Connect with us

History

The Biggest Art Heist of All Time: The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Theft

Published

on

The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston is a museum unlike any other. There are no plaques on the walls explaining the relevance of the artworks hung there; there’s seemingly no rhyme or reason to the way things have been arranged or hung within its walls other than the idea that Mrs. Gardner wanted it that way—and so, that way it stays. In fact, “Isabella planned it this way” seems to be the only guiding principle in the whole place.

If a museum suffers a large theft, it’s usually brushed to the side—a shameful blip on their record, mentioned infrequently, if at all. But, since the Gardner Museum seeks to perfectly preserve its founder’s exact vision for the place, two massive, empty frames hang on the south wall of the Dutch Room, signaling the heartbreaking absence of two large masterpieces, savagely cut out of their frames early one morning in 1990. The combined value of the 13 artworks that were stolen is $500 million, making it “the greatest known property theft in history.” That fateful day and the theft of those artworks have become part of the narrative of the place, and as a result, visitors can frequently be found staring at those empty frames, contemplating the absence of their former contents.

Image result for isabella stewart gardner museum heistWikipedia

Isabella

It would be easy to write off the Gardner museum as the vanity project of a rich Victorian-era widow with nothing better to do. While all of those descriptors are ostensibly true, there’s more to Isabella Stewart Gardner than that. Born to well-off parents in New York, a young Isabella Stewart met Jack Gardner, the eldest son of a wealthy Boston family, and they wed. It was a match made for the society papers, but that’s about where the fun ended. Their son Jack died just two months short of his second birthday from pneumonia, and after suffering a miscarriage, Isabella was told that she couldn’t bear children. Soon after, Jack’s sister, who had introduced the couple and was close friends with Isabella, died also, sending Isabella into a deep depression. Doctors recommended travel to break her out of it—why don’t they do that anymore?—and it worked.

A Life’s Passion Uncovered

Isabella had always loved art and travel but it was during this period that she began what would become her life’s work—building a monumental art collection. Her first major purchase at this time was a painting called The Concert by Johannes Vermeer, the Dutch master. This acquisition sparked a fire inside Isabella, and she and her husband began collecting not only paintings, but sculptures, furniture, tapestries, silverware, and artifacts in earnest. They were not only prolific collectors, but also patrons of the arts, as the many portraits of Mrs. Gardner by famous artists illustrate. While they kept residence in Boston, Isabella and Jack spent most of the final years of the 19th century abroad, building their collection.

Isabella Stewart GardnerWikimedia Commons
Isabella Stewart Gardner, by John Singer Sargent.

A Venetian Palace in Fenway

When Jack died in 1898, Isabella knew there was one way to keep the legacy of the happy years they’d spent together alive: by building the museum they’d both dreamed of. It was an idea they’d come up with when they bought Rembrandt’s Self-portrait, Age 23, and realized that their collection had outgrown their private residence. A location in the then-undeveloped Fenway neighborhood was chosen, and construction began, with Isabella overseeing every, and I mean every, detail. It was built in the style of the Renaissance-era Venetian palaces that had so deeply imprinted on her during her time in Europe. While noted architect William T. Sears was the man hired for the job, even he conceded that the building was more Isabella’s baby than anyone else’s.

refer to captionWikimedia Commons
Self-Portrait, by Rembrandt

A Museum Unlike Any Other

The building encloses a massive courtyard garden, covered by a glass ceiling, the first construction of this kind in the US. Surrounding the courtyard on all sides are rooms that Isabella split into galleries. These rooms, as mentioned earlier, are unique in that they aren’t decorated in a way that reflects any curatorial mission—i.e. with works split by country, period, movement, or artist. The only vision for the layout and arrangement of works was Isabella’s vision—and it shows through the unique experience of visiting the museum. It can seem cluttered and dark in some rooms, airy and bright in others; with Italian furniture and Chinese artifacts in the Dutch room, then a fragment of fabric from one of Isabella’s gowns hanging below Titian’s Rape of Europa in the Titian room. But it was all part of her plan. Although she left some letters and journals that hint at her motivations, ultimately, the rhyme or reason behind it all was hers and hers alone. When the building was ready, she lived on the fourth floor and spent her days lovingly arranging her collection. She continued acquiring new works and rearranging them until her death in 1924, and in her will, part of the stipulations for the museum’s endowment stated that nothing could be seriously altered.

