sizzleteeth
-
Posts
382 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by sizzleteeth
-
-
what's the buddhist quote...
first you see a mountain.....
then you see the trees and the slopes and streams, the birds and flowers, the ridges, the view, the grasses, the dirt, the worms the leaves...
then you see a mountain.
no worries, you'll get there someday.
Heh, I wasn't aware of that quote - but obviously I can't prove that - maybe I should have done a little more research before I opened my mouth.
Add hypocrisy to my list of admitted transgressions.
After all... "Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury".
-
Nathan, for the record, I don't think you're hounding. I do, however, think you're failing to see the forest for the trees. It's not plagiarism to say "you're failing to see the forest for the trees." It's just use of common language. Now if I wrote "But it is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation" without attributing Melville...
I agree that Wylie is being honest. But I also think he's wrong (you too).
Love you Fat Guy - I mean no ill will towards you - nor do I take any from you.
We just disagree.
I'm not looking at the forest, I'm not even looking at the trees. I'm going much deeper than that and looking at the leaves on the trees in the forest. Because those elements are what make up both tree and forest. And any and all are free to think I'm wrong and disagree, it doesn't make me wrong nor does it make me angry. And it doesn't make what I'm saying (or what you're saying) any less relevent.
It simply puts us at opposite ends of an argument and different levels of scrutiny - both of which exist outside and inside this forum.
Which adds to the balance of things.
-
And it is an insult to all the hard-working, honest chefs who try to create and be original to say "We all plagiarise all the time." I don't think Wylie Dufresne is a plagiarist in any way, shape or form, but even if he believes he plagiarizes "all the time" he should speak only for himself. Wylie Dufresne is a victim here, and his forgiveness is a testament to his generosity of spirit, but here he goes too far.
On the contrary - Wylie - I applaud and appreciate your admittance that you are not innocent and that you did not invent enzyme noodles - though you may have been the first to make them with prawns and that your noodles can be traced back to The Fat Duck.
edited to remove the reference to the song "Good Morning Captain" and any reference to hounds and add a reference to ducks.
-
Nathan, I think this has been hounded to death.
With all due respect Doc, you may classify what I'm doing as hounding - but in reality I am simply responding to things as they are brought to bear by others.
Granted - what I am saying is not pleasant - but it is not in anger.
We have chefs who are copying who do not want to be copied, who have people working for free in their restaurants where the very point of the trade off is to be able to take what you learn and use it.
We have chefs who are copying who do not want to be copied who are offering for sale items that encourage you to copy them.
I feel a position has to be chosen.
We have chefs who say that they are "creating at a more efficient pace than the commercial food industry" whom are raising their fists in the air and saying "it's time to start thinking like them" - "it's time to take back what is ours".
My position is that no chef has "their" gums - they have gums like transglutaminase and all the others that were invented by companies to do exactly what they are being used to do - no one is "using transglutaminase as a meat glue"..... transglutaminase IS a meat glue that was designed to take meat that has been taken apart in any number of ways and put it back together - that's how they make whole boneless fish and all the other products mentioned at the bottom of that page.
No chef has "their" edible paper unless they made the edible paper themselves and no chef can be given credit for inventing printing edible images on edible paper - because that existed long ago.
Chefs, at one time or another CREATED what they lay claim to - they didn't buy it off the internet. If no one can ever fucking make "shrimp noodles" with a commercially available product for doing such a thing then everyone who makes noodles out of flour and water is a thief.
This is not about "Social Entrepreneurship" - this is not about helping people out in the industry - this is about I DID THIS FIRST LOOK AT ME - this is about FAME, one only need read an old article in New City to know this too be true.
I think the term "in the world" is used way too loosely and I personally would not be sorry if I never saw it again - because frankly - and pardon my "French" - the world is a big motherfucker - with lots and lots and lots of extremely smart people doing fabulous things.
