lxt

Stravinsky in his autobiography, written when he was 48, made an admission of being alienated from his audience: “At the beginning of my career as a composer I was a good deal spoiled by the public. Even such things as were at first received with hostility were soon afterwards acclaimed. But I have a very distinct feeling that in the course of the last fifteen years my written work has estranged me from the great mass of my listeners. They expected something different from me. Liking the music of L’Oiseau de feu, Petroushka, Le Sacre, and Les Noces, and being accustomed to the language of those works, they are astonished to hear me speaking in another idiom. They cannot and will not follow me in the progress of my musical thought. What moves and delights me leaves them indifferent, and what still continues to interest them holds no further attraction for me…I believe that there was seldom any real communion of spirit between us. If it happened—and it still happens—that we liked the same things, I very much doubt whether it was for the same reasons. Yet art postulates communion, and the artist has an imperative need to make others share the joy which he experiences himself." I wonder whether there is a correlation between these two artists and whether asking Gagnaire to formulate his cuisine to be “slightly more recognizable to his customers” is not only asking to hold back the creative expression of the artist, but as well may result in decelerating the progress of the culinary art.

marcus said: "lxt -- I can decode what you're saying, but it ultimately comes across as gobbledygook." “lxt -- you are slippery.” “There is an approach here that is so cerebral that it seems to be set apart from the real world.” If the justification of your point of view is going to be based on “I personally agree completely with..” accompanied by gratuitous personal insults, I’d appreciate your restraining your manners to strictly supporting your arguments. And please do let me know if the above was too complicated or cerebral and requires additional simplification or decoding. marcus said: "I personally agree completely with Robert Brown's analysis, but let me make one attempt at further clarification. The issue is not technical expertise, of course the professional has far more than the amateur, the issue is not willingness to communicate to the public, in fact most professionals are more than willing to communicate..." I fail to see how this relates to the points Robert made, and I challenged, undermining the competency of professionals in the statement: “many chefs are incapable of discussing gastronomy or the experience of a restaurant visit at the same level of insight or open-mindedness as the best culinary writers” and his subsequent disparagement of “culinary writers.” And it certainly has little to do with my view on “appeal to authority.” Your point, Plotnicki's point really, that the needs of the trade and the consumer don't always coincide, is legitimate, though obscured by the rest of the gobbledygook. And here I thought that eGullet was both a cause and a place for cerebration.

It is hard to imagine that one’s ability to appreciate preparation technique as well as rely on sensual experience may divert or somehow diminish the validity of his appraisal. Unless your statement suggests that “practitioners” are intentionally devious in their competitiveness or protectionism so as to conceal their actual judgment, the effect of their ability to recognize complexity, simplicity, or improvisation should rather be intensified. Even assuming that chefs are not willing to share their actual judgments with the public, it doesn’t lessen their ability to comprehend on a higher level than an “unencumbered amateur” can. It is easy to correlate this example with other spheres of human activity. Considering that people have technical knowledge in their area of expertise, independently of what business requirements suggest in respect to obeying public wishes rather than relying on their own expert judgment, I don’t think I’d find anyone who could confirm that the knowledge of the amateur in his area is more profound than his own. Otherwise, I think we should dismantle the whole educational system as it proves to be useless. And what is the difference between the “dedicated, devoted and unencumbered amateur” and a professional critic? In this regard, a critic, on one hand, is simply the “audience” where the only difference between him and the amateur is that he should be more attentive to details as his job requires in-depth investigation. And the good critic, in my opinion, is “he who relates the adventures of his soul among masterpieces.“ (Anatole France) I am not sure whether anyone would agree that the critic is exposed to the diversity of the restaurant experience on a lesser level than a “devoted amateur” and therefore that his opinion is less valuable in this regard. Stating that you prefer opinions other than critics’ suggests that you are dissatisfied with some corruption or incompetence that exists in the food writing profession and, as a result, still refer to other critics (“unencumbered amateurs”) who don’t have a direct interest in being compensated for their reviewing efforts. It has nothing to do with “appeal to authority” and everything to do with respect and interest toward a more knowledgeable counterpart, whether to a professional or experienced enough amateur critic. "I am bound by my own definition of criticism: a disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world" - Matthew Arnold

