[Steve Plotnicki]

This issue came up on Fat Guy's thread about the relevancy of Italian food. It's clear that pretty much everyone, whether they prefer haute cuisine to Italian cuisine agreed that whatever Italian cuisine is, it isn't haute cuisine. Even though Francesco spoke of an Italian equivalent of haute cuisine that isn't really practiced anymore. But enough time spent on those Italians. What is haute cuisine? Is it as simple as turning roasted mushrooms into a mushroom flan? Is it reducing chicken broth into a jelly ala Robuchon? Or adding enough butter and cream to make my mashed potatoes a "haute cuisine consistancy? Or how about a soup based on the essence of crustaceans? What is the difference between the seafood soup at a tratorria in La Spezia and the Lobster Consomme at La Maree in Paris? I can give thousands of examples like these. And if I knew more about desserts, I would raise examples there as well. So what exactly is haute cuisine? Because I can tell you I know it when I see it (taste it,) but how do we draw the distinction between it and other types of cuisine on paper?

[Wilfrid]

Are we talking about today - because it's surely changed over the years?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Either one. Historically there must have been a distinction as to what made something HC in the first place. Present day variations or improvements would be a continuation or outgrowth of the techniques or the philosophy. Yes?

[Wilfrid]

Not an easy question. To get the ball rolling, I can suggest some things which strike me as characteristic of what has historically been described as haute cuisine:

1. The use of several cooking techniques at different stages in the preparation of a dish, thus typically making it time-consuming and/or labor intensive.

2. The presence of luxury (expensive) ingredients, sometimes just as garnishes.

3. Self-consciously artistic presentation.

4. The presence of made sauces (i.e., not just cooking juices).

5. A significant transformation of the main ingredient from its original state.

None of these are sufficient or necessary of course. 1. would apply to cassoulet.

But I am open-minded as to whether "high level" (if I may) cooking today remains in this tradition, or whether there has been a paradigm shift away from the approach well-exemplified by Escoffier. I am interested in what people have to say.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid - Of your list, I find that number three takes precedence over the others. Look at my flan example. It's getting mushrooms into a consistancy and texture where the chef can manipulate the shape to his liking. Combining a technique where the flavor is intensified along with the ability to make an artistic presentation has to be at the heart of what HC is. As for a new paradigm, I think that there is a new paradigm that is based on certain techniques that have been extracted from haute cuisine. And they have been combined with the best part of Italian cuisines, and possibly other cuisines as well. Look at the entire raw fish/seviche phenomenon which is influenced by Japanese and South American cuisines.

[Rachel Perlow]

Wilfrid, on Oct 11 2002, 02:53 PM, said:

5.  A significant transformation of the main ingredient from its original state.

At first I tended to agree with this point, but then I thought of numerous examples that fit this desciption yet are definitely not haute cuisine, like moussaka and lasagna.

I think the ones that fit best are the artful presentation and the use of luxury ingredients.

[Wilfrid]

All very fair.

[Suzanne F]

In Savoie and the French Alps, you have haute cuisine; in the Italian Alps, it's alta cucina. At sea-level, it depends on what storey of the house it's on.

[Nick]

Being a country boy (and hoping to always remain one) I had to do a Google search to see what "haute cuisine" is. The following link from the Google search is maybe a bit off the track.

Remaining the country boy I'd like to try the, " "instant boiled mutton in hot pot" wintertime dish consists of dipping paper-thin slices of mutton into a hot pot's boiling water and dredging them through a sauce whose dozen ingredients include sesame butter and salted leeks."

Chinese Haute Cuisine

[Wilfrid]

I would venture to say that "high level" cooking in a number of countries, such as China and Japan, has come to be called "haute cuisine" by analogy with the Franco-European tradition. I think we'll get in a muddle if we try to look for a worldwide definition of haute cuisine. But don't let me stop y'all from trying.*

*Note fancy American second person plural.

