ballast_regime

first, i should point out that i see any form of intellectual or cultural authority as suspect, since i really don't believe that, within human affairs, one person has a better understanding than another. none of us really know that much to begin with, so to look to a critic as having a tantamount opinion or understanding on a particular issue is absurd. credentials don't matter much. when i read a restaurant review, i take it with a grain of salt. second, i think it's problematic for steve to reject food as art on the one hand, but to expect for it to be treated as serious art on the other. i do think food can be, and often is, art (note: i'm not looking to start a debate on whether or not it is, since it's ultimately an objectively unanswerable question). i do not think most people see it as being such, since it's a non-narrative, functional media. since it's not viewed as being an art, i think very little is understood about aesthetic preference and sensational experience; in other words, there's no "food theory" in the same sense that there's a music or architectural or literary theory. one of the key components of serious art writing and criticism is based on the fact that the relevant art can be abstracted in some way (food can be, in my opinion), that the creative and interpretative acts are intellectualized as much as the art itself. the culinary arts have yet to witness this corollary. third, the study of food as art isn't institutionally academic, a point steve and yvonne have pointed out. fourth and foremost, food is viewed as a business first, craft second, and very little else last. there are a lot of stumbling blocks from point (a) to (b), and i'm not sure we'll ever get there. that's why we have egullet--so we can do it ourselves. ian ballast/regime

i find carolyn korsmeyer's position to be laughably academic and ultimately indefensible. of course, i haven't read the bulk of her argument, other than the snippet provided, but i'm glad i haven't. her assertion--that food cannot express emotion--springs from one overriding concept, that the sensory tools of the culinary world are innately limited. korsmeyer also ignores all the ancillary ways through which the culinary world works its magic: alcohol, music, lighting, color, texture, temperature, space, and even people (whether they are one's dining companions or the waitstaff). how or why the food's sensory tools, of course, are never provided. conversely, it was never stated why or how other non-narrative media (e.g., painting, sculpture, architecture, and so on) with which food falls into line with are more expressive. from what little research has been done, it is known that a person can more readily empathize with media that have a narrative, and with good reason: there's a story. it doesn't follow that there should a hierarchy of the arts, which is a ridiculous notion. such a question can only be answered individually. one of the great intellectual dichotomies of the twentieth century was the introduction of representation v. abstraction, a split i think is tenuous and a bit misleading, since a lot of modern art is both; however, i'm sure a lot of critics would find that, assuming one wants to suggest all things culinary can be artistic, food would fall into the latter category, with some notable exceptions (i.e., kaiseki and its constant evocation of seasonality). i have seen others before me, like fat guy, mention that the culinary arts have yet to develop the kind of abstractions that have graced many other artistic media, which explains why it is lumped squarely within the "craft" peg (which is another intellectual either/or i find absurd). for this reason, if there were such a thing as a hierarchy of arts, then food would be relegated toward the bottom with others that are more functional and utilitarian, like architecture and design (most 14-year-olds i know prefer attack of the clones to eames and nelly to gagnaire). there has been a lot of great discussions about what constitutes art, and i believe this question is best left up to the individual. others have pointed out that it is to "create" that which is "beatiful" or "aesthetic," yet a lot of art doesn't actively create, nor does it produce something beautiful (i.e., karlheinz stockhausen's idea that the 9/11 attacks were the greatest work of art ever produced [note: i'm not approving of his statement, just referencing it]). in fact, a lot of artists (say, donald judd) weren't even interested in the traditional goals of art (that it should be functional or beautiful or representational or even abstracte). jonathan day has said that more has been written about orgasms than oysters, but we shouldn't forget that a lot has been written about orgasms attributed to oysters. more seriously, i think he is very correct. within philosophy of the mind, there seems to be very little understanding of aesthetic preference and sensational experience. it then follows that there is very little way to put such things into words. even those non-narrative arts that have a very beefed-up "theory," like architecture, have little to say about how individuals experience the art itself. it is my guess that the most understanding that may come will be from a philosophy that is very much informed by relevant hard sciences (much like what daniel dennett has been attempting with consciousness). mr day also pointed out how sweetness might be a universal metaphor across most cultures, and i think he has also offered a great starting point for understanding how the brain perceives culinary things. there is a lot of similar work being done on cultural metaphors that are believed to be universal by people like george lakoff, but most of this research has little to do with food. whether or not food should be an art is at best a personal question. if enough people find that it is or can be, then there will have to be a common vocabulary (and probably "theory," which i abhor) developed to describe the sensational experience of food, which is still a long way off judging by the sameness of description within food writing today. how many ways are there to experience the taste of sugar on the tongue, let alone describe it? i only know of one, and i'm not sure anybody is smart enough to come up with two, even three. ian ballast/regime

steve: i admire your bravura, and i agree with your assessments about a lot of the restaurants you dined at this past year. i was glad to see a lot of smaller places in nyc (e.g., tomoe sushi) make the cut. may 2003 yield even more dining experiences for you to wrap-up in a year's time. ian ballast/regime

clarification: i think it's a question of ideology, not of politics, which can include focusing on artisanal purveyors who hawk foodstuffs that are organic, seasonal, and local. steve: while i agree that there are many people who prefer restaurants that search out the "best ingredients" and then prepare them "the best way," the people at gourmet magazine cannot be said to be such people. their supposed criteria produced a list that is much too garbled and unintelligible for that, because it cannot be said that all the restaurants in the top ten are committed to quality foodstuffs "prepared the best way"--which i take to mean "simply"--since many favor technical bombast over a chez panissean simplicity. as i've said before, it's not just ideology and not just editorial flourish--it's from a criteria that is impenetrable to the casual reader, and one can only guess that a lot of the choices were at random.

