Michael Laiskonis

Mr. Blumenthal, I thank you for your participation, and I eagerly anticipate the discussions that your responses will surely inspire... I am most interested in your methods and philosophy, generally, with regard to the creation of new dish. How would you describe your role, or any chef's role, as a 'problem solver'? If not directly from a specific scientific or procedural revelation, from where might your inspiration come? How much emphasis do you place on the 'process' (with perhaps a great deal of trial and error) in relation to the final resulting 'conclusion'? A second part to this question involves the balance of science and sensuality. For example, I have strong feelings and great admiration for the cuisine of Pierre Gagnaire, where the technical innovation often goes unnoticed due to the emotion a particular dish elicits. Broadening our batterie de cuisine can only increase our ability to express certain things through food, but some might argue that, in many cases, a chef's innovation comes at the expense of the diner's pleasure. How would you respond to that arguement, and to what extent might a sense of 'emotion' relate to your scientific curiosities?

I have yet to see anyone put forth what they feel are Gagnaire's intentions nor and adaquate "description" of his cuisine. When I see a word like "shock" or "bombardment" being thrown around, I can't help but think maybe some people really don't "get it". As a chef, believe me, I've picked apart his food as much as anyone might, but I see in Gagnaire something I've never sensed in a chef or one's cooking before or since. Beyond the "flavor combinations" and innovations inspired by Molecular Gastronomy... beyond ingredients and "perfect" technique... beyond the need for signature dishes or codification... I was thinking while at work all day since this thread began, "What do I see in all this and why has Gagnaire produced the greatest meals of my life? Why do I cook and what do I hope to achieve?" I truly feel his is the food of life. Expression. I think he's laying it all out, trying to say something (and not necessarily about food); we often debate here whether a chef is an artist. I think one can be, surely, the great majority are not. What differentiates art from just a pretty picture is intent. I'm not ashamed to see Gagnaire in the light of any other artist- his medium just happens to be food. His food has spoken to me on different levels, not least of which is on an emotional one. Maybe I've bought in to his cult, maybe I'm submissive, perhaps I'm one who holds "unjustified reverence"... Gagnaire's food makes me smile, laugh; it has given me a pleasure and excitement that transcends a mere "meal". Really, I haven't been smoking anything! As a chef I can only hope to one day realize the ability to elicit an emotion, not about food, but through food. I may never get to that point, and I'm not really sure yet how to go about it. I think Gagnaire has tapped into it, and that is why I admire him. Since I cannot speak for him, I'll end with a quote of his... "My goal is to infuse my cooking with feeling and intelligence. People need poetry, tenderness, and well-made things... and being 'good' means opening up the range of emotions." Thank you, and goodnight.

And I certainly appreciate Cabrales opinions, given her extensive dining experience, confidence in her taste, and her willingness to return as often as she has. Gagnaire may not be for everyone, and I don't think disdain is a reflection on anything but the subjective experience. As a pastry chef, I obviously look to the dessert as an important anchor to the meal and I pay extra attention to the transition and its context in relation to the dishes that come before. I surely love the concept behind the Grand Dessert, but I will concede not every dessert item I've sampled reached the highest level for me. But then my own desserts have their shortcomings as well! In general, I do find the dessert courses in line with the rest of the menu, more so than most restaurants I've visited. Perhaps the focus on fewer items would remedy the sometimes uneven result of a dessert 'storm.'

I can't really argue with any of your points, but the report of your first meal there is much more in line with my experience, as opposed to your last! The relationship you forged with the sommelier was special indeed; I think the service at PG can be a bit chilly, but once a rapport of that kind is opened, the synergy is amazing. I've dined there, admittedly, within a short range of time, but I do sense a certain consistency in the overall vocabulary of his dishes, though I'm at a loss to effectively describe it. I asked if you were able to do so if only to see if another's description in fact gelled with mine. I wish I had been able to dine at the St Etienne version as to have a broader sense of his evolution.

Is it relevant to bring Spain into the discussion? I've never eaten (nor visited) Spain or Italy, but would we have said the same of Spain, say, 20 years ago, or pre-Arzak? If so, under what conditions has haute cuisine developed there? Is its emergence unique in nature, or simply built upon the French model? Apologies if this is a weak comparison...

