macrosan

Tony, I know that's the case at Claridges (which I therefore won't go to), but I thought not at RHR (and if it is I 'll take it off my dinner list).

Hey cappers, liked the review. You might like to look at this other thread posted last week. Your post reminded me of the bread, which I forgot to comment on. I only had the onion bread, but that was indeed exceptionally yummy

LOL Christopher, it's not just boarding school This is a generational thing. Tapioca was school meal dessert de rigeur in British schools after the war and into the 50s. I assume it was to do with availability during rationing, and the policy of giving children milk. We used to call it "frog spawn" and I recall everyone detested it. But next time I'm at GT, you could make a small effort to persuade me ... I'm not saying it will work, but you could try ...

And I also think that civility etc improves the intellectual process of the argument, and certainly makes it more likely to reach a conclusion On the art/craft issue, I am totally at one with Robert. For me, an artist must be a craftsman in order to create art. That's why a stick figure drawn by a 5 year old is not art, and that's why a pile of bricks might well not be art. Intellectual or emotional intent on the part of the artist, or response on the part of the 'recipient', is not enough in itself to define art. Similarly, craft alone is not enough. Craft alone can generate beautiful design but I distinguish that from art. I am not averse to all modern art. I found that display a few years ago in the Tate, made from rice, appealing, and I would certainly not deny its right to be called art (though I'm not entirely certain) and I feel the same about the work of the lady who created inside-out houses (gosh, my memory is going very fast). I'm happy with the sub-definition of "fine arts" because I think that's a useful distinction which actually enables new art forms to gain credence. Never forgetting the original question of this thread it seems to me that most people's definition of art actually does allow that cooking may indeed be an art. Not all of the time, and not within the capabilities of all chefs. But it is valid, it seems to me, for a chef to put that creative artistic endeavour into a dish, beyond what is necessary just to cook an 'interesting' dish, and for him to do that for a purely aesthetic purpose with the objective of creating an aesthetic response from the diner. And if he uses his learned craft to do that, then indeed he has created art, however ephemeral.

I think Bux has this exactly right. If she had said "Ladies, I hope you'll understand that we have some people waiting to eat here, and if it's no trouble for you, they would very much appreciate it if you would vacate your table in the next 5 minutes or so. Of course, if you do wish to sit awhile, please feel free to do so" Maybe that wording isn't exactly right, but I'm sure it would be less exceptionable.

I am curious to know what it would take to gain your trust?. I actually said "I don't trust museums ... to be guardians of the English language", in this case to define what is meant by the word "art". I repeat that what I see the Tate Gallery doing confirms my view that they are willing to redefine the word on a regular basis in order to court notoriety, and therefore revenue. I would have no problem if they got someone to drop a pile of bricks in their forecourt, and then said to the public "Come and see these bricks, guys, because they happen to have fallen in a really interesting configuration, the light plays on them in an amazing way when the sun is low, and the whole thing is really attractive". But to say "Come and see this because this is art" is pure attention-seeking. People pay to see it not because they think it's art, but because they want to see what the Tate is calling art. Maybe I'm over-sensitive to the Tate in particular, because it happens to house my most favorite art collection in the world (the Turner collection) and it angers me to see people whom I view as unworthy being the guardians of such a collection BLH, I am not suggesting for a moment that my view applies to all museums (and galleries). I intrinsically do trust them, until they do something to lose my trust. Of course a museum exhibits things other than art, and clearly my objection applies only if they "pretend" something is art when it isn't (in my view).

No, I wouldn't dare attempt to emulate Mr Parker. My numbers are solely representational, order-of-magnitude symbols which are quicker to write and (mostly) easier to get a point across than extensive text LML, how did you know about that meal I had in Paris ? I don't remember writing a review of that. And it wasn't Angel Delight, it was a Whippsy with a Cadbury's Flake floating on top. Yep, that did score 8/10 for the food, but I marked it down on ambience, and I deducted one point for the fact that they hadn't unwarpped the Cadbury's Flake.

I don't know when it opened, Wilfrid, but what about Club Gascon? There have been good reports here, and since it's on my "soon to do" list I'd be interested in your report. In fact, if you're looking for a dining companion, I'd be happy to join you

Thanks for the review, Simon, but I'm puzzled. Your headline and byeline are laudatory, yet in the body of the review you made major criticisms of no less than four elements. - Decoration and ambience - Bar drinks - Your main course - Cheeseboard Given the price you paid, I'm astonished that you found the experience acceptable, let alone giving it an 85% rating. This raises an interesting issue, something I've noticed in many reviews. Much attention is given to starters and desserts, both by chefs and reviewers, in terms of innovation and presentation. Many reviews seem to suggest that a starter or dessert ranks at least as important as the main course. My own opinion is that the main course represents 80% of the importance of the food content of a meal, so if I have a bad main course my 'marks' for food will never be better than 2/10. I view the other corses as accompaniments to the main course. I'd be interested in other people's thoughts on this.