[Bux]

There's no particular point at which something is, or is not, haute cuisine. When enough people agree it's haute cuisine, it is (at least to those people). What difference does it make? If I had tete de veau at Daniel, was it haute cuisine? There's a vague point at which a certain finesse kicks in and we call it haute cuisine. That point is vague and just where about it is changes over time and according to who cares.

Wilfrid gave five good pointers and then correctly noted that none of the conditions are necessary and that you might not have find art, whoops I mean haute cuisine, even if you meet all five.

My wife had pasta with "Bolognese"sauce at Michel Guerard. Was that haute cuisine? I may have to go back to the Italy thread and ask.

[Nick]

As I said Wilfred, it was a bit off the track. But, I'd like to try some of it.

Hope y'all didn't take offense.

[Wilfrid]

Kind of agree, Bux, but I like to save up raining on Steve's parade for occasions when it's really merited . I think there are some interesting issues around the extent to which the various things we call haute cuisine today have departed from that which originally merited the name (I almost said soubriquet, but I don't want have to call myself a pompous ass again).

[tommy]

Wilfrid, on Oct 11 2002, 04:31 PM, said:

(I almost said soubriquet, but I don't want have to call myself a pompous ass again).

please, allow me.

[Bux]

When's the last time anyone asked himself if he was eating haute cuisine, or thought to himself, I'd to dine in a haute cuisine restaurant when making restaurants?

[g.johnson]

Wilfrid: Curiously, your list makes no mention of how the food tastes.

[Spoonful]

I would define "haute cuisine" as a sophisticated meal, expertly prepared and elegantly served.

[g.johnson]

Spoonful, on Oct 11 2002, 04:41 PM, said:

I would define "haute cuisine" as a sophisticated meal, expertly prepared and elegantly served.

Now define 'sophisticated' and 'elegant' and we'll be home free.

[Nick]

Spoonful, on Oct 11 2002, 01:41 PM, said:

I would define "haute cuisine" as a sophisticated meal, expertly prepared and elegantly served.

Does that mean I can't wear jeans and a tee-shirt?

[SobaAddict70]

Spoonful, on Oct 11 2002, 03:41 PM, said:

I would define "haute cuisine" as a sophisticated meal, expertly prepared and elegantly served.

By that definition, the food served at Craft would be haute cuisine.

But in the context of Escoffier, probably not.

Wilfrid -- your criteria fits the bill if you were talking about the French definition of haute cuisine. But kaiseki cuisine is most definitely haute cuisine, albeit more along the lines of a Japanese view. The style is different -- in kaiseki, you're trying to establish a balance between the natural world and the world of manmade artifice while keeping in mind the harmony of nature. This is not an aesthetic that seems to be present in the Western view of le cuisine d'Escoffier.

And then, you have haute cuisine in the context of Imperial China and also of Moghul India.

So, I'd have to say, you'd need to expand your contextual basis a bit.

I think its safe to say that the definition of haute cuisine depends on an individual's subjectivity, as in most things like art and philosophy.

SA

[Suzanne F]

Quote

Does that mean I can't wear jeans and a tee-shirt?

Not if Nina W. is going to be there, too.

[Wilfrid]

Bux, I am silly enough to think like that sometimes, and I have had people (non-eGulleters, of course) laugh in my face when I have thought out loud.

GJ. Are you joking about taste? If not, I suppose rich and cloying might be the common denominator

Soba. I think it's just a matter of which way we want the discussion to go whether we define it in terms of the tradition flowing down through Escoffier, which is what I had in mind, or whether we include analogous levels of cooking in any country. I just think the latter will make the task of defining it close to impossible.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Quote

There's no particular point at which something is, or is not, haute cuisine. When enough people agree it's haute cuisine,

Well this is the typical argument around here. One that always says that because the definition of what haute cuisine is has to be evaluated on a case by case basis, that the definition of haute cuisine is relative to what people agree is the definition. Excuse me for saying this but that is incorrect. They teach haute cuisine in numerous cooking schools in France and elsewhere. It is the practice of a specific discipline in regards to food preparation and food service. It is a way of doing things. It is a philosophy and a strategy. And though it contains a range where a number of different opinions can be correct, it is not a matter of opinion.