Sunday Morning Comin’ Down

Unfortunately, art thieves are not held to the same high standards as museum directors and curators, and on a brisk March morning in 1990, two men significantly changed the museum forever when they broke in and stole 13 artworks, collectively valued at $500 million. That number made it the largest known theft of private property in history.

In the earliest hours of the morning on March 18, security guards admitted two men dressed as Boston police officers to the building. The “policemen” had told the guards they were responding to a disturbance call. Sound familiar? That’s because it’s the premise of the final heist in the movie The Town, except in the film, the fake policemen are robbing another local landmark, the “Cathedral of Boston,” Fenway Park. Two security guards were on duty at the museum, one at a desk and one patrolling, and once the guard at the desk let the thieves in, they told him that they had a warrant out for him and handcuffed him, keeping up the pretense of their disguises. His name was Richard Abath, and once he was handcuffed, he noticed that one of the men had a fake mustache, and began to doubt their identities. When the guard on patrol returned to the desk area, the thieves handcuffed him as well. Then, they told the guards that they weren’t cops and that they were there to rob the place.

Leaving the guards tied up in the basement, the two men made their way around the museum, their movements tracked by the security system’s motion detectors. They entered the Dutch room and began with Isabella’s prized Rembrandt self-portrait, but were unable to take the heavy panel out of its frame. They moved on to two other Rembrandt works, both of which they brutally cut out of their frames: A Lady and Gentleman in Black and A Storm on the Sea of Galilee, the artist’s only seascape. They then took two more paintings and an artifact from the same room and moved about the museum, taking other artworks and objects. Curiously, the final work stolen was an Edouard Manet painting which lived in the Blue Room, although the motion detector never showed them entering the room. The frame, which they left behind, was found sitting at the security desk. Altogether, the whole thing took 81 minutes and two trips out to their car. The real police arrived at 8:15 am and freed the two guards from the basement.

Image result for a storm on the sea of galileeWikimedia Commons
The Storm on the Sea of Galilee, by Rembrandt

Crime of the Century

Immediately, the FBI got involved in the investigation. The case is interesting not just for the value of works stolen, but also for all the strange elements that have become part of it since that morning in 1990—including bizarre tips, false leads, possible underworld art sales, and secret communication through Boston’s major newspapers.

The list of works that was stolen and the manner in which they were stolen confused experts—there seemed to be no rhyme or reason for it, as the thieves passed over more valuable works to steal smaller artifacts, as well as the fact that the barbaric way they’d taken the two large Rembrandt works could’ve damaged them, decreasing their value. In 1994, a staff member of the museum was sent a ransom letter, but it was never followed up on. A number of theories popped up, including one that speculated that proceeds from the sale of the stolen artworks would go on to benefit the Irish Republican Army, and another that said infamous New England crime boss and FBI informant Whitey Bulger was behind it all.

The museum has offered a reward for the return of the stolen artworks, and despite the fact that it has grown multiple times since it was first offered, it’s never led to anything. The men who the FBI believe were the thieves are now deceased, and despite the Bureau’s ardent investigation, none of the works have ever been seen again. And so, in the museum, a number of large frames hang empty throughout the Dutch Room, simultaneously reminding the viewer of the circumstances of the absence of their former contents, and hopefully awaiting the potential return of those same contents one day.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

History

Teen Movies And Female Friendship

Published

on

By

Teen movies have come a long way from early examples like Rebel Without a Cause and West Side Story. There were the slasher films of the late 70s and early 80s, movies like Halloween, Friday the 13th, and A Nightmare on Elm Street. Around the same time, a young filmmaker by the name of John Hughes began making movies about teens that blended drama, comedy, and romance. As nuanced as his portraits of teen life were in films like Sixteen Candles and Pretty in Pink, their source of conflict, and thus the major focus, was always the main character’s romantic relationships.

But in 1988, a sharp-witted movie titled Heathers came along and turned all that on its head. Rather than a soft-focus, soft-hearted take on the teen experience like The Breakfast Club, it wrapped up some of the grittier realities of teen life in a glossy (and hilarious) package—including toxic relationships, class awareness, familial indifference, cliques, extreme emotional highs and lows, and the unfortunate truth that sometimes your best friends are also your worst enemies. Heathers and its emphasis on cliques and friendship went on to have a major influence on two of the most popular teen films that followed it into the 90s and 2000s: Clueless and Mean Girls.