Someone earlier mentioned an Achilles heel, which together with being dramatic makes me think of Achilles himself and him speaking to his men at the battle of Troy:
"Myrmidons!*** My brothers of the sword! I would rather fight beside you than any army of thousands! Let no man forget how menacing we are, we are lions! Do you know what's waiting in that restau.... I mean, beyond that beach? Immortality! Take it! It's yours! "
Achilles could not be knocked off his high horse... because he was hiding inside it and burned Troy to the ground.
I personally think it's a fitting irony - that Achilles is most famous for his weakness.
Afterall - "he did it to himself".
So no more hounding my man - if what I have to say is not a welcome vantage point - if the people that brought this entire issue to light are allowed to defend themselves but we are not allowed to contradict them - then you will hear not another peep from me.
-
has his wild service pieces
just don't use the same plateup and description as someone else.
You make some good points Mike.
In doing so you also bring up something I've yet to touch on - and this is in no way a jab at anyone, I really want to know and I think it's relevent.
As to me it seems that plating has been one of the major issues here.
How is this particular subject going to be affected now that the Alinea service pieces in question are commercially available from Crucial Detail?
How many ways are there to plate on a squid and a bow or an antenna?
If you buy these things and use them are you automatically limited to the ingredients you can use?
Or are you simply copying by using one in the first place?
Or does that notion disappear because you bought it and the chef made it available for sale?
Edit: Also if things like the pictured Crate and Barrel candle holder (correct me if I'm wrong) are used by someone - does that make it off limits to others - or do they simply have to use different ingredients?
-
Nice article Brian, I especially like how you got commentary from people in the commercial food industry and from some of the companies that make things like transglutaminase.
If this stuff interests you, you might be interested in some whole boneless fish..
-
Here is a good example of how this can seriously get out of hand....
Looks like there is already a patent for a Sous Vide Reheating Device - which I would expect since it is an apparatus, but it made me wonder if an actual "cooking process" like this could be patented...
Looks like maybe it can, as someone has filed for a patent on 3/10/05 for a "Vacuum cooking apparatus and cooking method using the same" - though it's very dfferent from Sous Vide - and filing doesn't mean it will be granted obviously.
http://www.freshpatents.com/Vacuum-cooking...20050051541.php
Though I wonder if a "method" has to be tied to an "apparatus" to be patented?
As I can't find a patent for Sous Vide itself.
Excuse me... I have a phone call to make.
-
What is in bold is a great example of fearing the unknown. You can do that, I choose action.
As a human being there will always be aspects of the unknown that I fear - though more than the unknown - I fear the known - the proven - because those are the things who's outcomes are somewhat predictable - and when they are negative - there isn't much you can do about it.
There is an old quote from one of the old books of Dune that I love:
"The concept of progress serves as a protective mechanism, to shield us from the terrors of the future".
I certainly hope that you do solve world hunger - as I said before - and when I said it - I was sincere.
Though I'm not sure I see the logic in your delivery method nor do I see the logic in your current chosen avenue of serving very expensive dinners to a relatively small number of people as I personally see that as part of the problem in the first place - but that is fair enough - I certainly hope I am proven wrong. I would be more inclined to educate, to teach a man to fish or to irrigate - then to drop printed leaflets from a plane - edible or not.
In this forum and the one that kicked it off before, you have been highly critical of copying and highly assertive about aggressively protecting what is yours - eliminated stages in your restaurant because they are just going to copy though you yourself are to a large degree a product of staging and if the idea is to spread ideas then it seems if people have to work for free so that more willing people experience the ideas, this would be more efficient than isolating them to a few people who are well paid. You've insisted that you be entitled to compensation for your ideas else you would feel ripped off and I really think you need to sit down and take a long look in the mirror.
Because I see, though you have made it clear you care for your people and I believe that - for me
what also comes through is arrogance and in your past words I see little of what you just wrote, and I certainly hope that it too - is true.
There is a balance in everything, just like seasoning - things can be over seasoned, things can be under seasoned - and there is a place where things are just right. For everyone that spot is different - everyone has a different threshold of of "not enough" and "too much".
For me, the idea of a food replicator for a Mars mission makes some sense - though making an anti-chef device to be used in the world of gastronomy doesn't.
The context, as always, makes the difference.
