[www.time.com]

I love the picture.

It was a good article.

I am always taken aback when people mention the equipment needed for a raw diet. The equipment isn't necessary but even if it were it is less than what a cooked diet requires. We had a stove, microwave, toaster, coffee pot, outdoor grill, George Foreman grill, can opener and the list goes on.

That was a cool article.

But I agree with pakd4fun, part of the reason I eat raw is out of laziness! A meal of cucumbers, tomatoes, and a handful of nuts and a piece of fruit doesn't need ANY prep, half the time I don't even chop them up

i have a few tools but some of them i had already, blender, food processor, knives and cutting board, salad spinner, grater, collanders, spice mill, even a juicer.

to that list i added a spiralizer and upgraded the juicer. meh. didn't cost near as much as a stove or a barbeque would! the dehydrator i'm still on the fence about. do i really need that thing?

I like my dehydrator but not for the things I thought I would. I like sprouting and dehydrating nuts. I really like to sprout them with flavor and sprinkle seasoning on them. I am dehydrating fruit in mine now. I like softening things in it like mushrooms, broccoli and peppers. I had originally thought I would use it more for crackers and raw versions of cooked things, which I do sometimes but rarely.

I find that article to be ridiculous. He says nothing of value or depth. He also makes it clear that he did not research the subject before taking on the experiment. And oh boy, the experiment lasted a whole three days. What an authority. And what about his "cult" reference? Most people don't see that word in a positive light. And the ribs and mac and cheese that he's going to eat after he orders raw take out? It's like he praises but his ultimate verdict is negative and a bit smug. Typical TIME magazine cluelessness. For those of you who like it, I think the painting is by Arcimboldo.

That article could have been a heck of a lot worse. I think the guy should be given some credit - lots of media personnel would have spun it with a lot more contempt. And don't forget how challenging it would be to approach such a rareified food system with no prior introduction and no guidance. I think the article was overall quite gentle and positive towards raw foodism. It was a bit light on useful content, but maybe that wasn't the goal of the author. I didn't get where he said he didn't do any research ahead of time; where did the previous poster see that comment? I agree that the word 'cult' is loaded, but I didn't get that it was used as a pejorative.

We must have read 2 totally different articles and have 2 completely different ideas of what it means to be a professional, objective journalist. Could he have at least interviewed a successful raw foodist and quoted them? You know what I mean? Give the raw foods community a voice? And what about his incessant and misguided whining about how difficult he's decided it is after 3 whole days on the raw foods journey. If being healthy is difficult, then I guess he's right. There's also the statement where he says that he doesn't want to be in "a cult whose members talk about food all the time." Blatant falsehoods are always pejorative. If he was well intended, he would have used the term "community" and refrained from making untrue generalizations. The raw foods community is very diverse, intelligent, and open-minded. And what about the overall feel he gives of it being a relatively expensive diet? Not completely true again. He's a charlatan.

omg gimme a break. it was a simple little blurb article in a silly little rag, not a research paper. as far as that goes i think he did an excellent job, i mean at least he even bothered to try the food so he had some idea what he was talking about. there have been plenty or writers who never even bothered to go that far, just tossed an uninformed opinion about. whateve's, if one wants the truth it's out there easy enough to find. i think it's interesting how something that used to be so obscure has hit the mainstream and is worthy of appearing in a popular monthly. sure it could have been better but it also could have been much, much worse!

well, this article doesn't really stand out ( it definetley won't emblazon a powerful feeling in my memory)

it was kind of like chewing on bubble gum while you are waiting in line at the store (not a very memorable experience )

most articles i read that pertains to raw foodism but are written by people who think that having a salad is such a major event that they proudly announce it to people tend to be... well... pretty mediocre

the tone is always the same:

one of curiosity, a little bit of awe, some trepidation, but mostly they make me yawn, and fall asleep ( next time someone tells me about an article, or interview or whatever about raw foods written by a major cooked foodie , give me a pillow, and/or a blanket because i'll probably fall asleep half way through it ( and that is DEFINETELY not the case when someone who is experienced in raw foodism and has done her/his research etc. has something great to say)

anyone who has eyes or ears ( or even those who don't)
are told since they are kids " fruits and veggies are good for you"

so it is not hidden knowledge... nothing new or esoteric here

and yet, all the articles or interviews that i have read/seen ( by big mac lovers)

always has the writer (or tv host) act as if were such an odd thing that there are some people who actually buy into the notions that " fruits and veggies are good for you."