Thanks for your honesty and the time and energy you offered with all of your recent posts. Some may have realized elsewhere that I am firmly on the Gagnaire bandwagon (based on four meals in Paris since 1998), but I surely understand the feelings of those who may come away feeling cold. I don't have much to say at the moment, but given the nature of previous threads, I'm eager to see where this one will go. With respect to the overall mediocrity and lack of inspiration, would you generally attribute those to a failure on the level of conception (failed innovation) or a failure to fully realize those ideas (poor cooking)? In terms of clarity or 'theme' (absence of), was that in context of the progression of the entire meal, or within each dish and its various 'side' dishes? How might you specifically describe the 'excitement' you found on your first visit, or more generally, how might you describe, given your experience thus far, Gagnaire's cuisine to someone who was unfamiliar? Do you feel one must enter PG with a certain preparedness or rather an attitude of abandon, allowing oneself to totally surrender to the experience? Perhaps a bit of both?

And to be fair and to clarify my opinion, I was disappointed by the last meal at Arpège, not because I wasn't challenged by Passard's style of cooking, but rather because of the repetition of dishes over the years. I can't believe I missed that! Intentional you think, or mere coincidence? Surely not always the case...

Bux, in his ever thoughtful way, has opened the door and boosted my confidence instead of biting my tongue as the discussion has twisted and turned beyond my range... Two or three years ago, I embarked on a sort of vacances gastronomiques, that included three meals in three days: Gagnaire the first day, Ducasse (at Hotel du Parc) the second, followed by Arpège. I can honestly say that I enjoyed all three, while, perhaps, not equally, at the least for recognizing what made each chef different from the others. I arrived at each chef's table with a general understanding (to the best of my abilities) of his intentions and they all satisfied on that level. As a young cook, I feel I learned something from each meal. True, maybe the frequency of visits to one or two over the other show my underlying preferences, but those preferences are based as much on economics as any other factor (I had something to say on that point, either in the Taillevent or Haeberlin thread, I can't remember now which, and now the context has shifted. It was something to the effect that I surely have worried about paying the 'phone bill' after such meals, but such experiences are essential with regard to my passion for eating and the refining of my cooking). If anything, the discussions here have led me toward new territory and restaurants to visit when I next have the opportunity. I agree with Bux' assertion that the chefs in question occupy the same tiny segment of the broader culinary curve; if there is cause for argument within this tiny segment, all I can say is, Vive la difference!

As a cook, I love the onset of autumn not only for the products it brings, but also the emotional and sensory aspects of it all. Concord grapes are one of the first such items to appear (followed by dates and quince and persimmon and 'real' apples and meyer lemons and ...) and I confess to going nuts the first couple of weeks of availability. I'm amidst the planning of a visit to NYC next month and a visit to Blue Hill is now almost certain, grapes or no grapes... Look forward to the details, my well-dined friend...

Haven't we diverted this thread enough already?!

Perhaps Cabrales would like to hire me as a full-time research assistant and dining companion, so that I can begin my real culinary education.*** ***Insert smilie that suggests I've simply lost this particular argument and that I'm totally kidding, but if one offered me this position I would not necessarily turn it down...

Oh man, it's getting late... I should just say, "Uncle"... Hmmm. I disagree. I've had a few dishes where PG has explored sweetness and acidity in such a way (in this case it was honey and sherry vinegar). The caraway is not necessarily mind boggling, and the cooking of the lamb is rather straightforward- but throw in the fact that the picture in the book (I'm not so naive to think one can sum up a chef's ouevre on the printed page or computer screen) looks like a PG dish! ... it seemed an easy conclusion to draw. I'll give you the point on Troisgros, surely he learned from his family, all I asserted was that he's taken his cuisine and thoughts further (of course, a matter of opinion) than that older generation, and soon the torch will pass to Sebastien Bras... I wasn't discounting Michel's obvious influence, just stating that an heir apparent was exposed to a very different approach to cooking. Influence is a funny thing, however... the best filter it through themselves, while the most easily spotted simply imitate... ...which is/was my real point, though I believe, even if it is totally without basis and extremely personal, Gagnaire will have an influence on the way some chefs cook. Cabrales, your views on his cuisine aside, would you agree with that prediction? Why or why not?

Ah, but what would a Komodo dragon drink with his putrefaction?