You might go to Daniel and eat Tete de Veau, and the expectation would be that it is Tete de Veau at the most refined level. And you expect the same dish at Cafe Boulud to be less refined, more so at DB Bistro Moderne and even less refined at your local traiteur. Using this example, one would think that haute cuisine comes down to "the most luxurious way to serve a dish including artistic preparation." Undoubtedy that usually means the smoothest and the silkiest and the creamiest. And that's why the Tete de Veau at your local bistro might be better then what they serve you at Daniel. It's a dish that is meant to be coarse. And then you might go to Daniel and eat a mushroom flan with a slab of sauteed foie gras laid atop so perfectly that it is seemless with the flan. And the same dish at a bistro might be served as roasted musrooms tossed with cubes of sauteed foie gras (that sounds good doesn't it?) and dressed in some way. Where is the line here?

[Wilfrid]

Steve Plotnicki, on Oct 11 2002, 04:55 PM, said:

Undoubtedy that isially means the smoothest and the silkiest and the creamiest.

Well, you know I have a bone to pick - appropriately enough - about the expensive-baby-food theory. Historically, I do not believe that (French) h-c has necessarily been about making food slurpy. I have been meaning to get around doing some research on that (I have some Point and Dumaine menus, and Escoffier would be relevant too), but time doesn't allow: but certainly one could list classic dishes from that tradition which offer a variety of textures.

I do wonder whether a range of developments over the last few years are pushing h-c in the teeth-not-necessary direction, and I also wonder whether that is to be regretted.

[g.johnson]

Wilfrid, on Oct 11 2002, 04:55 PM, said:

GJ.  Are you joking about taste?

No. And I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your list. But if haute cuisine is characterized only by complexity, expense and appearance, I'm not sure I want to eat it. I want the chef to be primarily concerned with taste.

[SobaAddict70]

Wilfrid, on Oct 11 2002, 03:55 PM, said:

Soba.  I think it's just a matter of which way we want the discussion to go whether we define it in terms of the tradition flowing down through Escoffier, which is what I had in mind, or whether we include analogous levels of cooking in any country.  I just think the latter will make the task of defining it close to impossible.

That's my point. You can't fit something like "haute cuisine" through one narrow set of conditions and traditions. There will always be permutations that don't fit the accepted view. However, I can be magnanimous and say that regardless of which view you're discussing, there seem to be overlapping elements (i.e., artistic presentation, transformation of ingredients, use of luxury materials, variety of cooking styles).

GJ -- I would define "sophisticated and elegant" as "a level above and beyond mundane and common so as to seem informed in matters of taste, complex in matters of design, yet simplicity personified in matters of execution". Food for thought, eh? So by that definition, Craft definitely fits the bill.

SA

[Nick]

Suzanne F, on Oct 11 2002, 01:51 PM, said:

Not if Nina W. is going to be there, too.

This ignorant country hick has found himself in the wrong thread.

Who's Nina W. ?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrd - Well you know it doesn't have to be smooth and silky. As long as it expresses the philosophy of HC (which is what I'm trying to get a definition of.) To me the practice of HC is like painting in a style. In order to be an Impressionist painter you have to adopt the philosophy and technique of how Impressionism. And to serve HC, you need to cook and present food that is consistent with a certain technique and style. Coarse, unfortunately for you, is often not consistant with HC.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Soba - I don't think Craft is haute cuisine because they don't apply HC technique to the food. Their thing is more Italo-American in style, with some French technique mixed in and some Asian influences as well. They have fantastic ingredients and they serve them perfectly. But ultimately what they are serve is "New American" cuisine. Now Jean-Georges or Le Bernadin. They serve haute cuisine.

[g.johnson]

Plotters: Coarse is not necessarilty coarse, nor refined refined.