Heathers was a revisionist film, deconstructing and skewering the conventions of teen films that had come before—especially the aforementioned John Hughes-helmed entries into the genre. It’s an important movie for the way it looks at cliques and how popularity affects females specifically, and their friendships.

The focuses of the film are the four most popular girls at Westerburg High School: three Heathers and one Veronica, our protagonist, played by a young Winona Ryder. Veronica hates her friends, particularly Heather Chandler, who is the only one who seems to match her intellectually. Veronica’s boyfriend J.D. (portrayed by Christian Slater) steers Veronica into poisoning Heather Chandler and making it look like a suicide, which sets off a boost in popularity of teen suicide as an issue and practice, as well as more murders perpetrated largely by J.D.

After her involvement in Heather Chandler’s death, Veronica finds it increasingly difficult to interact with and relate to the two remaining Heathers, acknowledging that despite being her worst enemy, Heather Chandler was also her best friend. Her friends negotiate their friendship and popularity in different ways after the death as well, with Heather McNamara becoming more and more lost while Heather Duke adopts some of the more unsavory character traits of the deceased Heather Chandler.

In the 90s, the teen genre built from films like Heathers and grew into a more postmodern take on the form, with more movies telling stories centered on female friendship. This was best exemplified in Clueless, but was also apparent in films like Jawbreaker (the most obvious Heathers imitator), horror entries like The Craft, and teen-centric period films like Mona Lisa Smile and All I Wanna Do. The influence of both Heathers and Clueless reached into the 21st century with Mean Girls—coincidentally (or not) directed by Mark Waters, brother to the writer of Heathers, Daniel Waters.

At a time when teens are struggling to establish a sense of identity, social hierarchies become extremely important to them: find a place within the social hierarchy, and identity is guaranteed. This is where cliques come in. They’re important because they’re supposed to work together like puzzle pieces, fulfilling different roles within the social structure of the high school.

In Heathers, Clueless, and Mean Girls, we are introduced to the trope of the “anthropology shot,” which is a quick way for the audience to understand the cliques or social groups that populate the film’s world. This type of shot typically occurs in the high school cafeteria, the only place where all the different groups would be together at once. In Heathers, we see it when Heather Chandler conducts the lunchtime poll in the cafeteria and Veronica encourages her not to just ask the same people she normally talks to.

In “anthropology shots” like this, plot devices like the lunchtime poll provide an opportunity for our characters to interact with people in different social groups without transgressing the boundaries between the groups. The lunchtime poll is briefly referenced in Mean Girls, and the main character, Cady Herron, is also given a “cheat sheet” by her friends Janis and Damian as a way for her to navigate the high school, complete with a map of where every clique sits in the cafeteria.

Aside from the clear divisions of space, what we notice in these films is the difference in dress between social groups, which further serves to reinforce the social structure. In Clueless, this plays out as Cher, Dionne, and Tai walk in the open air campus between classes, pointing out the students in glasses and plaid who produce the school’s TV station, the “Persian mafia,” in leather jackets and on cell phones, and the school’s popular boys, who either dress in sportswear or button-up shirts with cardigans.

These types of rules regarding dress within a social group are also an important part of Mean Girls. When she is inducted into “the Plastics” (the popular girls), Cady is given a list of the rules—everyone must wear pink on Wednesdays, no wearing a tank top two days in a row, jeans and track pants are only worn on Friday, and so on—all of which have to do with the way the group dresses. Regina George, as the leader of the group, is clearly the creator of these rules, which she acknowledges later in the film when she is forced to leave the Plastics table for wearing sweatpants. These rules are meant to uphold a social structure where Regina serves as leader. As such, her breaking the rules is damaging to that structure, the same as if anyone else in the clique had done it.

Similar rules, unspoken and otherwise, exist in Heathers, mostly in its unique use of color, which begins in the very first scene. Each of the four members of the core clique has their own signature color—the leader, Heather Chandler, wears fiery red; Heather Duke, her underling, wears green, the color of envy; and Heather McNamara, the weakest of the four, wears yellow, as in “yellow-bellied.” Their fourth, the miserable Veronica Sawyer, wears blue. When Heather Chandler dies, Heather Duke takes her place, inheriting Chandler’s signature red scrunchie and shedding her green clothing. These rules tie the clique together, but at the end of the film, Veronica, finally sick enough of the group to blow it up (not literally, as her boyfriend intended), snatches the scrunchie and pursues friendship with other girls, specifically ones not named Heather.