I understand that point, Steve, and it certainly is a very commonly held definition. My point is that it's not a useful definition of the word because it denies any objectivity, and that in turn makes it impossible to discuss whether or not something is art, and that in turn diminishes that process which I call art. In short, it places Beethoven in the same field of human endeavour and aspiration as Tracey Emin, and I think that's a shame. I believe that an objective definition of the word "art" is not only possible, and desirable, but also that the majority of English speaking people already have such a general definition. And please tell us what "A suit with three legs, made for display between two sheets of glass" expresses about life. I'm all agog :wow:

Quit so, BLH, but I think you've slightly missed the point at issue in the quote you've pulled. By displaying an object, an (art) museum is stipulating that the object is indeed art. It's using its name and reputation to validate that judgement. My point is that some such museums first decide that they want to exhibit something in order to attract publicity, maybe notoriety, and thereby crowds. To justify their headline-grabbing display, they have to claim that their exhibit is art. I just don't trust museums, with the financial pressures they have, to be the guardians of the English language. And my lack of trust is continually confirmed by the antics of galleries such as the Tate.

Do you ship, Jinmyo, or do I have to come to your place to collect ? Yummmmm...

I think I'm a mustard purist Seems to me that mustard should be a product made from mustard seed, and it's a specific additive to a meal designed to impart a specific flavor, which is the 'strong' flavor of mustard seed. If I also want to add the flavor of honey to my meal, then I will get a jar of honey. If I want to add the flavor of jalapenos or red peppers, then I will put a plate of jalapenos or red peppers on the table. I don't like the idea of these packaged convenience additives. For me, that turns mustard into more of a pickle concept, which is based on an amalgam of competing flavors. Oh the burden of the mustard purist is indeed a heavy one Of all the world's mustards, John has indeed identified the King --- Colman's English.

If the waiting is endemic, then Bouley need to say so up front when you book. Further, when they're asked by a customer how long the wait is going to be, they need to start being honest and saying they don't know.

LOL Wilfrid, I think you play the anarchist rather well, but that doesn't enable you to get away with logical murder "Aesthetic motivation of art" is only tautological if you have already accepted that art is aesthetically motivated and the key is the word "motivation". So if someone accidentally drops blobs of paint on a canvas (no, that's not a dig at 'modern art') even if it looks like art, it doesn't qualify under my definition. Sensual response alone obviously doesn't draw a distinction between art and non-art. It's not suggested that it does. I simply say that it's one necessary component. My point about human creation goes to exactly the point you raise. Painting doene by a chimpanzee is not art. Found objects are not art. They may imitate art, but that's about it. And I'll repeat that I believe there is very wide consensus on those three elements.... except for declared anarchists, of course

John, I can't find any reference to "good art" in either of our posts, so I'm puzzled by your comment (with which I totally agree, and which is exactly what I said in my earlier post in this thread)

Entrancing, Steve. I'm going out for a special meal tonight in London, and this has really put me in the mood Shame we can't make it to Sandor's but I guess La Trompette will have to do its best. That very last picture of you and Ellen, running along the beach like a couple of teenagers, with the sun setting in the background is just so romantic. And I assume it was Momo who took the photo, as he's nowhere to be seen.

John, that's a major cop-out. On that basis, you can't hold any intelligent discussion because of the possibility of semantic differences. A Rembrandt painting is art, and an ant is not art. No-one in the world will disagree with that. As you add things to that list of two, some things will immediately be accepted as art, and others immediately accepted as not art. At some point, the consensus will get less and less as you go from 100% agreement down to 0%. Those things on which there is inadequate consensus are acknowledged as unclassifiable. So what ? You still finish up with a valid definition of art, and there is no serious problem with holding discussions around that definition. Nothing at all remarkable about that. Why would anyone refer to a cook that no-one had heard of ? You're drawing an invalid conclusion here, John. Art is not in any sense a solely professional pursuit. (I'll assume you mean "and" not "or" which clearly couldn't make sense) Nope. On this basis a piece of plain wallpaper is art. Why ? Just because the museum says so in order to justify itself ? What about the fly that accidentally got into the showcase and died from lack of oxygen. Does that then become art ? This is pure syllogism. You just want to prove that discussion of art is circular and irresolvable. I've already indicated above why the second postulation is suspect. The first has not yet even been addressed by you, much less indicated. Your closing example misses the whole point. The question of whether a photograph is art or not has nothing to do with the object being photographed, it has to do with the photographer's capability to produce a response from the viewer of the photograph. Your use of the word "deception" is both disingenuous and unnecessarily emotive. The artist presents his perceptions or emotions or thoughts with the object of showing these to others. Is that deception, is it wrong ? Sometimes, the artist may be trying to persuade others, but that is a specialised sub-form of art and does not come close to the generality of art. Whether your neighbor's photograph of a steak is art or not depends on how, and with what purpose, she takes the photograph, and what effect seeing the photograph has on a viewer. To say her job is to make something temporary permanent is meaningless - her job is no such thing. She is deceiving only if her photograph is deliberately not representative of the steak she is photographing, but she claims that it is. Your use of the word forgery is way off the mark. Her photograph claims to be exactly what it is. It claims to be a photograph of a steak. Are you saying she claims that it is a steak ? If so, she must be a helluva photographer. You then go on to say that she will become an artist only if some museum curator so decides. That's a terribly elitist and quite invalid presumption. John, I think you laid out your position in the your sentence, and you've just engineered the rest of your post artificially to meet your proposition. And no, I don't think that postal engineering is art