Steve, I can assure you that the last words the conductor would address to his orchestra before the performance would not likely be a reminder of the importance of the musicians’ feelings. Moreover, the emotional effect most of the people in the audience experience is a result of the musicians’ many hours of sweat and hard labor of training day after day to achieve that perfect tune or perfect touch, that crescendo or diminuendo, glissando or simple passage. As a matter of fact, a performer considers himself very lucky if he is capable of experiencing an emotional attachment to the performed works on stage even once during his entire concert career.

Bach insisted that a composer was essentially a craftsman and always considered himself as being just the heir of a craft tradition passed to him by his family from generation to generation. He believed that there was a right way for composing any piece of music even for a “free fantasy.” When Bach heard the beginning of a fugue, he would state what contrapuntal devices it would be possible to apply and which ones the composers should use. In other words, his satisfaction came from producing what was properly expected. He is known not for being inventive or “figuring it all out” but for perfecting the existing technique, for the refinement of something that was already previously “codified” by others. As a matter of fact, Albert Schweitzer mentioned in one of his studies that Bach was the very model of the “objective” artists who “are wholly of their own time, and work only with the forms and the ideas that their time proffers them…and feel no inner compulsion to open out to new paths.” Contrary, he continued, are the “subjective” artists, like Richard Wagner, who are “a law unto themselves, they place themselves in opposition to their epoch and originate new forms for the expression of their ideas.” It is also interesting to note that during the three decades Bach was composing, musical styles were changing, and by Bach’s late years, his early works already seemed old-fashioned. New composers were denouncing counterpoint and producing popular melodies, simplifying the complex structures that Bach had built. Even before his death his music was becoming unpopular. As I am striving to interpret the facts and thoughts presented by both sides in this matter, I am looking for the validity of the arguments, and this particular example, Steve, simply doesn’t stand.

If the outcome of a critic’s review has the effect of promoting a product, then implicitly it would become a part of the trade. I can’t make a clear distinction of where exactly this category belongs besides just to reiterate the point Fat Guy made that the critic/reviewer should be “on the side of the craft itself.”

There is no verdict to render. As I keep saying (ahem,) works of art need to meet an objective standard. What changes, as in your example of Van Gogh, is that there was no standard to hold it to because it was new and unusual for its time. That professionals couldn't formulate the standard is a fluke of history. It just means the right person wasn't born yet. Steve, you are missing the point again. I am not arguing against standards. In fact, I have no reasons to disagree with your statement. The point made, however, was that until the standards were formed within the artistic society by the professionals and critics so that the public could be educated in this respect, Van Gogh’s works were not recognized. The whole idea is that “the good and the best” is introduced to us most of the time by the critics. Of course, it is our decision whether to accept their opinion, but the public as an entity most of the time is one step behind and rarely notices or promotes trends not previously introduced by the critics.

That’s our Wilfrid – defender of truth, justice, and the American way.

But “critics and art historians” do not represent the masses; they are the core among the professionals whose job is to introduce the best, based on their opinion, to the general public. The public renders the verdict on longevity only, but its decision will not diminish the actual artistic value of the created work. The general public couldn’t care less about Van Gogh and would’ve never known his works had a group of critics not realized his talent and promoted his art to the rest of us after his death. In fact, during his life he was able to sell only 1 painting for 400 francs just 4 months before his death. Where was the general public for 10 years of his creative life? Though critics and historians are part of the trade along with artists and dealers, their roles are certainly different. Since I brought up Van Gogh as an example, what comes to mind is that at some period of time Van Gogh attempted to become an art dealer. He was excellent in recognizing what constitutes a valuable piece of artwork. However, due to the fact that he wasn’t a salesman (no offense to anyone), if a customer became interested in purchasing a poorly done painting, Van Gogh would provide a long discourse as to why it was a piece of junk. And that is what the role of a professional critic should be: to educate and to form the taste of the general public. Marcus, on a different and unrelated subject, the point you made of “gone forever” and irrelevant if “not appreciated on the spot” was a very hot topic some times ago and was thoroughly discussed previously. From what I can recollect, some of us were even “injured” during this hot discussion (ouch). I include a link for your amusement. Consummate Passion