These films exist in “Girl World,” a phrase borrowed from Mean Girls. It’s a time between childhood and adulthood, where teen girls grip tightly onto what power they have in a world that affords them relatively little. They form connections with each other and, in those connections, work through the stereotypical trappings of femininity—fashion, shopping, gossip, and makeovers among them.

While this period allows females to experiment with power and leadership, this is not to say it confronts or offers a solution to the problems that they face. A problematic aspect of many of these films is the representation of female power through a depiction of female friendship that is inherently competitive and cruel. While this is touched upon very lightly in Clueless through Tai’s turn against Cher and the character of Amber, it is much more present in Heathersand Mean Girls.

However, this dark element also challenges a potentially harmful idealization of female friendship. Idealization can lead to an overly sentimental portrayal of friendship that discounts the autonomy of the female characters. The films included here manage to portray feminine relatedness and connection unsentimentally, allowing the characters to feel and express real emotions like anger, jealousy, distress, and aggressiveness.

The cycle of films examined here all attempted to parody the conventions of the teen film genre, but through their similarities and the creation of their own set of tropes (the anthropology shot, the makeover montage, etc.) they became examples of a new type within the genre to be parodied themselves. In each film, the difficulty of being a teenager is complicated by close female friendships, social structures, and issues of class and status.

While films like Heathers and Mean Girls are more interested in heavily satirizing the dark side of female friendship and power as it occurs in a high school setting, their depiction of the characters’ performances of identity is as nuanced as the subtler parody found in Clueless. While they have much in common, each film retains a unique take on what it means to be a teenage girl and the crucial role that friendship plays in the lives of young women.

Continue Reading

History

The Dangers Of Werther Fever

Published

on

By

I Got Chills, They’re Multiplying

In 1774, strange occurrences began popping up throughout Germany. First, young men began dressing, en masse, in a very peculiar manner. Like a uniform, thousands of youths started to sport yellow trousers, a matching waistcoat, and a blue jacket, complete with dark boots. But then the eerie but relatively harmless phenomena took a disturbing turn: a rash of suicides followed, with each of the victims sporting this very same uniform—and all holding the same pistol. Germany, it turned out, was dealing with some of the very first instances of copycat suicide. But what was driving these young, finely dressed men to despair?


A book, that’s what. In the ages before boybands, self-made Youtube stars, and Youtube shows about making boybands, people in the 18th century mostly had to occupy themselves with, ugh, books. So when you just had to get your angst on? Books. When you needed to pour all your horny teenage desires into a fictional version of yourself? Still books. And in 1774, Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe (say that three times fast) became an overnight sensation when he published history’s horniest, angstiest book featuring people who still wore waistcoats: The Sorrows of Young Werther. You see, before there was Bieber Fever, there was Werther Fever.

Line engraving depicting a scene from The Sorrows of Young Werther.

In the book, the titular Werther is a sensitive artiste who wears yellow trousers and falls hopelessly in love with the virtuous, beautiful Charlotte. Alas, Lotte is engaged to another man named Albert, so instead, young Werther decides to strike up a platonic relationship with her as a consolation prize. That’s right, your boy just friend-zoned the heck out of himself. It doesn’t end well: Charlotte eventually marries Albert, and Werther, convinced someone has to be eliminated from his totally unnecessary love triangle, kills himself with a pistol. Thus, the copycat suicide was born.

Good Grief?

Young men of the period resonated with Werther’s alienation from society, his outpouring emotions, and his individualism; Goethe once said, “It must be bad, if not everybody was to have a time in his life, when he felt as though Werther had been written exclusively for him.” Goethe became the toast of the town, Napoleon Bonaparte himself was a Werther fan, and a deluge of Werther-related prints, porcelain, and perfume were manufactured to cash in on the fever. But as the copycat suicides hint at, there was a dark underbelly to the mania: young men also resonated with Werther’s final, dramatic act of violence. The Sorrows of Young Werther is an elegy for the bittersweet follies of youth, but the cultural response to the novel belies an 18th-century masculine disenfranchisement that has echoes in today’s cultural climate.

