Dirk Wheelan
-
Posts
177 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by Dirk Wheelan
-
-
Again, you assume that know how a good steak should be.
You used the term 'underlying' in an earlier post, and that's really where MG should be. Likewise, I imagine you'd feel the same way if a chef constantly talked about his whisk; it's an irrelevance.
Good food is about conception, and then designing a reliable system of execution in order achieve that conception. MG does not aid the conceptual process, although I admit it might contribute to the execution. However, good food existed before MG, and most of the problems that MG purports to solve were never problems for competent cooks in the first place. Good food can exist without MG, therefore MG is not a pre-requisite of good food.
As I said before, Kipper-Tie.
-
We could go on about this all day, but, to take your steak example, MG, or its practitioners, rely on presuppositions about results. You say that the best steak is the juiciest, whereas I'm happy to trade some juice for grill flavour. Now who are you or I to say that our steak is better?
Technology always has served, and always will serve, chefs, the only difference with MG is that the technology has become fetishized. In the end, it's just another way of talking about food, and one that no doubt will soon disappear as soon as the next 'big thing' arrives.
-
I'm interested in food. Whether it can be explained in terms of God or Darwin doesn't really alter the steak for me.
Unfortunately, I'm old enough to remember that Gastronomy was not broken before MG came along to fix it.
-
It's a Pavlovian response with you, isn't it Dirk?
Years from now you'll look back and say, "did I really eat that?".
Or maybe 'you' won't, but either way MG is the culinary world's Kipper-Tie.
-
Molecular Gastronomy seems, in general, to be the preserve of chef-patrons. By focussing on technique it deflects attention from the ingredients onto the chef. This kind of narcissism is not popular with backers for the simple reason that they are not in the business of manufacturing star-chefs who once they get famous pack up and leave. Given that London restaurants require start-up capital far in excess of the provinces that necessitates investors, then what appeals to financial backers tends to dictate the style of restaurants in the area.
On the other hand, it could just be that MG is load of old cobblers.
-
I haven't seen his name in the papers for a while. If he's not careful, he'll disappear of the radar.
Doesn't look like there's much chance of Anthony's slipping off the egullet.org radar anytime soon either.
Anthony Flinn, 16 LexisNexis hits this year.
Jason Atherton, 21
Heston Blumenthal, 332.
-
"These days cooking good food is not enough."
Cooking good food is ALWAYS enough.
I wish you were right.
-
For me this thread is developing a feeling of Deja Vue, something to do with a poor El Bulli review I think......
I have to say that the one meal I've had at Anthony's was sublime; avant garde, but refreshingly free of pretensions; novel ingredients, but not used gratuitously. Everything one could ask of a restaurant that wants to do something different, but without disappearing up its own arse, so to speak.
However, having been knobbled for not being 100% behind a certain restaurant myself, you have my sympathies in your attempts to express what I've no doubt is a genuine reaction. I would ask, though, do you think it's fair to judge offerings from the du jour menu as representative of what Anthony's is about? Regular trade in Leeds must be pitched at the kind of diner who regularly eats lunch in Leeds. Given this context, isn't the inclusion of conservative dishes such as Beef Ravioli, understandable?
Anyway, on a more general note, it must be about time that young Anthony hired a PR, I worry that his initial bang has not been sufficiently capitalized upon. I haven't seen his name in the papers for a while. If he's not careful, he'll disappear of the radar. These days cooking good food is not enough.
-
Fat Duck fans MobyP and Suzi will be delighted to know that come 2007 ("It will take two years to design the book according to Blumenthal's exacting specifications") they will be able to recreate their favourite restaurant experience at home with the Fat Duck Cookbook.
A snip for Bloomsbury at £300,000. http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/...1493936,00.html
Can't wait!
-
What intrigued me though was Jan's question as to whether or not Amaya had benefitted from what she called the restaurant world's "shadowy patronage". Does anyone possibly what she could mean by this?
She is alluding to the intimate relationship between some national newspaper critics (you know who you are), some restaurant PRs (ditto) and some restaurateurs (ditto).
-
Fair play to Heston!
Still, I'd never have have thought of blaming the inspectors for being 'behind the times'.
-
You don't go to Le Gavroche expecting new dishes all the time. You don't say to yourself "Fuck me, souffle suissesse again?." So why expect Heston to be pulling rabbits out of hats every five minutes?
I think it's expected because all the hype surrounding him constantly stresses progress, advance, and innovation. People, including me, are surprised that this is not represented as an ongoing thing in his food. It's like five years ago he took all the MG ideas and came up with a tasting menu, and that's it, even the ALC is the same.
I don't think anyone likes hype when it's overdone. I think this is the case with Heston, the hype has outstripped his possibilities. That's why people get upset, all this messianic stuff and then straight on to the TV circuit like everyone else.
-
it did raise some thoughts about the problems inherent in developing techniques so new to professional kitchens that it takes time for health inspectors to keep up.
A++ for cheek.
-
It is truly amazing just how little the Fat Duck has had to do in order to gain its reputation for hyper-creativity.
All mouth and no trousers?
-
Dirk, as far as I can tell there isn't hostility to those who don't like the fat duck (Andy's remarks aside), but to the sort of reasoning you exhibit in your post.
Food science has nothing to do with being a good cook.
That you didn't like it has nothing to do with anything but your experience of it. To keep laying it at the feet of 'science' is fallacious.
