of the restaurant's exterior to help you identify it's location if you happen to go looking for it, or to give you an idea of the ambiance. But NO FOOD PICTURES.

Look at the Dining and Wining section of the New York Times. Mark Bittman's 'The Minimalist' column this week on Blueberry Cheesecakes (blueberries are in glut, hence their sudden availability for RM10.99 at BSV) features ONE PHOTO. The rest are words. Descriptives. Explanations. Science. Commentary. Insight. Knowledge.

The restaurant review section of the New York Times restaurant review archive has a similar pattern of wordiness. Each review contains a singular photograph taken of the interior of the restaurant and guess what? More words.

Gastroporn can be about pictures and words, but one without the other or one without being respectfully and sufficiently complimented by another?

Words are what provide us with a more complex vicarious food experience and most importantly, and indication of TASTE. A photograph capture a limited number of textures (wet, dry, textured, smooth) but it cannot communicate sweet, sour, bitter, spicy, hot, cold, warm, comforting. Photographs show you what something looks like and a multiplicity of colours (which can also help influence your viewpoint of the taste of something) but it is wordscapture complexity in flavour, the combination of tastes, the different textures, and most importantly, the sensation of the food.

So no, I do not put pictures unless I have a very good reason to do so, or I am just feeling frivolous. And I personally find it annoying to sit in a restaurant and see people photographing their food. I can understand if say, you were on a quest to eat at a Michelin-starred restaurant for 365 days of the year, and your blog contained an image of every Michelin-starred meal. Or if you were documenting a special meal (for example, a blow out on a really expensive degustation menu at a top tier restaurant) and just wanted to have a memory of the blow-out moment.

Photographing your afternoon snacks, and lunchtime meals and late night cakescapades? I'd be insulted as the baker/chef at a restaurant if someone took amateur snappy camera photographs of my food and slapped it up on the Internet. What if the pictures don't do justice to my food? What if it makes people just say - oh that looks yummy but in fact, my food is BEYOND MERE YUMMY?

Learn to read. You'll be a better gourmand for it.