Werther Fever
Five cups with scenes from The Sorrows of Young Werther, made by Konigliche Porzellanmanufaktur, Berlin, 1847-1849.

But the novel and its tragic fallout also bring up another contemporary, related debate: how much does life imitate art? To put it in 21st-century terms: do video games incite violence? Do slasher flicks make serial killers? Did Werther wreck these men? Art is influential; when we read or watch it, we feel deeply, and maybe we get ideas. Famed wit Oscar Wilde made the case that, “Life imitates art far more than Art imitates life. A great artist invents a type, and Life tries to copy it, to reproduce it in a popular form.” In this view, Werther made these young men and then unleashed their tragic deaths onto the world, like a doomed assembly line of little real-life Werthers. Thanks a lot, bud.

But however darkly romantic this image is, it seems more likely that these men were looking for an outlet for existing grievances, something to give their woes shape. Art can’t be created out of nothing—and, more importantly, fiction can’t fully encompass us: we are living, breathing, growing, and changing. When I read Catcher in the Rye for the first time, I wanted to be Holden Caulfield. Now? You couldn’t pay me to date him. We change, we grow beyond the books we read and the films we watch; they shape us but they do not make us. In following Werther’s plot right up until his end, the youths robbed themselves of the privilege to go past him. No matter how many times you re-read The Sorrows of Young Werther, he always ends up dead. These boys shared the same fate as Werther, but they once had other options.

Let The Flame Wars Begin

In fact, in a truly impressive case of 18th-century fanfiction, Friedrich Nicolai decided to exercise these options. Not super into Goethe’s original climax, Nicolai totally rewrote The Sorrows of Young Werther as a satirical text with a happy ending. He called it The Joys of Young Werther, naturally, and in it Werther is tricked into avoiding his suicide, eventually gets the girl, and overcomes his youthful disenfranchisement to reintegrate into society. Does Nicolai’s work completely override the subversive elements of Goethe’s novel? Oh, for sure. But it also imagines a world outside the text, and proves that literature need not be taken as gospel, especially for our lives.

Portrait of Friedrich Nicolai

If you need any more proof that The Sorrows of Young Werther is more than just a revered handbook for 18th-century nice guys, get a load of this: Goethe was pissed off at Nicolai for the liberties he took with Werther, and clapped back with the poem “Nicolai on Werther’s Grave.” In it, a simple passerby (a thinly veiled Nicolai) ends up defecating on Werther’s grave. Wait, what? That’s right, Goethe rails against Nicolai for disrespecting his novel… by gifting everyone with the image of someone plopping a nice, thick number two on Werther’s final resting place. The jury’s still out on how much dignity that actually gave back to the novel. But what I’m really trying to illustrate for you here—besides the image of a MAN POOPING ON A GRAVE—is that we have lives beyond texts, and even these texts can have lives beyond themselves.

In short, fiction is powerful and moving, but its endings need not be our ends. The Sorrows of Young Werther itself went on to influence the burgeoning Romantic movement of the 19th century; Goethe went on to write more novels (though he continued his feud with Nicolai until his death); and many years later, kindred characters like Holden Caulfield and Madame Bovary were created. Tragically, the victims of Germany’s 18th-century copycat suicides never found out an essential truth: we can read other books, and we can become other people.

Continue Reading

History

Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, The Father Of Food Writing

Published

on

By

“Tell me what you eat: I will tell you what you are.”—Brillat-Savarin.

After eating food, the next greatest pleasure is certainly talking about it. People love talking about the last fantastic meal they ate or what makes their favorite recipe special, and with anything people love talking about, writing and reading about it comes next.

Before Anthony Bourdain quit the kitchen and put pen to paper, writing a number of celebrated books; before Lucky Peach magazine; before Ruth Reichl, Sam Sifton, Samin Nosrat, and the like, there was Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin. Without this legendary 18th century gastronome, we might not have Proust’s madeleine moment, the beautiful writing that is characteristic of modern cookbooks, or even the Food Network—after all, as much fun as it can be to watch on mute, each show has a team of writers behind it. Not to mention that without Brillat-Savarin, we also wouldn’t have the unbelievably creamy and deliciously rich cheese named for him. Through his writing, Brillat-Savarin transformed the way food was thought about, talked about, and the role it played in people’s lives. Like it or hate it, he’s undeniably one of the original gourmands, and thus the forefather of similar 20th century stereotypes like the gourmet or the “foodie”—and that’s not even mentioning his role in the French Revolution, his interest in low-carb diets, or the bizarre declaration of love for his cousin that appeared in one of his book dedications.