I can only agree to disagree and every time I post I say it will be the last - so maybe this time
I'll just say nothing.
-
And actually while we're at it - let me tell you what I think, my preemptive reply - so I can leave this behind.
I think you have taken an existing idea using existing technology that was designed to do exactly
what it is doing, printing edible images on edible paper.... and printed edible images on edible paper.
This brings up a couple of points.
1. By evolving this one step forward by making the images taste like what they look like, it is novel and clever but by no means constitutes complete originality, creativity nor the exclusion of applying credit to the people who developed every other part of the process.
2. Because the technology exists and I can buy it and use it myself, right now, if we were to say
both use the same stock photo of a chicken, but you print yours with ink that tastes like chicken
and I just leave mine as is - I am not copying you. Right?
Because the technology already exists and you are simply using patented technology to do what you are doing and the only thing you can really lay claim to is the ink, I imagine what you are doing at Moto does not infringe upon any of these patents and you don't have to pay anyone a damn thing, I could be wrong - please tell me so.
But what if it did?
Because this is one of the major points I've been trying to make this whole time, the line is farther
back then the end result... in fact the end result is irrelevant for the most part, the end result is not even patentable.
It is the TECHNIQUE that is patentable, the PROCESS, which means if you "invent" the same techniques that already exist, you are in infringement of their patents.
Which means IF I can patent making "apple caviar" with sodium alginate/calcium chloride then you can't make "pear caviar" using the same method - without paying me.
Seems to me that, if "the law" as it stands states that a technique can be owned, a process can be owned - then if you copy the technique, if you copy the process, then you are copying... and that shuts a whole hell of a-lot of people down.
That's why this is dangerous - it used to be commercial food was commercial food and they dealt with all this stuff from within their industry - but the link between commercial food and chefs is getting stronger and stronger and shorter and shorter and you know what?
Just like you said earlier... just like I've said before.
Commercial food companies were doing most of this stuff decades ago.
Not only that, they are bigger and have lots more money and time and resources than any of us.
What are they entitled to? What are they going to take?
More than that - who else is going to take things?
The chefs who are "famous" for pre-existing techniques?
Maybe people who are not even chefs?
You wanna pay Michael Jackson every time you make mayonnaise?
So if this path of ownership and control of ideas is followed, as they say in KY - "shit is about to get real fucked up, real fast".
Same deal with the food replicator - look at the future brother - with open eyes.
You may find it pretty exciting to work on a project that - as the article says - makes a "machine that could mathematically evolve several generations of new foods, making its own decisions about which food is "fittest". As it needs no verdict the chef wouldn't even have to make the food. Eventually, the machine could cook its new recipes and then seek the chef's approval."
I don't know about you, but I don't see a very bright future for Chefs or the Culinary Arts in 40 years - if this thing comes into existence - regardless of how comfortable it makes trips to Mars.
It'll probably happen anyway - with or without you, but damn.... I personally don't see it as a step forward for chefs.
Maybe technically it is by definition - but so is a step forward off a cliff.
edit:clarification
-
Allright Inventolux - I removed my earlier jab as it was uncalled for.
I'm definitely willing to give you the benefit of the doubt - so I have a few questions in all seriousness, because this issue is being discussed at a very high level and I'd like to get more specific information.
While you're at it please explain, at a high level at least, how the work you're currently doing at Moto is affected by:
U.S. Patent # 6,319,530
Method of photocopying an image onto an edible web for decorating iced baked goods
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...ry=PN%2F6319530
and all the other patents it references, for instance:
U.S. Patent # 5,017,394
Method for making edible base shapes having pictorial images for decorating foodstuffs
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...ry=PN%2F5017394
Because it's my understanding, solely based on articles I've read, that you're using a Canon Pixma iP3000 - which is a fine inkjet printer in it's own right:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controlle...7&modelid=10238
And though the use of edible inks isn't supported directly by Canon:
http://www.canon.com.au/support/msds.html
This and other Canon printers have existed for some time in modified forms for printing edible images with edible inks sold in refillable ink jet cartridges by a number of companies to be printed on "sugar paper" for the main purpose of placing photos on birthday cakes:
Other than the ink you are making out of different foods and the the novel way in which you are presenting the printed images, to what extent do you consider this idea yours? And is your modification subject to any licensing fees considering the other patents?