Forgive me, but I was under the impression that Heston had 'discovered' a kind of homeo-molecular rationale, whereby the presence of like flavour compounds in disparate foodstuffs amounts to harmonious marriage on the plate. Thus, the incongruity of combining oyster & lavender, white chocolate & caviar, salmon & licorice, etc is justifiable and desirable on the basis of theory.
I assumed that these combinations were driven by this rationale, I assumed that they tasted dubious because this rationale was flawed. Your explanation has helped me to see that in fact it was my mouth that was at fault. In future I shall ignore my senses and consult you on what I should or should not like.
(How could I have been so stupid?)
-
Heston's philosophy may be different to that of the Gastroville Bloggers. Fortunately, we can now examine their criteria (see link above) and Heston Blumenthal's, in his books and Guardian columns. To me, that conversation would be more interesting than another sterile debate about whether The Fat Duck (or any other restaurant) is on some absolute scale "the best" in Britain, Europe, or the world.
I'm so confused by this post! Isn't this exactly what the Gastroville review is attempting to do?
PS. I notice you are a 'manager', is there an eGullet line on the Fat Duck? There seems to be so much hostility towards anyone who dares to criticize it. The Gastroville review is measured, thoughtful and precisely articulated, I would have thought it was exactly the kind of thing that eGullet would welcome, but instead Degusto is getting a drubbing from the management. Why; am I missing something? I mean, given the fairly mild reproach made in the review, the accusations of hubris seem entirely out of proportion.
-
Are saying individual opinions are relative; that the Fat Duck is good by consensus, and consequently Degusto is wrong?
-
I was amused by the sheer arrogance of informing a three star chef how he might improve his signature dishes.
Heston's above criticism because he's a three star chef, or he's a three star chef because he's above criticism?
-
try the blog www.gastroville.com for an interesting view on the fat duck from someone i believe has better tastebuds than most!
Yes, very interesting. Wasn't very happy about the dried morels was he! I'm sure Blumenthal will be very grateful for the tips on his menu and how to be a better chef. Perhaps Mikael could spend some time at the Fat Duck and show Heston a few things.
Oddly, the only person you truly insult is Heston himself. I'm sure he wouldn't so arrogantly dismiss such a thoughtful review as you suppose.
-
Although I wouldn't take Ms Cavendish's "ambivalence" too seriously, I'm very interested by the polarised views on this forum.
I think it's a good thing. I'm only sceptical because my Fat Duck experience didn't live up to the scientific promises. Although there's plenty to praise about the place, especially the a la carte, I can't help feeling that the science is inappropriate if it can't overcome the fundamental hurdle of making food taste nice. The Snail Porridge, and the Salmon & Licorice dishes are two examples of things that didn't taste half as bad as they sounded, but that should have tasted a darn site better to merit a place on a three star menu. If there really were something to MG then you'd think that all the new possibilities that it opened up would include lots of delicious food. I found the tasting menu to be in equal parts cerebrally interesting, delicious, and fairly unpleasant. Hardly bears out the theory, does it? Especially, when you consider l'Ambrosie, which has no theoretical underpinning and imho is uniformly exquisite.
Heston is no doubt capable of great things, but I think he would benefit from a bit of constructive criticism instead of being constantly slobbered over. Right now, I don't think that criticism exists, why, I don't know, but Heston seems to lead the critics rather than the other way around.
-
Isn't it possible that she had not liked it the first time, but said that she did?
Well, she only says that "once I have scoffed the lot, I tell him it is the most delicious thing I have ever tasted". Maybe she is just a compulsive liar...
Why is it that only people critical of the Fat Duck have their motives questioned? Should everyone who says it's the best restaurant in the world be accused of shilling?
Personally, I think that "challenging assumptions about the way we eat" and MG are bullshit, and I think it's supreme arrogance to imply that every that went before (or isn't) MG was or is somehow faulty; Heston and Peter Barham haven't consigned 30,000 of food history to the scrapheap just yet. However, I'm quite glad that Heston works in the food industry, because if he worked in footwear or aeronautics, we'd have shoes without soles and aeroplanes that couldn't fly.
-
So fickle these reporter types. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...401/ai_n9558536
That is low Ms Cavendish, very low.
At the end of the piece she asks sniffily if children ever go there. The answer is yes and she should know: when she was editor of OFM she agreed to send me there with three two year olds (including my own) for what became a cover story.
Bloody journalists, eh.
What are we saying here; that she liked it, but has said that she didn't?
Isn't it possible that she had not liked it the first time, but said that she did?
-
Certainly a bit of angle in Ms Cavendish's review, but I wouldn't say questioning the overwhelmingly pro-Fat Duck opinion equates with wanting to see Heston fall.
I have no doubt that Heston is a great chef, but, even after tasting his food myself (x2) I cannot be convinced that much of it tastes terribly nice. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a meal to conform to your own criteria (for me, to taste nice), but I do think it's unreasonable to be expected to blame yourself if you don't like it.
As alexw says, 'Not one restaurant on this planet can boast that it caters to everyones taste', so what's the problem with not liking the Fat Duck? I get the feeling that it is somehow beyond criticism, as if criticism were a bad thing.
-
And I look forward to yours.
Molecular gastronomy in London
in United Kingdom & Ireland: Dining
Posted
Philip Howard has a degree in microbiology from Kent University. Interestingly, he chooses not talk about food in terms of molecules, but in the everyday terminology that has always served diners (humanity) in undertaking this most fundamental of social activities.
No doubt, his academic training serves his craft, but, probably because he's a real scientist, he seems to feel uncomfortable using the tricksy jargon of MG.