What It Means To Be A Food Critic

The figure of the food critic is full of myths and legends. We invite you to discover what it means to be a food critic with the help of some of the most important food critics and gastronomes in our country.

What does it really mean to be a food critic? We take a closer look at the figure and try to answer the question with the help of critics, journalists, chefs, and gastronomes who will give us their own vision when it comes to drawing the robot portrait of the most feared character in the kitchen.

What is a food critic?

The easy answer is that a food critic is a person who makes critiques in the world of gastronomy. But what is food criticism? Or even more so, what is criticism? It is essential to first answer these two questions.

What is food criticism?

A quick look at the RAE clarifies doubts regarding its first meaning of “criticism”, indicating that it involves analyzing something in detail based on certain criteria. Gastronomic criticism in the field of journalism must therefore be understood as a journalistic genre that analyzes the world of catering and gastronomy.

When talking about food criticism in Spain, many people point to José Carlos Capel. After 34 years of experience as a critic for the newspaper El País, in addition to his role as founder and president of the most important gastronomic conference in our country, Madrid Fusión, he is considered the most influential food critic today. For him, a critic is “an analyst who first enjoys or fails to enjoy a meal – depending on the case -), analyses the experience and then tells and relates it in the medium in which he serves, there is no more to it.”

For Ignacio Medina, current director of 7Caníbales and a food critic for 37 years, criticism is also the most absolute exercise in subjectivism: “I evaluate a restaurant based on my prejudices, my tastes, my phobias, my likes. When I am aware of them, I try to put them aside; when I am not aware, I don’t.”

Criticism aims to be objective if that is possible. This is one of the points on which absolutely all professionals in the genre – and those not so much – seem to agree: “it works with information from a very specific perspective, in the sense that it is the opinion of the person, of the journalist who is working on that critique” says Raquel Castillo, a journalist who has dedicated her entire professional career to gastronomy, a food critic for 10 years for the magazine Metrópoli published by the newspaper El Mundo and a professor of the Culinary Harmonies Module of the Master’s Degree in Gastronomic Criticism taught by GastroActitud.

“Normally, criticism in the field of gastronomy is focused on restaurants,” says Castillo, but gastronomic journalism is increasingly betting on a broader perspective of the genre and not just limited to reporting what happens at the table in the best and most expensive restaurants, but in the entire sector and in the entire food chain: “As I understand it (gastronomic criticism) is much more than restaurants. It reaches the product, the network in which agro-food and wine production is supplied… In other words, it includes everything, it is a complete experience: criticism reaches far beyond the establishment itself ” according to Capel, who sees in all this knowledge the fundamental basis for practicing the profession.

Requirements for a food critic

What does it take to be a food critic? There is no official qualification that certifies competencies, so it is worth asking those who practice it professionally, who certainly do not deny the innate abilities and the development and training of senses such as taste and smell, but who also focus on other directions.

“You can’t have an opinion without having a base of knowledge. Just as to be a film critic you have to have seen thousands of films, to be a good restaurant or gastronomic critic you have to visit many restaurants ” says Carlos Maribona, journalist, critic for the ABC newspaper for the last 31 years, and responsible for the blog Salsa de Chiles, a reference in the Spanish gastronomic world and one of the first gastronomic blogs published by a journalist back in 2006.

Perhaps innate abilities can be trained, but the knowledge acquired by visiting as many restaurants as possible and “reading, traveling and long conversations with friends and professionals” as Capel points out, are essential. And that, to a greater or lesser extent, usually involves costs that the media are not very willing to assume and that individuals cannot normally afford when it comes to independent criticism.

“Gastronomy sells these days, but the problem for most editors is the same: they don’t want to spend a penny. They pay poorly and late,” Maribona continues. “There are exceptions. For example, I am very well paid and I am absolutely satisfied with Vocento, but there are three or four of us who can truly say that we make a good living from gastronomic criticism. The problem is not a lack of interest, but rather a lack of resources. If the editor doesn’t put in resources, then obviously he will never have independent criticism .”

Independent criticism is expensive: the price of the meal plus the critic’s salary. “Film critics get their films sent to their homes or are given invitations to press screenings. Theatre critics get invited to premieres and literature critics get their books sent to their homes, but food critics are often not invited. So how are you going to do it?” says Castillo. It is not for nothing that many of the great critics in history had little to do with the world of letters… and in some cases they worked under pseudonyms to further guarantee their independence.