Do you feel that the concept has been modified to an extent inside your restaurant that it has sufficiently passed the line of evolution?
By the way, I just read the article on the Nasa Food Replicator in New Scientist that mentions you and the concept sounds intriguing - so I wonder if you can elaborate a little on how this all ties together.
-
All he is facing is opprobrium. I feel that's warranted, because it takes a lot of chutzpah to not only copy other chefs' dishes without attribution but post photos of those dishes on your website. To get back to my question earlier in this thread, I don't think that not posting the photos would make this kind of culinary plagiarism alright, but I do think that posting the photos made it worse. And many of us who are taking strong exception to his actions are not personally injured in any way, so it's hardly fair to generalize this as "retribution." Anyway, you know what they say: If you can't stand the heat...
(Hands shaking... mouth frothing.) I want to stop myself from responding, but I can't - it's like I'm hooked on Egullet crack.... DAMN YOU FATGUY!!!
But regardless of what you call my momma Pan
- I'd like to reduce and clarify - and then I'm going to rehab.What I should have said earlier is, "The readily identifiable style of an individual - is on the same level as a particular dish".
So here is my position - in a nutshell - and I'm going to avoid the word "plagiarism".
Copying is copying. Period.
No one is innocent, I am not innocent and I'm not going to condemn someone for mistakes I've made myself in the past - they'll learn from it - it's done - let it go.
Copying without attribute is dishonest - at any level - at any line.
I think Ferran Adria said it best:
If you are influenced by another cook, another chef, and you explain that you are, that's not copying. In my books you will see influences from other chefs. That isn't a problem. The problem comes when people are not honest about it. There are plenty of creative people, but few honest ones. Picasso and Dali weren't honest. Picasso is my favorite artist, but he didn't explain his African inspiration. I'm not saying I'm 100% honest. It's very difficult to be completely honest; it's like being virginal -- pure.You can copy all day long and say you owe everything to the people you copy - and that is acceptable.
If you copy and don't pay homage then.....
In this world, especially in Art - there are many readily identifiable individual styles - you might even go as far as to call them "identities".
If you go to Art School, take a painting class and hand in work that looks like Salvador Dali, your teacher is gonna be like, "This
is technically well executed - but it looks just like Salvador Dali".
How many artists have been dismissed in history for having a style or "identity" that is too close to another known individual?
I personally think that there is a lot of "identity theft" going on in the culinary world - as much as there is actual recipe theft - and I think
there isn't much honesty about it.
And if these guys were $5 hot dog stand owners - no one would care if someone ripped off their noodles.
(hmm, a hotdog with noodles.......)
If the "Culinary Arts" is going to be "owned" by a handful of chefs, especially "new" chefs whom haven't even paid their dues compared to other chefs - to the point that you have to pay a licensing fee to make a recipe - then brother, you can keep it. Don't even publish a book.
And I'll just cook.
-
Sizzleteeth,
With all due respect it seems you have little idea of the evolution of a chef. Regardless of which path we choose there will necessarily be a type of plaigarism. We are all guilty of standing on the shoulders of those who have come before us. It is impossible for us not to. Even if you choose to develop your own style, all that it can really amount to is taking the sum of your existing experiences/ training and try to make it your own; twist it, spin it, evolve it somehow leaving your own fingerprint on the timeline of cooking. Inevitably there will be elements/aspects of a dish that will be traceble to previous training, but it is our hope to personlize it, to somehow make a contribution to what we have learned.
Wylie - I'll make one more post here to say that on this we agree.
Though I would say a readily identifiable style is at the same level as a specific dish - in my mind.
I do understand, to some degree anyway, the evolution of a chef and my challenge to answer these questions was purposely loaded - as in answering them - any chef would have to concede to copying - really - any person would have to concede to copying - somewhere, at some point.
Some to greater degree than others.