Flexible P. I’ll remember that the next time the subject comes up. This is the intentional fallacy. Close but no cigar. You are misusing the Intentional Fallacy. I wasn’t arguing that the author’s intention is the final court of appeal. I merely stated that other professionals in the field who are “equal to the creator” in their technical knowledge and expertise when subjecting the author’s work to scrutiny are capable of interpreting and consequently appraising his work on a higher level.

Steve, I wasn't talking about Academies per say. The word was in quotes, not capitalized and the reference was made rather toward a large group of professionals. I may agree that specific Academies in your sense may represent a negative force in the development of certain businesses. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that the ones who are better equipped to evaluate may have an advantage in the process of assessment. Of course, like in any profession, there are people whose stagnant views and knowledge may even stand in the way of the progressive, but percentage wise, if I have to trust a professional vs. an amateur, unless an amateur manages to persuade me that he is better, I tend to go to the certified surgeon rather than to a vet both of whom performed multiple heart surgeries. And even among surgeons themselves, would you not trust a Board Certified surgeon more then the one who never bothered to take the exam? And I value your opinion tremendously. However, I don't find the assertion of not "converting it into an interesting aesthetic" enough to persuade me that Ducasse's food is uninteresting even before I sample it, considering that there are multiple assertions on the subject from people with similar experience in the area. What you said is rather generic and still forces one to ask "Why?" and wonder what is an "interesting aesthetic" in your view, aside from "it didn't make me want to go back." A valid example may just do it. However, your current statement sounds as nothing more but a subjective account. Proficency is not part of luxury; it is a mean to achieve quality. Luxury is part of that same aesthetic that you state Ducasse's food lacks. As I read marcus's evaluation, "The food however provided one of my greatest meals in terms of overall succulence and execution. Admittedly, it did not strive for complexity, but I don't find this to be a problem, it was far from simple." it seem that Ducasse's cuisine strives rather for perfection. Complexity may not equal creativity, and marcus did mention that "it was far from simple."

Consumerism is a mechanism to set a monetary value on the product and has little to do with assessing it from the artistic perspective. The purpose of any product is to appeal to a consumer or to “communicate… to the diner.” However, the inability of the general population to accept or make the right choice based on the true values of the product doesn’t undermine its aesthetic value. If the general public were the only judge, we wouldn’t have Matisse and Prokofiev.

There is no one who could better appraise the aesthetic value of the product be it in food, art or music than the professional, the equal to the creator. The “academy” of chosen, the ones who are able to see atoms, to comprehend the whole while browsing through the particulars are people whose role is not as much to “dictate to the consumer” but rather to educate them as well as to set new trends for the future artists. However, if you consider chefs following Ducasse’s trend in admiration for his techniques being an imposition on the public, then your assertion must be correct. To turn your back resolutely on the philosophy of others may be heroic or commendable, but it is not undogmatic and open-minded. A possibility of self-assertion, a sense that all our theories are provisional, a constant realization that after all the hypotheses of others, especially experts in the area of our interest, may be the right ones, always characterizes the truly empirical temper and perhaps even common sense. How else would one learn if not from the professionals?

For someone who strongly promotes objectivity and standards in taste and food set by the professionals in the culinary field, your current assertion that “what chefs think has nothing to do with what the paying public thinks” contradicts your previous statements. From your prior thoughts so well presented on other threads, part of the enjoyment is the ability to understand and admire the chef’s technique. Here, however, you are dismissing the whole world of professionals to validate your personal and subjective dislike for a whole culinary trend well regarded by many. On one hand you are talking about “heightened aesthetics and creativity” that seems to appeal to you, and on the other complaining about technicalities that prevent the public from enjoying simple pleasures. Aside from my personal preferences that are yet to be set, I’d like to get a straightforward picture on your approach to evaluating cuisine abstracted from your own subjective preferences.

