macrosan

Tommy, why is Mario carrying maraccas ? Does he make his staff work to a samba beat ? And why does he need more than the regulation two ? And who says he's wearing shorts under there ? Did you look, Tommy ?

Hey Peter, I loved that post. You know more quotes than John Whiting, and I'm impressed :wow: Damian, I can't agree that "the hallmark of art is communication". It is indeed the hallmark of some arts some of the time, but paintings are sometimes just for pleasure and entertainment, yet that doesn't make them any less art. I think communication is an optional extra, and I repeat that for me the essence of art is originality. You ask "Could you compare the great stage actors to sculptors? The great unrecorded musicians to writers?" and my simple answer is "YES". For example, an actor's art is in his unique original interpretation of a writer's words, a sculptor's art is in his unique and original subject or material, and so on. And those comments apply to BLH's post. An instrumentalist is an artist in his playing of an instrument, and a composer in his composition. These are two totally different skills, and each is an art in its own right. Escoffier was an artist because he created new concepts in cooking and new dishes. So is Gordon Ramsey. Wilfrid, I'm so sorry, I think maybe you're right :confused:

I agree with SteveP's primary conclusion but not at some of the sub-text. Where SteveP leads us in his last post is to the conclusion that a restaurant review is a fruitless exercise, which has no value other than (possibly) literary entertainment. He says the only way to reach a conclusion about a review is to try the restaurant. But you don't need a review to try a restaurant, you can just ... well ... try the restaurant. Steve also implies that one of the objectives of eating at a restaurant is to test a critic's reviews. No thanks, let their newspapers do that, it's not my job !!! The bottom line is that people who read reviews (I wonder what proportion of the restaurant-going population that is) find a reviewer with whose views they discover, by experience, agree with their own tastes. They then 'follow' that reviewer until their tastes part company, or the reviewer goes bent, I guess. And pace Simon's quite valid comment about the financial capability to follow such a path, I would suggest that those who cannot afford this process simply cannot afford this process. Sadly perhaps, they should not try to follow reviews, they need to accept that they will have to take a risk. That's just the same as buying something which by custom isn't reviewed, such as a package holiday. Buyers of those have to rely on the provider's advertising and on their own enquiries. And SteveP rightly points out that with the best will in the world, a reviewer can get it wrong or a restaurant can get it wrong on the night. Cooking is not a science, and the reviewer and the diner can get totally different experiences, for other reasons than preferential treatment or taste or subjective mood.

Cabrales, I think I agree, but I believe that what you're really saying is that a chef creating a new dish is playing the part of an artist, it's just that some of them are bad artists. "Art" or "artistry" should not be used as a qualitative term. The qualitativity (hey, Fat Guy, have I invented a new noun?) is provided by adjectives such as "good". That's why the oft-used expression "Yes, but is it art?" is almost unanswerable, but "Yes, but is it good art?" is often a given.

Hey, that John Whiting knows a thing or two, don't he ? And he retrieves at will quotes from top chefs (although I'm not sure if I've heard of the Milton guy). Cabrales, from a standing start it's impossible to catch up with that Chef of the Century thread, so let's do it again here I think there is a real distinction between the meanings of "art" and "craft". An art is creative and innovative, while a craft is use of a mechanical and established skill to produce a pre-defined result. In the culinary context, a sous-chef who follows a senior chef's instructions is a craftsman. The chef who 'invents' the dish is an artist. But like all artists, he doesn't invent every dish he ever produces. Many times he will simply copy, with minor technical modifications, someone else's invention, at which time he is playing the part of a craftsman. So cooking comprises both art and craft at different times, but it is the artistic potential that makes it exciting and a topic worthy of discussion and study. Does cooking aspire to a universal truth ? I'm not sure that I believe in the existence of universal truth anyway, but if there were such a thing I'm sure chefs have better things to do than aspire to one. Yes BLH, I think there are 'movements' in cooking, and that the concept is a huge improvement on the attempt to regionalise cuisines (see other threads failing to agree definitions of what French or British or American cooking might be).

So there I was at eGullet, minding my own business, when who should walk in but .....

Anyone remember this one ?

Steven, I guess you're getting close to thread #2 (well I hope so) :) John has made me feel curmudgeonly, because I realize I omitted to say how much I enjoyed your superb post. That's the sort of material we're all used to paying money for, and it's of a quality which would make us happy to have spent it. Don't take this the wrong way, but if you're going to maintain that standard of reporting, then please stay away for as long as you like :)

Nope, he got me too, Tommy. He must have been paying for his internet access by the minute, and he concluded that gratuitous insults weren't worth the extra nickel. Or maybe he's just enjoying himself so much, he is starting to get warm feelings about you.

What does that mean ? Blumenthal cooks in the Guardian canteen, or what ? ???

I have a suspicion that food writers (all of them, not just reviewers) worry about this more than mere mortal readers. As one of the latter, I'm content to rely upon Abe Lincoln's view - "You can fool some of the people some of the time...". If I rely upon a review to dine at a restaurant, and I find I've been 'misled' then I won't go back to the restaurant and I won't read the reviewer again. I guess that most people do the same. So the value of a biassed review is very short-term for both restaurant and reviewer. Is that such a big deal? Well maybe professionally yes, and I can understand true professionals getting hot under the collar about it. But in reality, the amount of influence wielded by charlatans is very limited.

No you didn't, Ron, your exposition is perfect and demonstrates a consummate grasp of both the fundamental hypothesis and its logical and inevitable conclusion. Brilliant. No....or yes....it's a bit difficult for me to tell if you don't use the smilies :p

OOPS are we finished with this thread ?