and ACTUALLY make a lifestyle out of the goodies instead of making a lifestyle out of cheese and fries

which is more odd? which should be talked about or treated with kid gloves? ( since that certainly is the tone of most of the raw food articles written by people who have never eaten a salad or fruit for more than once a month?( or year)

it may sound as if i am being condescending but really, some of those articles that get printed in big time magazines ( not talking about this one in particular) are a lot more condescending to our innate intelligence than most people are willing to concede to

that painting ( that was graciously included in the article) however was anything BUT mediocre

WOW! i saw it before and when i first saw it, i thought the same thing:

WOW! it looks loads more stunning when the painting is bigger and you can see all the details of the all the raw cornucopia that went into constituting that face

simply awesome!!

yeah LaV...i thought the best part of the article was the painting as well. That artist has lots of other stuff in that style...you know, the "people made of plants style" i printed one up to show my coworkers what i look like beneath my skin...haha!
Here's a link to more paintings by Arcimboldo.

Aloha, Greg

aloha greg

that painting ( as well as his other paintings) is everything the article is not

imaginative

extraordinary

thought provoking

and just

extremely profound in detail and depth

what a stunning juxtaposition LOL

had no idea Arcimboldo was from the 16th Century

i thought it was a digital manipulation of things

wow. pure genius!!


thank you so much for sharing this



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2008 09:56PM by la_veronique.

..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2008 09:56PM by la_veronique.

Devric Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We must have read 2 totally different articles and
> have 2 completely different ideas of what it means
> to be a professional, objective journalist.

Well I didn't call him professional, objective or a journalist, lol, but perhaps you're right, perhaps we do have different definitions of those words.

> Could
> he have at least interviewed a successful raw
> foodist and quoted them? You know what I mean?
> Give the raw foods community a voice? And what
> about his incessant and misguided whining about
> how difficult he's decided it is after 3 whole
> days on the raw foods journey.

I assumed it was because that's what his editor asked for. I'm a freelance writer, and I've been told things like, 'Nobody wants to read about all the gadgets in the new Airbus airplanes, I want a 'running commentary' article of your impressions of flying in one.'

> If being healthy is
> difficult, then I guess he's right. There's also
> the statement where he says that he doesn't want
> to be in "a cult whose members talk about food all
> the time." Blatant falsehoods are always
> pejorative. If he was well intended, he would have
> used the term "community" and refrained from
> making untrue generalizations.

It's certainly true that the author could have used a different word.

> The raw foods
> community is very diverse, intelligent, and
> open-minded. And what about the overall feel he
> gives of it being a relatively expensive diet? Not
> completely true again. He's a charlatan.

It's regrettable that he didn't give the impression that you would have preferred; it's too bad that the article gave you such a bad and lingering impression. Looking at it from the POV of a writer for hire (and everything that means from pitches to word count to editors and editorial departments), I think it's a miracle that it wasn't a lot worse.

The reality is that all the conventional media is about spin, and the spin is to make $$$ by appealing to the lowest (or lower) common denominator. If someone at TIME thinks a fairly innocuous (as opposed to damning) article about raw food will sell magazines, or at least not prevent their sale, then I think it's a (small) victory.

Thanks for the link Greg.

LaV, I think you should send that first post to the editor of Time.

Love the man made of fruit painting.

I think the more that people hear about raw the better. I think, although a fluff piece, the article helps get the word out. If people hear about it enough they will become interested. That is how I found it. I read and heard about it three times before researching it and changing my life.

seabucktho


<<The reality is that all the conventional media is about spin, and the spin is to make $$$ by appealing to the lowest (or lower) common denominator. If someone at TIME thinks a fairly innocuous (as opposed to damning) article about raw food will sell magazines, or at least not prevent their sale, then I think it's a (small) victory>>

