As a cook I think it is possible to admire both Ducasse and Passard as great practitioners of their art (though on a cook's salary most of the admiration is done from afar). What I, and other people in "the back" admire about Ducasse is the dedication to perfection, the excellence of technique, and,yes, the codification of modern cuisine in his prolific writing. What we admire about Passard (or Gagnaire, a place I've actually eaten at) is the style, the wonder, the astonishment at their bold vision of food. (Though I think you're as likely to be appalled by a dish at PG as blown away, not the case at ADNY I suspect.) If one sees it as two "schools", perfection and a certain conservatism on one hand, daring and innovation on the other, then the question becomes who has more influence. American cooks in particular can be easily seduced by the idea of innovaton over everything; it is much easier to "copy" Rothko than Rembrandt. Rothko (Passard, Gagnaire) are certainly schooled in ther art and are true masters, but those who seek to follow them may not be. On the other hand if a young cook seeks to emulate Ducasse's dedication to perfection and truly discipline themselves they may, eventually, become true artists capable of expressing themselves with a complete array of tools. I am not dismissing the "school" of Passard (L'Arpege tops my list of restaurants to try in Paris) because cuisine must always have innovation, but to dismiss Ducasse as "merely" striving for perfection is dangerous. There are so many young cooks and chefs in NY (trust me) who aspire to innovation, that I fear any dedication to perfection, discipline, and technique may be lost. Maybe this is incidental to the conversation, but as someone who spends more time in kitchens than dining rooms, it is important.