You really ate all that in 24 hours ? Oh boy !!! No wonder Momo looks as if he's put on a bit of weight already.

Now that the World Tour '02 is under way, Momo's thoughts turn to the World Tour '03, and I have great news for the itinerant canine. Cast your peepers on THIS young Momo, and start to dream of the land of your forefathers ....

As I have said elsewhere on this board, I find that the quintessentially British arts of satire, lampoon and caricature do not travel well across the Atlantic ;) but I don't believe this should confer any special protection to our American cousins. And the point about those arts, Steve, is that behind the sometimes barbed comments lies a serious point. In this case, in direct response to your question about the differences between A, B and C, it is absolutely valid for me to say that there is no real distinction, and to suggest that the process itself of attempting to pigeon-hole cuisines is detrimental to discussion of cuisines. I don't stipulate that I am right, but my view on that is valid, and it positively is a proper contribution to the debate. I also believe that this habitual pigeon-holing process by food writers is an example of their inadequacies, in that rather than tax themselves by having to describe and evaluate food, they fall back on these (in my view) meaningless categorisations and try to sound as though they know and understand what they're talking about.

Of course, Wilfrid, you're assuming they are using water to make ice cubes

OK, I don't know if this is allowed, but I AGREE WITH LML. This thread is an example of OOPS (Overtly Obsessive Pigeonhole Syndrome) which in turn is a hyponym of FAGS (Fanatical Attention to Gamebird Syndrome) which in turn is a hyponym of GAS (Gravitas in the Aviary Syndrome). Wilfrid suggests "Because they are used all the time, sprinkled freely throughout restaurant guides and reviews" as a justification for discussion, but even he sounds less than his usual convincing self. The reality is that they are nor sprinkled "freely", they appear very infrequently in the type of guide and review that he wouldn't be seen dead reading :p

LOL, not another of those surely ;) I just want to dive in early and say that :- a) I'm not convinced there is a rational answer to the question(s) b) Even if there is, I for one don't care so long as I like the food c) Why isn't Italian included in the list, because I'd love someone to try and explain to me why Babbo is Italian rather than American :D I will, as always, enjoy reading the next 147 posts in this thread, which will no doubt move on to such diverse topics as British mediaeval conjugal rites, why the French Foreign Legion sing funny songs, and the American heritage of candle-making. I shall enjoy :)

Steven, I didn't do that :( What I said was that people stay in the restaurant business because they get a kick out of providing service to difficult customers. That's just another way of saying what you said --- they want to prove that they can do something very difficult very well !!!! I have run my own (B2B service) business for over 20 years, and many people ask me why I'm not a very wealthy man ;) The reason is that I have aspirations for myself, and therefore for my business, whose achievement is not measured in monetary terms. My company has the best reputation in its market for quality of service and honesty of dealing. Unlike some of our competitors, we do not offer bribes to consultants to bring us business. Unlike all of our competitors, we contractually guarantee service levels, and publish compensation rates which we pay our customers if we fail to deliver. I'm proud of those things, and I will (and regularly do) trade any amount of profit to maintain them. I work for many demanding and 'difficult' customers, and they are the ones who prove to me that my company is good at what it does. The easy customers get just as good service, but in all honesty my competitors could keep them happy ;) but please don't tell them that. I guess that the good people in the restaurant business feel like that, which includes the owners, the chefs, the staff. I empathize with those people, because we are kindred spirits. But I have zero tolerance for people in service industries who have no interest in delivering service.

This thread has suddenly brought back a memory of a meal I had in New York in 1989 ??? I dined alone at an Italian restaurant on the East Side in the 60s (can't remember the name). I hadn't booked, and they seated me at a table for 2 in the far corner. What I do recall clearly is the excellence of the meal, and the fantastic service I got throughout the meal. I was approached several times by the maitre d' who asked if all was well, was I enjoying the meal, was the wine exactly right, and so on. I was served by at least three different waiters, they checked whether I was ready for the next course before they served it, they replenished bread and water unbidden. In short, I had a memorable meal, and the service was unusually excellent in my experience of the generally poor service given to single diners. And 13 years later, I've just realized why I spent the whole evening writing in a notepad. I was actually writing a speech that I made at my brother's birthday party, but they probably thought I was a professional restaurant critic :p

The fundamental concept is silly, but no more so than the Booker Prize or the Turner Proze or the Oscars. If "the masses" really do want to spend their money on something "recommended" by a panel of nobodies, then more fool them. I can honestly say that I have never been influenced by any such awards to read/see/taste an awardee's product. By contrast, I am influenced by expert assessment (such as Michelin) but even then only once. If I try a Michelin starred restaurant and don't like it, I won't go again. If I try two and don't like them, I won't read Michelin again.

OK, so here goes another classic eGullet Thread Digression. But to justify my post, let me say that I agree with Yvonne that relating the 'cheap water' offer to the drought is tacky marketing ;) On Ajay's question, I think it's wrong to believe that the restaurant industry is unique in having to deal with difficult customers. All service industries have the same "problem". In fact, it's not a "problem" at all, it is the fundamental raison d'etre of a service industry, it is the factor above all others that enables one company to distinguish itself from its competitors, in other words it is not a problem, it is an opportunity. My reading of this board is that GT has made a Unique Selling Proposition of its service before its food. The same is true of companies like Virgin and Four Seasons for example. If customers in the service sectors were not unusually demanding, the opportunity for one organization to shine would be seriously limited. I won't purport to answer for Christopher, but my guess is that he, and others like him, positively thrive on "the difficult customer" and that is what keeps them in the industry.

How do you pronounce that, Glyn ? Is that with the silent "j" ?

What does innuendo mean, please ?