You missed the point that was laid down pretty clearly, i.e. that a “signature dish” is not much different from one that falls under one or more of the specified categories but did not register as signature due to a chef’s philosophy of constant change, for instance. These dishes are only a means to achieve general recognition. They are secondary to the chef’s talent, and their significance is less important than the significance of the chef’s more profound achievements that spread far beyond one dish. That is what I believe Fat Guy was trying to convey.

It seems that the concept in question is what identifies a chef as one who’d be able to leave a print of his genius on future generations. Steve P.’s theory of fame alone does not address the question because “famous” means known to very many and does not imply greatness. Greatness and fame are not synonymous. However, a chef becomes known from his individual creations no matter how improvisational and impermanent they are in his repertoire. A general perception of greatness either in art or cooking is usually based on several great compositions where the rest of the work is consistently good. Nevertheless, the historical significance of a chef who was the first to achieve a status of innovator in his field should not be undermined. I would suggest that one’s greatness would be defined through one of the following attributes, some of which will overlap: Originality and inspiration. A chef’s work must not be imitative but rather new in character and design. It should be innovative and neither superficial nor academic. It may also be important that the work be progressive. In other words, if it shows little creative span, it may become merely predictable and uninteresting. Intellectuality. A chef’s work must have substance and subsequent intellectual appeal. It should be superlative and not superficial. Bland, boring, sentimental and predictable dishes produce responses such as tedium or frustration. A superb dish may provoke intense and constructive response, but if it is only emotional, it may be short-lived. Emotive reaction without intellect is not enough, where intellect is necessary to arrive at what is called ‘taste’ or appreciation. Craftsmanship and Technique. Any composition demands the highest level of skills. It must be structurally logical, competent, harmonically interesting and polished. Durability. A great dish will not cease to tickle the pleasure senses over time and will continue to give the profound satisfaction and reveal more if its details. Contrast. A variety of tone, and color, diverse themes, like a large scoop of mustard ice cream in gazpacho that “suppresses the acidity of the tomato and brings out its sweetness instead.” Content. A great restaurant experience must have memorable content, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the ability to instantly recall all the details of the particular dishes, but maybe just moments of “magical orchestration,” and perhaps an overall impression even though the specifics may escape your mind. It seems that if a chef fits into the above scheme, the individual dishes that may attract original attention to the chef’s persona may become secondary to the overall context of his work. Like in literature, the correct approach would be to read as many works as possible by one author to capture the essence of his style and his talent where recollection of the details of his work or even their titles is interesting but secondary.

I was inclined not to get involved in the discussion of issues related to politics and established laws that should or should not be followed. However, the above statement proved once again how astray one’s beliefs can become when human dignity is disrespected and ideology overshadows the ability to distinguish between ethics and moral principles, and corruption and dishonesty brought to the public’s attention by means of a legitimate investigation. There are currently several threads discussing the importance of a complex of rules, rituals and services that affect and maximize our experience with a restaurant aside from the essential element of food. I simply fail to understand why the same principles are not applied to other aspects of our lives including politics. It sounds like a bunch of people betting on horses. Who won and who didn’t. Despite the decline in our political leadership, I continue to believe that there is no greater country than America. However, I think that we do desperately need good, honest people in office, not poll-driven money suckers whose only interest is to build their own careers at the expense of the voters. Politics is now a job, not a service, where people will do almost anything to keep their comfort intact. Thus, the political landscape in America has become insulated and self-centered, and this situation is highly facilitated by people like us, independently of our political affiliation. Therefore, “the sad fact” is that every time you vote for or support a crook, you let not only your own principles down, but the principles of the whole establishment. I have many friends belonging to different party affiliations whom I known for many years and whom I respect tremendously. Some of them are conservatives with whom I may or may not agree on certain issues; however, I couldn’t possibly imagine how blind I was all these years that all of them are “nasty and vicious self-interested hypocrites.”