<<I think it's a miracle that it wasn't a lot worse. >>

the true miracle would be when people realize they are a lot more intelligent, spiritual, and profound than they are given credit for

i am not really talking about this article at all now, actually

i am talking about the entirety of the media in general

i think that a LOT more money would be made if the media appealed to people's HIGHER senses or even HIGHEST senses then if they continually treated adults as people who are frozen in time ( as fifteen year olds) who can't get enough of
watching people shoot each other up or read magazines ( think of all the women's magazines out there) in which the majority of articles are written about different shades of lipstick, how to apply your eye shadow and the art of
matching your earrings with your purse

i think that if the MAJORITY of the magazines were high quality, if the MAJORITY of the books appealed to people's intelligence, if the MAJORITY of the films were thought provoking and tasteful, a writer/ artist/filmaker

could wake up in the morning and be proud of their industry and be excited about
their line of work and feel a growing sense that the sky is the limit

right now however ( from personal observation) the status quo seems to be just like you said ( fluff fluff and more fluff spinning their cotton candy and making people's brain syrupy, dense and as sticky as possible )

the true miracle is when any book, film or article REALLY moves you and you want to shout for joy

because it is expressed in a way that appeals to ones HIGHEST senses

it is a miracle to be treasured

and miraculously there is still good art out there

Great post, l_v. I'm pretty cynical about the media, but I sincerely wish for the world you describe!

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> omg gimme a break. it was a simple little blurb
> article in a silly little rag, not a research
> paper. as far as that goes i think he did an
> excellent job, i mean at least he even bothered to
> try the food so he had some idea what he was
> talking about. there have been plenty or writers
> who never even bothered to go that far, just
> tossed an uninformed opinion about. whateve's, if
> one wants the truth it's out there easy enough to
> find. i think it's interesting how something that
> used to be so obscure has hit the mainstream and
> is worthy of appearing in a popular monthly. sure
> it could have been better but it also could have
> been much, much worse!

You're right. Why would I ever want to be represented by the truth in a mainstream mag. Let's keep it hidden away in obscure internet discussion boards and over-priced restaurants. Thanks for your wisdom and thanks even more for setting me straight.

ooh, somebody's panties are on too tight! loosen up my carrot juice drinking friend. loosen up!

You guys are funny,with all we have to discuss in the world and a little article,but mostly thanks to Maui Greg for the Art/History Lesson.It truly is a wonder that one Genius so many of us never heard about and I learned about him on a Food support site. It is the Genius of yesterday that is of interest, not the writer of today.

Hey! Why do I get vilified for what I say, yet no one even reads enough of what I say to at least give me credit for being the first to i.d Arcimboldo as the artist? Check out the last line of my first post. That seems a bit unfair! Sheesh! You're exposed! I don't even get credit for saying that raw foodists are diverse, intelligent, open-minded...I guess it's pick on Devric day, the guy that no one even knows. haha? Carrot juice?

Aloha Devric...

Breathe my friend...

and again....deeply...

and again....

I've never thought of these forums as a contest. Indeed you were the first person to post the artists name. It's very cool that you knew that. Please take all the credit you need for that, as well as saying "...raw fooders are diverse, intelligent, open-minded". I totally agree with that statement.

"you're exposed"... could you expand on that a little? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm just confused.

For what it's worth, I've never heard of Pick on Devric Day. Is that one of those obscure holidays they celebrate on the mainland? Personally I've never been big on those kinds of holidays. Does it involve any special decorations? I think I'll skip it this year.

Carrot juice is sweet.

Breathe aloha, Greg

i say we have an Arcimboldo Day



he must have been a raw foodist
look at all the attention and detail
someone who appreciates foods in their pure and luscious form

quixotic

la_veronique Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> anyone who has eyes or ears ( or even those who
> don't)
> are told since they are kids " fruits and veggies
> are good for you"
>
> so it is not hidden knowledge... nothing new or
> esoteric here
>
> and yet, all the articles or interviews that i
> have read/seen ( by big mac lovers)
>
> always has the writer (or tv host) act as if were
> such an odd thing that there are some people who
> actually buy into the notions that " fruits and
> veggies are good for you."
>

Yes, I agree totally. I can't remember a time in my life
when I was not convinced that fruits and veggies were
better. Maybe I should thank my parents.

You know it's very easy to see who eats right and who
doesn't. A good eater will have a slight to moderate
carotenoid deposit in the palms. A bad one won't.

Since I have become a palm reader I am sorry to say it's
about 95:5 bad:good.

But I see it's not about knowning good from bad, it's
about the choices people make, and almost all of them
choose poorly.

> it may sound as if i am being condescending but
> really, some of those articles that get printed in
> big time magazines ( not talking about this one in
> particular) are a lot more condescending to our
> innate intelligence than most people are willing
> to concede to

Pandering sells. It makes people feel good about
continuing with their poor decisions.