I understand and appreciate the distinction here in ways I can never fully convey to you and I'm not condoning it - nor am I really defending it - I simply feel this person made a mistake - maybe a huge one - but one that does not deserve this type of retribution. And retribution is what I feel it is.
I could say "it's just food" - "nobody ripped off the Mona Lisa here", but then I suppose you could say that about anything and it would open every door in existence to this type of thing.
So carry on.
I do though, appreciate your answer and it does seem to me to be an honest one.
-
You set up quite the straw man Sizzleteeth... and both comment and lack thereof can knock it down...
While I am not a chef, I can say this. Throughout my academic career at a liberal arts college, having written hundreds of pages, and in all of my writing since then, I have never knowingly plagiarized anyone else nor intentionally omitted a citation in order to pass off someone elses work as my own.
That you find it so hard to believe that someone else can go through life without doing so speaks volumes to your own actions (as you admitted earlier)... and enlightens us, perhaps, as to why reaon #4 cited by Fat Guy is de rigor in these situations.
Hey brother...
If this place is to be executioner, judge and jury, me included, then the very least we can get is a hand on the Bible to swear to tell the truth.
With that I digress - before I become the hunted.
If it's not already too late.
No I haven't lived my life free from fault or wrong doing and yes, it surprises me if anyone has.
Something which I'll happily admit to - and hope never to repeat.
Goodnight.
-
It has become quite a tribunal hasn't it?
As much as I don't agree with exactly what has transpired in the form of copying the dishes, I am sorry for these people that this has happened to them - because they are being made an example of only because they were caught - even though this kind of thing is common - to whatever extent.
What I would like to see from the other chefs in question is a black and white declaration in this forum, that they are obviously monitoring, that in their current work or in any of the work that has brought them to where they are - they have never plagiarized, never used something they knew to exist previously without crediting the proper source and never passed off something they knew to be a product of the work of another as their own - to whatever extent - to whatever degree.
Because in my opinion - if you cannot be measured by your own stick - then any debate on the subject as it pertains to you is worthless and the items that started this entire thread are moot in that context.
I don't have any expectation that that is going to happen - and will be extremely happy to see it if it does.
Your answer will speak volumes, your lack of answer will speak volumes, as would the removal of this post.
And let Karma treat you (and me) accordingly.
-
Degree of influence is a gray area. Direct copying with attribution and permission is clearly ok, direct copying but without permission is gray zone that probably wouldn't win a chef accolades, but would probably fall in the morally acceptable range, but direct copying in a plagiaristic fashion? Where can there be an argument here? I would have been thrown out of College if I did that.
I don't think anyone is defending plagiarism.
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm personally asking where does plagiarism begin?
And if you are guilty of plaigiarism at any level, at any line - do you have any place being upset
if you are plagiarized.
That is also what I took from the last line of Pedro's post.
The whole, "he who is without sin cast the first stone" deal.
And for damn sure - make sure you don't "live in a glass house".
-
Sizzleteeth- Cantu or Achatz using what they learned from Adria to create their own unique dishes is very different than copying an Adria dish verbatim to the last garnish.
Let me be the first to admit that I do not come from a position of innocence.
In my time I have lied, cheated and stolen - outright traced patterns line for line, screwed people over, been blinded by greed and generally made some bad decisions - especially in my younger days.
I'll even give you examples if you like.
I make no claim otherwise and I really hope I have learned my lesson from those past occurrences and do not repeat my mistakes in the future - though as a human being I am not immune to anything that may cause something like that to occur.
I'm not a chef, my food is not the most delicious you've ever eaten nor are the things I cook the most innovative - as I said before - as far as I know, as a person in any aspect of my life I am not doing anything in exclusion of all others
But I believe that is the question we are trying to answer, is it very different when you get down to specifics?
I'll be interested to see what the outcome is - as I can only speak from my personal point of view - which contains many filters and many biases - even as much as I try to avoid those very things.
-
However, when Chef Adria dined at Moto and Alinea earlier this month, he was not presented with any courses that were ever served at El Bulli. In fact, he was impressed with the level of creativity and innovation present at both restaurants -- his direct quote to me is that "everyone here takes this incredibly seriously and it is evident -- you should be very proud".