Sure they're interesting, but they're not remotely philosophical. They range between shopping lists, menus, requests for money, and vague rantings. Wilfrid, why do we need to produce a rigorous definition of art ? All we need is for a sufficiently consensual working definition, and then conclude whether or not cooking in particular falls within that definition. I agree that such a working definition might then be unusable to determine whether the Chrysler Building is art, or Tracey Emin is an artist, but we don't care about those. So far, I think there is consensus that art has to contain the following elements: Aesthetic motivation The ability to generate a sensual response from human beings Human creation There is not yet consensus on : Innovation Emotional input Emotional response Intellectual meaning but I don't think it will take long to reach consensus on these minor elements

Paula, I'm as astonished as Ajay. I cannot believe you just stood and waited for that time. We Brits are often accused of being unwilling to complain at bad service, and in all the Americas none have the reputation of New Yorkers for being at the other end of the scale. Please tell us that you're going to do something truly appalling to the restaurant when you go tonight. Pleeeeease !!!!!

OK, I think I'm in deep trouble here, so I might as well dig myself in deeper. I disagree with Stefany, who disagrees with Steve, so I should agree with Steve, but I don't. I can't accept the concept that something is art because the maker has aesthetic intent and he says it's art. That's semantic nonsense. On that basis, a 5-year-old who scrawls a circle on abit of paper and says "That's Mummy" has indeed created a work of art. If that's what you use the word to mean, then the word has no value in rational discussion, and I believe it's not what most thinking people understand it to mean. Steve is wrong in saying that art doesn't disappear. Stefany quotes some examples, and the Tate Gallery has been filled with other examples. Steve says that food is designed to be delicious. Well taste is a perfectly valid sense to which an artist may attempt to appeal. Just as much as sight or sound. And if the intent of a chef is to create unique and new sensations of taste in his food, where is that different from the intent of a painter or musician? Stefany stipulates that an artist must be a "philosopher and a dreamer". Why ? Says who ? In my book, a philosopher has to be a philosopher, he doesn't have to be an artist, but he's not debarred from also being that. The same applies the other way round. Who has determined that Vincent van Gogh was a philosopher ? Not another philosopher, for sure. Van Gogh was a nutcase who could hardly string coherent sentences together for most of his life. So was he not an artist? No, this sounds like self-importance to me. It's the arts community making out that they're important to the intellectual integrity of the world. Not that I'm suggesting that they're not important, but I think they're only important to the arts. My guess is that it's only the visual arts community doing that, the painters, not the writers and musicians and the chefs.

Ajay, I sympathise with your desire to have a reviewer give you an accurate estimate of what you can expect to experience, but I do think you ask for too much. First, as you suggest in your post, restaurant performance varies from day to day, from time to time, from table to table, and from dish to dish. To give a realistic prognosis, a reviewer would have to try a restaurant maybe ten or a dozen times. The only place you'll get that range of coverage is here at eGullet. Second, taste is such a subjective sense that the chances of you receiving the same sensory perception as a reviewer are pretty slim. In my view, all a reviewer can achieve is to give a general sense of level of quality, style, menu, cost, service and ambience of a restaurant at one snapshot in time. Then a regular follower of that reviewer, one who has generally found he empathises with that reviewer, can have some level of expectation that he may enjoy a meal at a recommended establishment. And that's the most you can hope for. I'll repeat what I said in my earlier post. People who can't afford to make a mistake in dining out should not rely on a review to give them any guarantee of success. Simply because the cycle of read review/try/asess review/formulate view of reviewer, then repeating that whole cycle several times, is just not possible for someone with such limited funds. Certainly you are likely to do better by reading what people here at eGullet have to say. That's like chatting to a circle of friends, whose general judgement you come to trust, and using their recommendations. But you seem to be suggesting, Ajay, that you can expect by right something from a restaurant reviewer that you cannot get in any other buying decision. For example, do you expect as much from testers of cars in motoring magazines. If you do, then you will be sadly disappointed if you try them !!!!

Wow, Peter, you really had me going there Brilliant spoof, and I believed every word until I saw that the British Army came second in the Military Competition, LOL But until that point, it was very convincing - nice job

No it isn't, and it isn't if it isn't because then it isn't. Fine, but I hope he's not relying on selling his art collection to live off in his old age.

Really nice, Jinmyo. The three elements I've quoted above specially hit home with me, and I've just fallen in love with "Be willing to fail miserably". That could become one of those memorable quotes that I take to the grave with me and I have very few of those.