I’m Obsessed With Decadent and Deviant Instagram Cakes

In the absence of physical queer gathering spaces, texting about desserts stepped in.

Mother Jones illustration; Getty; Unsplash

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

A good night out used to mean draping a silver chain around my neck, tending to the melodrama of a friend spotting their crush at the club, and finishing perched over a taco stand in downtown Los Angeles. Those nights are sadly gone. Now the signs of a pandemic pleasant evening reside in the digital sphere—in group chat and DMs—where my friends and I fire off messages about the elaborate dinner parties we wish we could throw. More often than not, we dwell on what we should have for dessert. In recent months we’ve become increasingly obsessed with a certain genre of heavily adorned, pastel-colored cakes.

The first time I saw this style of cake was when my friend Maddie sent me block.them’s Instagram page. A Chicago-based cake account, the page features cakes overloaded with fig halves, kumquats, ruby pomegranate jewels, yellow and pink dragon fruit, sprigs of rosemary and red roses. In the caption of one particular delight, the baker Ken Folk says the inside contains a vanilla-and-black-pepper base with a “tamarind cream cheese frosting.” I was smitten.

@block.them isn’t the only baker working toward extreme adornment. Since the beginning of the pandemic, dozens of unconventional cake accounts have spawned over Instagram, from @nommel_gobble’s drippy watercolor cakes dressed with flowers and unusual plants to @eatnunchi’s dreamy translucent jelly cakes (which take on transcendent shapes like that of a snail or an ear of corn) to @dreamcaketestkitchen’s carefully fruit polka dotted cake mounds.

But what do we call them? How do we categorize them? One friend of mine, Caitlan, suggested these were of the “soft core” variety. Another friend said they’re “internet cakes.” Earlier in the pandemic, the New York Times wondered if these cakes might be classified in the woodsy goblincore or the pastoral utopia cottagecore aesthetic. In many ways, these desserts follow in a long line of queer food culture, questioning what a cake is and can be. Just look at the gilded grotesque dinner parties put on in the past by New York–based queer food collective @spiral_theory_testkitchen for reference. One of the test kitchen’s co-founders and chefs, poet Precious Okoyomon, told Vogue, “When people taste our food, they’re like, ‘What the fuck is in my mouth?’”

Since we’ve been at home, we’ve graduated beyond growing scallions in our windowsills and dabbling in sourdough starter. The pandemic has ushered in a new kind of play and abstraction in the kitchen, a ripe ground for spontaneity and surprise in a time when the days all start to blend together.

Were she alive today, I think Susan Sontag would say these cakes demonstrate the epitome of camp. In her 1964 essay “Notes on Camp,” the philosopher and critic argued that camp art lies in the intense juxtaposition between “extravagant” and “rich form.” It must, in part, contain a fiction; it is a “vision of the world in terms of style…the love of the exaggerated.” These desserts are “cakes” in quotations marks in the best way.

Now in the absence of physical queer gathering spaces—the club, dinner party, community center, cafe—this genre of sweet delight has become a salient terrain for celebration and exploration for me and my friends. It isn’t just about the cakes themselves, it’s about the weird artistic community they foster, their inherent connection with botany and the natural world, and their insistence on play and imperfection. I dream one day of foraging through my neighborhood with my friends, collecting fresh figs and lavender flowers, dehydrating, emulsifying, brûlée-ing. I look forward to the disaster of baking, of making a messy cake mound and trying hopelessly to catch it in its best light. Those days still feel and are far away. But until then, we have the cake—in all its dreamy forms—as our disco.

An earlier version of this article misstated the location of the baker @block.them. They are based in Chicago.

Image credits: Brooke Lark/Unsplash, Holly Stratton/Unsplash, American Heritage Chocolate/Unsplash, May Lawrence/Unsplash; Getty

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate