The word chef, means chief or head, and is a contraction of chef de cuisine, the French for 'head of the kitchen'. As such, it describes the role of an individual whose job it is to run kitchens and I think it is fair to assume we are talking about commercial, as opposed to domestic kitchens. Nowhere in this job description, is there mention of a requirement to go on TV, develop a brand, bring out a raft of books or win awards for your TV appearances. This sort of fun and games is the reserve of the celebrity, not the chef. Unless of course the chef is a celebrity, or wants to be one.
A lot has been written in the UK press of new wunderkind, Oliver Rowe, who at his latest restaurant, only buys supplies from within the M25. Some members of the press revelled in how inspired this was and what a fantastic chef he must be because he gets his trout from Middlesex and his sprats from Canvey Island. Unfortunately, it seems very few people had bothered to try his food. Fay Maschler did last week and she hated it. The man behind the stove might have the same PR agency as Ramsay, he's photogenic and has his own TV series - but the sum of those parts is not necessarily a chef. He seems to have been let down on the food bit.
The plaudits deservedly rained down on Jamie Oliver for his hard work. I have to declare myself as a supporter of his Feed Me Better campaign. What he said - and did - made sense. If kids eat better, they'll be better behaved, they'll do better at school and generally life will be more rosy. As usual, the government doesn't seem to have quite put its money where its mouth is, but there is no doubt Oliver did a lot for improving school meals. For this, he is something of a social pioneer, a force for good. True, he was able to do this because of his celebrity status, but really, should it be BAFTA that awards Jamie's social conscience, as it did last night? Isn't there a more worthy and august body that could recognise the benefits of his actions? But if there was, would Jamie be quite so delighted as he was? It is worth noting our Jamie won two BAFTAs for his work, not just the one and he was clearly thrilled.
Chefs should stick to their jobs. They deserve celebrity if their restaurant is excellent, not because they are media tarts. They deserve recognition for their job, not because they are gurning into the nearest TV camera. In the same way that great business leaders are recognised for their financial skills and generating solid shareholder returns. True, there are some who don't have such a great track record but crave the limelight, very similar to their culinary celebrity cousins. Sir Alan and Donald spring to mind. Oh, that reminds me, guess who won a BAFTA as well last night - beating sleb chef Gordon Ramsay for the Features Award?
I have to accept that the celebrity chef phenomenon is not inherently evil. Although it can be dangerous - to life, limb and reputation, as Wolfgang Puck recently discovered with his exploding lattes. I've never eaten at one of Puck's twenty-seven restaurants, but by all accounts he used to be a good cook. What the hell is he doing then getting himself into a position where his name is licensed to a shake n' heat latte manufacturer? Has he no self respect?
This does raise the slightly thorny topic of what Ferran Adria is doing with his mug all over packets of crisps. My only answer is that we can all have bad days and he must have been having a nightmare when he signed that contract.
There are loads of chefs who eschew the media spotlight and focus on the plate. They tend to be the ones that get the good reviews and the star ratings (Ramsay's 3 stars at Royal Hospital Road could be an exception). Then again, maybe people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. After all, I'm not in an industry connected to either food or the internet. Am I any better or worse than those chefs who dilly dally with in an industry they know very little about?