Richard Ehrlich asks whether the present vogue for celebrity chefs such as Jamie Oliver, Gordon (“the F-word”) Ramsay, Delia Smith, Nigel Slater, et al, is really based on any solid, honest talent. It is a good point he makes and there is no doubt a fair amount of flim-flam in some of the phenomenon. Even so, I think his article leaves a slightly sour taste (‘scuse the pun). Celebrity chefs may, even in a marginal way, have helped improve the quality of cooking or opened people’s eyes and hence their tastebuds to foods they would otherwise have never thought of before. It is also, let’s not forget, a part of the growth of “middle-class” habits among the population. Shortly after the war, there was nothing like this, except for drab government documents telling us how to make do on rations. Then along came Elizabeth David, the first proper celebrity cook who revolutionised British cooking by advocating the delights of Italian and French food. And we are all the better off for it.
Celebrity chefs may annoy some folk and in some cases do not deserve their fame, but at least they seem to contribute something to the sum total of human happiness. Which is no mean feat. If Nigella Lawson wants to invite me over for supper, I am hardly going to turn her down (I hope my wife is not reading this).
UPDATE: apologies for some spelling snafus in the original.
Actually, knowing your wife well Jonathan, I am sure she would come along, enjoy the food, critique the cooking carefully, and gently guide you away from Nigella and back home at the end of the evening without incident.
Celebrity chefs are no more or less of a con trick than most other TV.
My link must have taken me to a different article, because the one I read said nothing about their cooking ability, which the writer seemed to assume was good, but about their writing ability. I didn’t see anything about a con.
It does seem that many people are prepared to pay what others would regard as ridiculous amounts for meals because of the chef’s name. But of course, that is their free choice.
Present vogue? We’ve had celebrity chefs for a good deal longer than commercial internet. We’ve even had most of the present roll-call on our screeens since before the turn of the century…
Sorry, an unusual off-topic question here for Jonathan / editors….
Why the second ‘are’ in the posting title? “Celebrity chefs – are they are con trick?” Is this second ‘are’ a typo?
I suppose the natural reaction is to assume it is – only I’ve seen it before in places where no typo should ever be allowed to appear (a record album sleeve: “Are You Are Missing Winner?”). So if it is not a typo, what does the second ‘are’ mean?
There are 2 camps in “celebrity chefs”. The writers, and the chefs.
Nigel Slater, Nigella Lawson and Delia Smith are food writers. That’s what they started out doing. So, they understand home cooking. They also write books with good writing and recipes.
Other than half-time pitch announcements at Norwich, there’s not much eccentric, bohemian or wacky about Delia Smith. But people don’t buy her books because of that. They buy them to cook with.
Many of the chefs books are rubbish. Light on content and more about being a knocked-out coffee table accompaniment to the series, than good food writing.