Indeed it does seem they have executed things very well - nor should they not be proud of their achievements.
I was merely pointing out that where you personally seem to draw the invisible line (specific dishes) and where I perceive the invisible line (readily identifiable and attributable concepts, ideas, techniques etc etc of known or even unknown individuals or groups) are very different - as my perception of the line is farther back than yours.
It also does indeed seem evident that these particular dishes were copied - but the point brought by many here is where is that line drawn?
Yes, they have both acknowledge their debt - I never meant to imply they didn't - in some way.
But the level of detail that things are being taken to here begs the question as to whether or not
their mentors should be mentioned and credited in nearly every facet of their operation - for instance when we see a Moto or Alinea cookbook - are we going to see a "Thanks Charlie, Ferran and Thomas" section?
Because it certainly seems to me that many want to own everything after a certain point of "evolution" has been crossed.
-
Nonetheless, I do think that there are times when an invisible line is crossed... it just feels wrong. Everyone's moral compass is different, but sometimes it is obvious. I very much understand that this has no legal meaning.
This post is going to make me highly unpopular, which I am prepared to accept - but no
one else is coming out and saying it - so I'm going to.
If there is an invisible line - it was crossed long ago.
I can remember the first version of the Moto website back in '03 said in great big letters:
"In the tradition of great chefs like Charlie Trotter and Ferran Adria".
I think I may even have a PDF of it somewhere.
It's common knowledge that Achatz staged at El Bulli for a week and then came back
and started doing cuisine in the style of Ferran Adria- something he has been ragged
about numerous times, has commented on himself and still to this day seems as though
he publicly diminishes the fact that this is where a great deal of his inspiration came from
- though his Keller influence also comes through undeniably.
We have chefs with "labs" wearing lab-coats using liquid nitrogen and alginate, centrifuges and plating things in such a similar style that my guess is if you put all the dishes on Flash cards and showed them to a cross section of people - they wouldn't be able to tell what came from where.
I realize chefs are in a position where they are like diamond inspectors and can tell the
difference between a G color diamond and a nearly G color diamond and separate
them into piles - but most people can't.
To many many many people out here it looks as though they have embodied
El Bulli - Adria himself has even made comments about this to the media.
In my opinion - these people owe their existence to people like Trotter, Adria and Keller (whom in turn owe their existence to others) whom they have derived the large part of their success from and who's styles are blatantly evident in what they do.
If anybody is going to start the process of pointing fingers for crossing invisible lines, copying,
or if anyone is going to start charging for their ideas - then I believe the men above
deserve a big fat payout.
Then let the scrambling begin from that point.
-
Licencing enables someone to recieve compensation for their ideas.
Thank you.
Regardless by what means - I certainly hope you succeed in your goal.
This is an area where scientific research may show us something. It's not only required that you make a discovery to be credited as `the´ inventor. It's required that you document your findings in a recognized publication reviewed by your peers before anyone else does. If you're not the first in publishing, bad luck.Pedro that is a fantastic idea.
-
The restaurant and Cantu Designs are two separate entities. It has taken a lot of R&D to get where the printing technology is today and that means my time. I believe in sticking with my passion for restaurants. So I combine the two. I can be far more effective in my current capacity than looking for angel investors or venture capilaists who will ulimately slow down the progress because its usually about a return for those types which means I lose control over the big goal. So it takes cashflow and I use the system mentioned above with licencing. If the current system of public and private funding worked, it would have already solved the problem. This system begins to get watered down with bureaucracy and scandals. Look at Katrina.
A 160.00 tasting menu can allow me more creativity than a 5 dollar hot dog stand.
Then I guess the better question is - what is the purpose for the licensing?
In such a matter - wouldn't it be more effective to contribute ideas to a pool and "give them away"
so that anyone who can augment it has the opportunity without having to pay anything or face the possibility of being "stopped" or "sued"?
Why is it important in the matter of solving world hunger that you protect your claim to the ideas?
And to keep it on topic - why is it important in Gastronomy to protect your claim to the ideas?