There are two aspects to this question: 1) Whether a certain prerequisite knowledge of the chef’s concept‘s complexity may affect one’s appreciation of the cuisine; and 2) whether our aesthetic response to the food is in any way affected by the “ritual” of serving it, or ““would you enjoy the food itself as much without the same setting and service?” (loufood) 1. Knowledge not only changes one’s overall perception, but allows him to distinguish nuances otherwise hidden in the external form. Someone with no professional musical background will still be able to derive satisfaction from a performance, but his perception will be based on the passive, intuitive, automatic and declarative, whereas someone with a previous background in the musical world will concentrate on the active, explicit, conscious, and procedural. Having a set of knowledge in music would allow one to enjoy different domains like sound patterns, symbolic representations, performance contexts, and musical phrasing that are not quite apparent to the regular listener, but would result in increased expectations. Therefore, the question of who would get greater satisfaction is more often than not is answered as a “group of hikers.” However, if you are a professional and do get lucky in that the performance is superb, the ecstasy of enjoyment is heavenly. The knowledgeable are too likely to be disappointed by an ordinary performance, but better equipped to appreciate the sublime. 2. Aesthetic response is much more than a simple gustatory experience, and taste operates in multiple dimensions that aside from the mouth and nose include eyes, ears and even skin according to certain research on the subject. Voltaire, for example, compared the taste for beauty with the ability of the tongue and palate to “discern food.” Therefore, enjoying “the food itself as much without the same setting and service” doesn’t hold the same overall sensory experience and wouldn’t provide the same satisfaction no matter how good the food is, which is confirmed by a known chef’s aphorism: “a dish well presented is already half eaten.”

Nor can I bear to hear the truth I've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools. Everything is dark when your eyes are closed.

And I may concur with the above hypothesis on the grounds of the “pursuit of happiness” as described by America's founding fathers. Could one be truly happy being fully aware of his own incompetence and realization of the pleasures he did, does or will miss? To be or not to be that is the question one must ask himself entering a boulevard of unknown matters whether in food or in life. The comfort of ignorance is effortless, unproblematic and cushioning for achieving the highest level of self-esteem and therefore confidence in life’s endeavors and overall happiness. Why would anyone want to step on the road of misery of budgetary restraints, complicated learning curve, effort and discipline? Not many. Therefore, I proclaim “subjective taste” to be a foundation of ignorance and happiness. I’d say wine snobbery, for instance, is rather puzzling. Since most people are unable to differentiate between the contents of a $10 bottle and a $100 bottle without reasonably expensive training, those who submit themselves to such schooling are paying only to become dissatisfied with otherwise “perfectly acceptable and much cheaper goods.” Let’s vote for mankind’s relief from the burdens of mind, language, taste and standards, to return to its original state of ignorance and bliss. Hence, it is not about “class warfare” as Steve P. suggested; it is, apparently, about salvaging happiness.

Thank you Liza. And you were with us in our hearts and discussions. Jaybee, seeing you in your cool leather jacket and sunglasses made up for all our torments. Sandra, there is always the next time. Cakewalk, “helping yourself” was one of the reasons I had to compromise and order an iced tea instead of a hot one. Though the booth we were occupying was quite comfortable, it was big enough only for a one-time squeeze to position ourselves around the table for four full-sized people. Unsqueezing presented a challenge. One look at the face of Jaybee, who would’ve had to go through this exercise in order to let me out, and I realized that if I did go along with the hot tea, I’d have to crawl under the table to get it.

In a perverse impulse that could only be read as “I am happy when you are not,” I must thank Stefany for picking such a dreadful place that Wilfrid was blessed with an inspiration. Truly hilarious and a delight to read.