Cabrales, Regarding LeFebvre, I sadly missed the one opportunity I had to dine there, and I know that the both of us are curious to see where he goes next. My inclusion of him, apart from simply free-association, comes solely from what I've read, and is best evidenced by the Culinary Chronicle, Volume 2: The Best of Italy and California Cuisine. To quote from the introduction, His ambitious career in the field was highlighted by stays at the three star Arpège, as well as with Pierre Gagnaire, whose influence and signature are still present in some of his creations. Of the five dishes presented in the book, four bear close or peripheral resemblance to Gagnaire... Shrimp with Cinnamon Butter, Vermicelli, and Clams which is obviously descended from Gagnaire's Tempura de Langoustines, Pommes de Terre Sautées au Beurre Clarifié, Beurre Fondue à la Cannelle et Ciboulette from another excellent book, Dining in France by Christian Millau, published by Stewart, Tabori, and Chang in 1986. Sea Bream on a Bed of Vegetables with a Cucumber Cream, the jus de concombres easily attributed to PG. Rack of Lamb with Caraway and Sweet and Sour Vegetables, the mere appearance and manner of spicing suggest PG. Meringue,...Rhubarb and Balsamic Ice Cream... the recipe given for the ice cream is nearly identical to PG's Balsamic Ice Cream I have on file. As for Sebastien Bras, I don't know how much his own style would yet influence either son père or Régis, le second. Although Séba is credited for some of the recipes (which ones?) in the latest book, we will have to see perhaps further into the future what PG's influence might have been... I was simply thinking aloud. And Troisgros the younger seems comfortable associating himself with the Groupe des Huit (Passard, Gagnaire, Bras, Roellinger, Chibois, Veyrat... why does the eighth escape me?) as opposed to the Bande à Bocuse of the previous generation... To the others, sorry for derailing the thread. To my muse, Cabrales... right back at ya!

Painfully true. I've tried. I think I need better "connections." I'm sure I'd get into El Bulli easier... As for signature dishes... As it relates to Arpège, I would add the Avocat... and Gaspacho to Plotnicki's list. Those dishes along with the Egg and Tomato- they are good and perhaps nicely serve as personal milestones in Passard's development. But is a tasting menu the best venue for such signature dishes? I wouldn't mind seeing them listed à la carte, but I don't think one's only degustation option should simply be a playlist of greatest hits. Hence, my feeling as to why I've closed the book on Passard for awhile... As it relates to others... As a cook, I tend not to think of chefs in terms of their signature dishes, but, like with Fat Guy, of a more generalized style and how they influence the next generation. And as a cook, I do pay much attention to the technical innovators. To me, a signature dish should be in the eye of the beholder... I've recently posted elsewhere perhaps the most favorite dish I've eaten... To me, this is a signature dish in that it represents Ripert's skill, confidence, and adaptability of his chosen range of ingredients, namely, fish. And while Eric remembered it fondly, I believe it has not been on the menu since, nor for very long while it ran. Steve, yes, I would count Robuchon's Potato Purée as a signature in a sense, but is it really, his, and isn't his dish merely a matter of technique, the likes of which you seem to downplay? ...which is why you will never, ever see a "signature" dish from him. Which is surely why his book, Cuisine Immediate remains out of print ( Kitchen Arts and Letters told me it was one of the most requested book searches), which is why you don't see his grinning mug all over the press... Gagnaire's approach to food is that of an art that is constantly changing/transforming (even now... even now) from cooking to plating to eating. He does not even believe that a dish can ever be the same twice, that it is a moment in time, something that passes. It is a rather deep way of thinking, that, despite my poor explanation, I aspire to, though in my own food feel I as if I'm not yet skilled enough to fully realize. It is my understanding that because of this approach, he has no interest in documenting his dishes in a book again, that do to so would merely be like assembling a scrapbook, which would distract him from what he's doing today, this very minute. And I love that he cooks. Every time I've had the pleasure of meeting him, he's got spots on his whites and sweat on his brow. I won't discourage anyone from going for Senderens' Canard Apicius or Salmon with Sorrel at Troisgros, but for my money, I want what Gagnaire thought of this morning, and he's never let me down... The full extent to which we see Gagnaire's influence is not quite apparent... Sebastien Bras (Michel's son), one of the Pourcel brothers, Jordi Butron, Ludovic LeFebvre, are just the few that immediately popped into my head... I think it is too early to say, though I'll step out on a limb and suggest that he might contribute more to cuisine than most on Plotnicki's Signature Dish thread... Umm, perhaps I should save some for when Plotnicki starts the damn Gagnaire thread...

Will this be your first visit as well? Ken is doing some amazing things, and has provided two very memorable meals for me. But then perhaps my opinion is suspect!

Not my nor your words, spqr, but a paraphrase (albeit a poor one) of Bourdain's. From A Cook's Tour, page 13, "Now I've gone over to the dark side too...One sells one's soul in increments, slowly, over time." I respect him for his choices and for not taking it all too seriously. Some of us, once having gained entrance to that world, would no longer point out how ridiculous it can be. He also seems sensitive to the exploitation of some aspects of his TV series. It is all too easy to get sucked into that media fetish where the PR and magazines and high profile events overshadow what got one there in the first place. I think Bourdain will always remember that it all came from sweat, toil, and rockin' good food!