-
My ultimate goal is to solve world hunger.
If your ultimate goal is to solve world hunger - why do you run a restaurant with a $160 tasting menu?
Seems to me your efforts would come to fruition faster if you donated your time and effort to a full time endevour with a team funded by donations from public and private sources.
-
1. Although this isn't really on-topic, it's hard for me to understand why sizzleteeth or anyone else would be shocked by the notion that someone can't sample someone else's record without paying a licensing fee. (This isn't some judge going off on some crazy legal tangent; it's well-accepted law -- and it seems hard to argue with.)
Oh, I'm not shocked - I actually have delt with elements of that very issue quite a bit in the past - I understand why and to some degree agree.
It was an entry point to my question as to whether that is the goal... or not.
If it is the goal then how far is it taken?
For instance back in the Alinea Project (relevent posts linked):
http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showto...ndpost&p=721515
http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showto...ndpost&p=783818
There were discussions of an "Anti-Griddle" and Centrifuge being used in the kitchen - then someone pointed out that a stage at El Bulli had posted about those very things being used in that kitchen prior.
Yet those ideas and tools were obviously moved forward with - and as far as I can see no credit was applied.
Which goes back to my questions of where is the line drawn and what is the ultimate goal?
If El Bulli made use of an Anti-Griddle before Alinea - should they be able to stop them from using it and therefore stop any dish that comes into being using it?
-
It's funny because the link in your post went to http://http:web.mit.edu/Invent/ - which because of the accidental doubling of http: takes me to the Microsoft home page... I hope that was an accident.
Nice quick edit.
All joking aside (even though it doesn't look like it):
I just read an article where a judge blocked the sale of an album by Notorious B.I.G.
for a song that simply used PART of another song.
Is this the ultimate goal?
To own the rights to something so exclusively that you can stop others from doing it?
-
It's funny you should mention that because we were just discussing that matter.
First let me say I am not, as far as I know, sympathetic with outright plagiarism, but I have the following questions because in some places I feel as though hairs are being split:
Where is the line drawn?
Should you only be obliged to credit if you duplicate another dish exactly?
Or should you be obliged to credit if you use a new technique known to be brought into
being by another?
If you do something that has been done by a corporation or giant food processor - should you be obliged to credit?
What about other people that work in your restaurant that come up with ideas for dishes or techniques but then move on
because they were stages or consultants or designers?
What if you adopt the readily identifiable concepts of a known working chef?
Should they be credited?
Sincerest Form
in The Daily Gullet
Posted · Edited by sizzleteeth (log)
And no one, I believe, ever said that "all inspiration is plagiarism" - maybe "all inspiration that can be attributed to a readily identifiable source should be noted as such in some way shape or form if it is not apparent to all where it originates from".
I think actually on that point we are in more agreement than not.
The closest I came to that was saying copying is copying and no one is innocent of copying.
That is why in that post I noted that I avoided the word "plagiarism".
Because all copying is not "plagiarism".
And even exact copying is not plagiarism.
Plagiarisim is KNOWINGLY copying without attribute and that is true at all levels of any subject, forest, tree, leaf and seed.
So it's hard to say everyone is guilty of plagiarism - but I bet most of us could find some instance in our life where we were.
Though it is much easier to find those instances in the lives of others.
I have nothing against Wylie - I think he's a great guy from what I know - but I have never in any discussion, quote or interview where enzyme noodles are discussed seen any attribute to The Fat Duck - until now.
Though I have seen the fact that he was introduced to the enzyme by Heston in articles about the noodles..
So was that copying?
Or was it plagiarism?
Or was it neither?
Or even more - am I missing that reference somewhere? (please tell me if I am)
Am I misunderstanding the article? (Which is possible). Did they never make meat noodles with the enzyme at The Fat Duck?
Was the mention of the introduction to the enzyme enough attribute?
If they did - should he have said. "We made noodles like this at The Fat Duck - just not with prawns."?
Since the noodles themselves were the primary subject of the hype.
That is why I am taking this to the level of detail I am - because yes there is the big picture - but we are also talking about very very specific things.
Does it matter to anyone?