The local St. Paul Pioneer Press recently reprinted this article by Emily Nunn, originally published in the October 1st edition of the Chicago Tribune: The wacky world of fake food.
It’s an interesting piece on the history of mock food — a “history of deception” as one section title puts it in the Pioneer Press version — as well as its current state of the (so to speak) art, with many lessons for aspiring Fake-fakers everywhere.
If you — like, say, Ritz Mock Apple Pie — desire to be fauxthentic, then understand how important is the intention of the provider. Food historian Janet Clarkson finds the most interesting question to be, “Was it intended to deceive?” And as Nunn points out, “We’ll willingly accept the poser as just as good as the pose-ee, as long as the poser isn’t pointedly lying to us.” Indeed — fauxthenticity requires first of all being honest about one’s fakery.
The article also points to a key reason why we sometimes prefer the faux — when it’s better in some qualitative way then the original, (or so much cheaper that it gains an advantage, particularly in times of scarcity). Naming can help here, as in the classic go-faux product “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter”, which nicely celebrates its own fake-fakeness.
Bottom line, says Nunn, “It’s all about perception.” And she even agrees with our own philosophy chapter, which points out how authenticity is personally determined. When it comes to faux food, Nunn says, “Philosophically, if it’s real to you,
it’s real food.”
Loading ...
Joe, thanks for pointing this one out! I remember (somewhat)fondly the Ritz Mock Apple Pie, and can also remember the thrill I received when my mother would bring home “real” Velveeta Cheese–instead of the store brand :-) -SD-