Philippe Regol presents himself as a mere gastronomic observer, but he is almost certainly one of the most renowned non-professional commentators and critics among national gourmets – after chefs – and points directly to the independence that comes from having a main source of income unrelated to food criticism: “The critic of the French daily Le Figaro, Stéphane Durand-Souffland, is a former judge: the liberal professions (doctors, lawyers, etc.) have always been great gourmets.”

For García Santos, an authoritative voice to reflect on gastronomic criticism thanks to his career in the media or his founding role in Lo Mejor de la Gastronomía, one of the leading author’s gastronomic guides in Spain, things are very clear with regard to the requirements of a good critic: “First you have to be independent. And then you have to have money and be brave. And all those things together.”

The role of food criticism

Why is food criticism important these days? “There is a huge interest in gastronomy, food, restaurants, and wines, and there is a huge growth in interest. We need people with criteria to guide us and separate the wheat from the chaff, allowing readers to choose more easily or with more criteria,” says Carlos Maribona.

Commitment is not only acquired with readers but with the entire sector and always for its benefit, even if some do not want to see it. “I do not understand gastronomy without criticism because it is the only thing that can make cooking grow,” says Medina, aware of the need to shake consciences and take chefs who are excessively egocentric today out of their comfort zone. “The objective of the most important critic is, logically, to help the chef reflect so that he can improve and build an increasingly superior cuisine. That is the great purpose of criticism” says García Santos.

The critic generates public opinion and his verdict is important for diners, but no less so for restaurateurs and gastronomy professionals themselves.

“Depending on what is said or left unsaid, the success of the restaurant and the pockets of its readers can be affected,” says Albert Molins, a journalist for La Vanguardia and creator of the blog Homo Gastronomicus, perhaps one of the most acidic voices in the sector, who agrees with the widespread idea that the critic risks his authority and prestige, but also risks the bread of the people behind each restaurant or business about which a review is published.

“If you have to give someone a hard time, it is your duty to do so, and if you have to hand out praise and sweets, you should do so. But in both cases, they must be fully justified and provide the necessary arguments based on knowledge, experience, and personal judgment, so as not to harm the interests of the restaurant or the rights of the customers-consumers. When you are fair, there is no possible harm, ” he says.

For Regol, “one must always give an honest opinion, and always justify negative criticism, distinguishing between when it is due to an objective fault (poor cooking, poor product, unbalanced construction of the dish, excess salt, sugar, spice, etc.) and when it depends on clearly identifiable personal tastes: I don’t like excessive scenery, excessive sugar in savoury dishes, the abuse of purees, floral decorations, omnipresent trendy ingredients…”

The relationship between critics and chefs should be, in any case, distant. “In general, (chefs) see us more as a threat than as a help ” confesses Medina himself, aware that saying in public that someone does things wrong is a public mockery. However, for him “criticism is the only thing that can make cooking grow”, even more so in the face of chefs who are increasingly idolized.

Being a food critic sometimes means losing friends: “Normally (chefs) read it, accept it, like it more or less and that’s it, but there are several that I won’t mention who don’t talk to me or who turn their backs when they see me. There are chefs who live in the clouds, who think they’re untouchable and any negative comment makes them react badly, that’s their problem” says Maribona.

“We know that if you write a negative review of a restaurant, even if it is respectful and well-argued, your next visit will no longer be welcome. The fact that I am personally free of commitment does not make my job any easier,” says Regol, one of the few critics who does not work for a company, although he himself takes advantage of being free of the impositions of an editor: “Out of respect, I have not visited restaurants that I knew would disappoint me. I do not consider myself ‘professional’ in this regard. I am not obliged to have a bad time. I do not get paid to have a bad time.” And yes, in his contact list there are also some contacts that are less “for having written, or simply said at the table, what I thought.”

The “crisis” of gastronomic criticism in Spain

Does the figure of the food critic really exist in Spain? According to Capel, “yes. And some are very good,” although he also acknowledges that it is all a question of what we understand by criticism. “The word food critic has been left there a bit as a concept for anyone who talks about restaurants, whether what they do is a critique in the most purist sense of the term, or if they do other things,” says Carlos Cano, a food journalist for Cadena SER, for whom food criticism in its most purist form is in decline. “What we all have in mind as traditional food criticism still exists, it has its audience, but it has lost its capacity to influence.”