Thanks, awbrig, I know Charlie tends to keep his people close, but with him spreading out, I tend forget who is where! One more question for Cab, Was your impression painted by Charlie's absence? Do you feel the food would have been better if he was supervising, or if you had received the same food and he was there, would you have been even more disappointed?

spqr, Mr. Bourdain has already given us plenty of Reasons Why You Don't Want To Be On Television... While many may have "sold their soul to the devil", at least Tony has done it with some irony and humor, and though he may not agree, a touch of dignity. As for Martha, it hurts, but I too must give her much credit for her success. As for her potential downfall...

Cabrales, Thank you for another report. Perhaps I missed it, but it wasn't clear whether you had dined at Trotter's before or if this was your fisrt experience. Who was running the kitchen in Charlie's absence? I've been unable to keep track of who is filling the Chef de Cuisine post these days. Was it Matthias or Guillermo? Did the kitchen brigade play any role in the presentation or explanation of the dishes as they were served? How many cooks would you guess were working? Were there any elements of fine dining or cooking that may have been demystified based on your observations of the kitchen? It would not surprise me if key members of the brigade had completed stages in France and even Spain. It is my perception that Charlie has become a "member" of that top tier of chefs, where travelling among their kitchens would not be uncommon. Don't forget that a young Albert Adria spent time at Trotter's. A young friend of mine recently worked at Jean Bardet, with the help of Charlie. Specifically, on what levels were your expectations not met? And what might your companions have judged differently? Could it be attributed to experience with Trotter's cuisine in the past or experience with haute cuisine in general? I'm perplexed by your different standards applied to "French" and "non-French". What, in your view, apart from the obvious Asian influence, defines a cuisine as essentially French? My apologies if you have discussed this point elsewhere! After this experience, would you place Trotter's as one of the top three or five restaurants in the US, as the prevailing opinion seems to suggest? I've received some nice baked goods upon departure. Seems odd that they would mail you the menu.

Using Alain Passard as an example, while I was disappointed with the repetition of certain dishes and their long duration on the menu, I don't feel that he must further reinvent himself. His style has come to be unique (yes, I guess that is the product of previous innovation!); I would have simply like to have seen variations within his style in the form of new juxtapositions of flavors and ingredients. I'm of the school that considers cooking a form of expression, and like other forms of expression, the emotions elicited can be the result of mere mastery of technique as well as innovation. Varmint hit it on the nose by saying, It might make more sense to call it progression, rather than innovation. In my view, progression must be the logical conclusion in finding a way to intensify a flavor or refine a texture. In a sense, one must have a starting point with a specific result in mind (not to say happy accidents don't occur!). The Scientific Method is a good example. Some experiments will work and some may not, but I think those chefs that just dive in without regard to a point of departure are the ones that become transparent. (edit: messed up the quote!)

Another brilliant report, sir. I love the bit with the tie! Apart from your initial hesitance, what were your general expectations of the meal beforehand? What levels of tasting menus were offered, and are there reasons that you went à la carte? I eagerly anticipate your thoughts on Gagnaire. Though I'll admit to lacking a broad scope of French dining experiences, I'm with Mr. Shaw!

Within the past year or so, Food Arts ran an interesting piece by Wayne Brachman (from Food Network's Melting Pot and former pastry chef for Robert Flay) ... sort of a "day in the life" of a TV chef. Don't be fooled- just as every chef you read about has a publicist, every chef you see on TV has undergone extensive coaching. The Brachman article mentioned a weeklong seminar for chefs-who-might-be stars, run, I believe by the consultant you mentioned. It's serious business.

I confess I finally opened Bourdain's A Cook's Tour the other day. I enjoyed Kitchen Confidential, but so far this one has made me want to be better cook, and not in the professional sense, but just for me, my wife whom I cook for, and the ingredients and all the work that went into them. Thanks Tony!

My question would be, is it possible to fully enjoy and savor the cuisine of Passard (or Gagnaire, or Bras, or Adria) if you don't already come to the table with an understanding of his intentions? Patrice- Yes I haven't gotten to writing that novel that would be reviews of recent meals in Paris, as well as New York. My apologies! Something tells me that Mr. Plotnicki might have something to say about Gagnaire... If so, I will allow him to have the first word! I'm still trying to understand loufood's question about food and setting. To echo the others' comments, surely the setting maximizes the effect of Passard's food. Where else would you propose? Would a Cote Rotie taste better in Reidel as opposed to a plastic cup? Foie gras on Bernardaud or a paper plate? Of course. But surely there is middle ground somewhere. Would a disciple of Passard be able to produce the same style in a modest bistrot setting? Likely, yes, if the kitchen was of similar caliber. Ultimately, the ability to be "transported" by food comes from within the person eating it.