Father of Food WritingGetty Images

Brillat-Savarin was born to a family of lawyers in France in 1755, and staying with the family tradition, he studied law and practiced as a lawyer in the years before the French Revolution. It was certainly an interesting time to be a well-off lawyer in France, what with all the guillotine use going around. But when the Revolution broke out, he managed to stay in France at least for a while, and was sent to be a deputy in the new National Constituent Assembly. Later, while serving as the mayor of Belley, his hometown, he came under fire and escaped to Switzerland. After years in Holland and the US, he was finally able to return to France in 1797. It was then he was appointed magistrate in the Court of Cassation, a position he’d keep for the rest of his life.

That position didn’t stop him from writing or pursuing his true passion: food—or more to the point, eating. While he had previously had several pieces published on law and political economy (and one erotic short story), he published the work he became best known for just two months before his death. Titled Physiologie du gout, or The Physiology of Taste, it has never gone out of print since its initial publication in 1825. The book is a landmark text in the field of gastronomy, which is essentially the analysis of the connection between food and culture. According to Brillat-Savarin himself, “Gastronomy is the knowledge and understanding of all that relates to man as he eats. Its purpose is to ensure the conservation of men, using the best food possible.” Well, when you put it that way, it’s essential to the survival of the species!

Father of Food WritingGetty Images

Hyperbole aside, The Physiology of Taste is one of the urtexts of French cuisine, that (in)famous term that evokes rich sauces, butter, foie gras, wine from Bordeaux, escargots, cheeses, duck, truffles, and any other ingredient that could cause instantaneous heart attack or gout. The book illustrates the role that not only food, but the act of cooking, serving, and eating—the ritual of it all—plays in French culture. Its chapter names range from “Analyses of the Sensation of Taste” to “Financial Influence of the Turkey” to “Are Women Gourmands?” (survey says yes). The exhaustive and holistic nature of the work—it includes meditations on the relationship of food and digestion, rest, sleep, dreams, health, different types of sickness, and death—only serves to illustrate just how important Brillat-Savarin thought the role of eating in everyday life was. It is at once a glossary of gastronomic terms, a collection of recipes and techniques, a diet book (Brillat-Savarin thought that sugar and white flour caused obesity), a memoir, and philosophical reflection.

From the outside, dedicating so many words and so much effort to what could be seen as a frivolous pursuit might seem insensitive, especially considering its proximity to the poverty that both precipitated and followed the French Revolution. But food has always been such an important part of French culture, and it had its role on both sides of the Revolution—the infamous “Let them eat cake” of Marie Antoinette to the part that poor harvests and deregulation of the grain industry (read: hunger) played in fomenting animosity toward the aristocracy. Whereas its close counterparts in other languages may have negative connotations (think of the word gluttony in English), the French word gourmand signifies no guilt. The Physiology of Taste is snobby, yes, and where it attempts class consciousness, it fails. But, to his credit, Brillat-Savarin was unapologetic about his passions and did not begrudge any human anywhere the same satisfaction: “The pleasure of the table belongs to all ages, to all conditions, to all countries, and to all areas.”

Father of Food Writing

While he certainly wasn’t the only person during that era to put words to paper when it came to the subject of food, with just one major work, Brillat-Savarin opened the doors for scores of food writers before food writing was even a thing. His eclectic mix of recipes, explanation of techniques, reflections on just why some things aren’t delicious and some things are, and personal narrative, are reflected in many types of modern food writing. From the Food section in your local newspaper (the fancy and casual restaurant reviews balanced with recipes and essays); to best-selling cookbooks that you can also sit down and read like Sami Tamimi and Yottam Ottolenghi’s Jerusalem and Anthony Bourdain’s Appetites, and even to ultra-popular blogs like The Pioneer Woman. While some of those examples are more gourmand than others, they all emphasize how highly personal the subject of food can be—and just how much fun it can be to talk about it—just as Brillat-Savarin once did.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.