As Catalan chef Oriol Ivern from the Michelin-starred restaurant Hisop in Barcelona points out, “the general complaint is that in Spain there is no such thing as food criticism, only chronicles,” and it is possibly true that the most brutal criticism within our borders has only been carried out by a few journalists such as the late Antonio Vergara (the only critic ever brought to trial by a restaurant) or Rafael García Santos himself, for whom food criticism “no longer exists. The press no longer carries out criticism, it has disappeared, perhaps because it is not convenient, perhaps because it is supported by political subsidies or by the interests of companies that buy advertising” and that undermine the independence and credibility of the food critic. “Absolutely nothing is questioned anymore, there is no reflection, everyone is convinced of what they do and no one likes to have it reconsidered…”

Is it an exclusively national phenomenon? “Maybe we are too small, everyone knows each other too much, there are too many conflicting interests, but food criticism is always a bit of a massage. Yes, with a few adjectives to make it not all wonderful, which is a counterpoint, but actually quite harmless,” Cano concludes. “It’s not that I read food criticism in other languages ​​or in other countries, but I do read it in the New York Times sometimes, I have read it, and they have a different approach.”

“I read a devastating review about Alain Passard a month ago and last week another harsh review about a two-star restaurant in Paris (“Sur mesure” by Thierry Marx at the Mandarin Hotel). This type of criticism is unthinkable here. Not even I, who owes nothing to anyone, could do it,” confirms Regol, giving free rein to the current lack of fierce gastronomic criticism in our borders. “Maybe some bloggers dare to go a little further,” says Regol, “or some hater journalists,” but in his opinion they never get into the gastronomic depth of the matter.

Critics will never be free from suspicion and will surely never be free from suspicion. ” Let’s see who says that Capel is independent. He is deeply involved in Madrid Fusión, organizing conferences, chefs… using them and asking them for favors. How can you then make an independent critique with that chain of favors mounted? Favors that later turn into money because Madrid Fusión is also from Vocento…” points out Fernando Huidobro, recognized gastronome and Honorary President of the Andalusian Academy of Gastronomy, especially belligerent with these conflicts of interest.

Maribona is clear and direct in answering that ” others could have done it but didn’t “, focusing on the ability of Benjamín Lana, current general manager of Vocento Gastronomía and vice-president of Madrid Fusión, to economically exploit the existing business around gastronomic communication. “Can it be called a monopoly? Well, maybe exaggerating, yes. You have to know how to invest in things at the right time and Vocento has known how to do that very well. The group respects gastronomy, it’s not going to crush it, on the contrary, what it’s doing is giving it much more prominence. Does anyone want to call that a monopoly? Well, that’s up to each one, but obviously this is open to others. Why doesn’t anyone get involved? Because you have to take risks, that’s obvious, taking risks costs money, and only a powerful group like Vocento has known how to do it.”

The credibility of the food critic

Does Vocento or any other group really influence the opinion of its critics? Are they really honest? “I am an objective person, I do my job responsibly, I go to a restaurant, I see what there is, I pay my bills… When someone asks me if I pay the bills, I tell them to ask the tax office, because I include the bills I pay as an expense of my work. Sometimes they even call me to ask me how it is that I have bills from a restaurant. I have no choice but to criticize. I do my job independently of any other relationship I may have in the professional and work world,” Capel responds.

Maribona says that since he started writing food reviews in 1992, when ABC was not yet part of Vocento, ” no one, no director, no one” has ever told him what to write. “Nor has anyone corrected a single comma of what I have written. I am extremely lucky, and the same thing happens to me now with Vocento, that I am absolutely independent. And if one day in a Madrid Fusión I don’t like what Ferran Adrià has done, I say so in my article, I say so in my column, and they get really angry with me, but nobody touches anything.”

“I have never charged anything from a restaurant, for any reason, not even for a job, a conference or for a consultancy,” says Medina. “From that moment on, they can think whatever they want, but if these criticisms come from the sector, that is, from gastronomic journalism, what I would tell them is that they cannot think that all journalists are like them .”