david duke was once governor of louisiana, titanic handily won during its year at the academy awards, steely dan received a grammy last year, and then gourmet magazine--in what can only be construed as editorial license--composed a list of the "fifty best" restaurants in the united states that, in addition to pitting apples against oranges, compared underripe or aged fruits to other fruits that just plain taste better. i cannot attempt to assume that i know the reason behind halle berry's oscar win, nor why gourmet included chez panisse or l'etoile on their list. the best i can do is to try and understand their criteria, which, as i've said before, was probably a randomizing algorithm, because that is the only way to make sense of their choice. certainly ideology was one factor, but maybe not the. who knows?

i don't think we should conflate a restaurant's implicit ideology with the quality of its overall dining experience, which isn't to say that it cannot be another criteria tacked on for consideration when evaluating its worth. gourmet's list appeared to me to be one of those bad syllogisms that appear on the SATs every year: X is to Y, as A is to. . . to say that chez panisse, l'etoile, highlands, et al., are to daniel, jean-geoges, or charlie trotter's is just fanciful non sequitur, which is fine, because even police line-ups are filled with those other than the culprit. perhaps the biggest indictment gourmet brougt upon itself concerns the criteria they used--which is probably some insanely randomizing algorithm--because it created a top fifty that is beginning to appear as dubious as the oscar's and grammy's. good for them.

i have to know: what are japan's top-notch kaiseki-ryori restaurants, regardless of (i) price and (ii) where they're located? are there any reasonable sources online that offer reviews, pictures, or information about the best of the best? ian

trotter isn't a financial backer of roxanne's, if that's what you're implying. roxanne did spend some time in his kitchen in chicago, before wanting to uncook everything she knew, so to speak. trotter and ms klein are partners in a raw cookbook venture due out next year, which is why i saw him dining at quintessence in nyc this past may/june. trotter has emphasized that he views raw-foodism as being an important culinary trend that could be very, very salient in a decade's time (he's certainly no nostradamus).

i agree with fat guy, awbrig. i get most of my seafood through browne trading company, and most of the times (depending on when you order during the day) they can have your purchase at your doorstep the next day (sometimes it takes 2 days). the quality is amazing, obviously, and prices are damned reasonable (shipping is where you spend most of your money).

awbrig: i don't have to worry about school because my christmas break is long, thankfully, and can drive on a moment's notice (literally, probably only a few days is necessary). my promise is this, if you're buying, then i'll be there within half a day, period. no questions asked. my word is as good as gold. i prefer later seatings, but i'm really at the whims of my host, meaning i am happy with whenever. mid-january is fine by me. just let me know. i can backchannel you and give you my cell number, in case you want to get a hold of me on short notice.

jinmyo: it's this damned zombie-undead-thing suvir, awbrig and i are trying out. no rest for the weary when there are brains to eat. and from i hear, this mr. trotter serves up some brains that are dee-lish.

awbrig: i cannot wait to meet your wife and you and your mother and, if time permits, your little one. do you dream of the day when liam is old enough to eat at trotter's?

OK, charlie trotter was in "my best friend's wedding" with julia roberts who was also in "ocean's eleven" with andy garcia who was also in "the godfather, part iii" with al pacino who was also in "heat" directed by michael mann who also directed "manhunter." there. do i need to connect "manhunter" to "red dragon" to complete the trotter connection, or what?

those are awesome pictures.

suvir: i bet i CAN find a connection to charlie trotter in a matter of minutes; let me do a quick spat of online research, but i think i know a way.

i wished they allowed alcohol in the computer lab where i am right now. awbrig: i don't think that i'd be too weirded out if trotter announced that i had just eaten, say, giraffe penis; i'm pretty sure that i've already had every part of a quadraped, and when it's been fresh, i've enjoyed it. suvir: have you seen "red dragon?" it was surprisingly good for a brett ratner movie, but i prefer michael mann's earlier version, "manhunter."

suvir: liver, kidney, and "brian?" there's a cannibal among us! awbrig: has he always called like that? that's awesome.

like you, suvir, i have never been bothered by anything that has "weird" textural properties; in fact, it's quite the opposite. i tend to find things that are silken or mushy or what-have-you to be exciting. i remember the first time i ordered foie gras from hudson valley. i played with it for half an hour, as if it were play-dough. imagine my surprise when my ex impatiently reminded me that she was hungry, that i better hurry up and cook it.

such a good response, suvir, that i thought was seeing double.

i think that texture is one of the biggest culprits for a lot of luxury or "weird" ingredients that are spat out by many first-time tasters with disgusted, tongue-blurting rage. i've seen too many people cough up cold foie gras or monkfish liver, various fish roes, offal, and so on.

i hear the crack is very good in new york, better than anything you guys have in chicago, awbrig. perhaps we can tempt suvir to trotter's by asking charlie to serve foie gras with emulsified crack. suvir: see, i'm learning to use low-blows because i've been watching you guys.

i'm sure that he's not going to forget, not if i can help it. you can be sure of it.

you should find a way to come, suvir. if not dog tracks, i hear keno is hot right now.

damn syntatical ambiguity: not what stalin did in 1985, but gorbachev's obfuscation during the period--not that anyone cares (i don't).

wow, i love the cold war intensity to these playful negotiations, but maybe that's because i'm procrastinating writing my last paper of the semester, which is on the gorbachev's complicity in covering up stalin's atrocities during early 1985.