“I am hungry,” said Toby after arriving on time (at 1:30 p.m.) and a short introduction. AHR, Toby and I were waiting for Jaybee to complete our maximum-allowed party of four. “Go ahead, grab a couple of chairs in the back while you are waiting,” suggested Eve. A half hour later a call from Jaybee warned us that he was detained uptown and is setting his foot out of the door now. “Would you like to order now or continue to wait?” asked Eve after delivering the message from Jaybee. With a great effort, we were able to suppress our primordial feeling of hunger and chose to follow the high standards of human behavior. “We’ll wait,” was our answer. In despair, however, we decided to relocate to a large booth in the main area as if being closer to people who were actually consuming their food would ease our growing hunger. We entertained ourselves by walking to the board with the specials located right inside the entrance, examining with enthusiasm the regular menu and deciding on what we were going to order. The intervals between Toby’s hunger contractions became shorter and shorter; my blood sugar level scaled below the usual low level, and AHR…apparently had a good breakfast. At the time when our human dignity dissolved in our famine, and we were about to start without Jaybee, he showed up in a black leather jacket and cool sunglasses. Our order included two Shrimp Lahksa (specials), one Mexican cassoulet (specials) and Jaybee's chili. I don’t know what else Jaybee said to Eve on the phone when passing the message about his delay, but he was the first one to be served. I am not quite sure, however, he felt very lucky as 6 pairs of hungry merciless eyes were piercing him and his chili with the message that could be interpreted only as “You are going to share with us now or else…” Jaybee put aside his fork and very quietly asked “Would you like a taste?” I think before he finished his question three spoons were plunging into the dish. The chili was Kenny's ground beef, augmented by a sausage "extension" served with tortilla chips. At the time, at least, I thought it was the best I'd ever eaten. Shrimp Lahksa, described by AHR previously, didn’t disappoint. It was a little sweeter and the broth was thicker then the time I tried it previously, but still chock full of plump shrimp, vegetables, and vermicelli. Jaybee made an observation that the broth vaguely reminded him of Tom Yom Gung but with no lemon grass. Mexican cassoulet (Lamb cubes, ham, sausage, beans (two kinds) with smoked chili peppers) was absolutely delicious. Toby observed that though each element of the cassoulet stood on its own and was distinguishable, they all complemented one another wonderfully and comprised one harmonic dish. Finally the time of long-waited pancakes came. But no! It was past three and Kenny had left the kitchen. “Well, you can have our bread pudding,” suggested Eve. Considering that she was so sweet to us and didn’t seem to shoo us away (the place closes for a siesta at 3:00 p.m.), we felt sort of obliged to order a bread pudding. When the dessert finally came, it looked just spectacular. A big portion of warm, tender, fluffy and jiggly pudding with butterscotch on top and whipped cream around it. Though we were quite full, our eyes lit with the expectation of incoming pleasure. I must say none of us was disappointed. It exceeded all our hopes. The pudding was just lightly sweet so that in combination with the butterscotch it wasn’t cloying. I thought that the whipped cream was commercial but as it melted, it added this rich whippy flavor. We actually had to fight for the last spoon by “deliberately” asking each other questions so that the opponent would be out of the game. I was smart. I filled my spoon first and then answered all questions while holding it. Wonderful food, wonderful time, wonderful company.

Intentional misspelling of your opponent’s name doesn’t complement your obvious abilities to extemporize on the subject of impertinence using more advanced tools. The technique selected is primitive and could be possibly construed as a mere attempt to conceal essential incompetence. If your intention was based, however, on your eccentricity and love of amateurism, I’d suggest dropping the “Lord” prefix before your user name as by default the title obliges one to seek great stature of character by holding to the virtues of a gentleman. That is of course unless nobility, in your vocabulary, is equivalent to elitism and snobbery.

Its called balance of power: “A distribution and opposition of forces such that no single person is strong enough to assert his will or dominate all the others.” I am not quite sure whether the position of mediator between John and yours truly would fit your profile either. :raz: :raz: John you survived your review of Berio. I'd assume anyone else would've lost his job and stretched out his hand for alms. I can’t match that experience. Is there any reason to believe that either of us will survive Steve P.?