Wilfrid

Goodness, I studied that flowers of the forest thing at school (in England), and had not expected to be reminded of it today, still less of "Mrs Brown You've Got a Lovely Daughter." Steve, I think we're almost down to the most fundamental point of this discussion. I like your hummus example, and I think it comes to this: it may indeed require much more skill to make an elegant puree of chickpeas, perhaps with some subtle flavor accents from other sources, and beautifully plated. But our Syrian chef doesn't want that - any more than the Rolling Stones want a largo for French horn in the middle of 'Let's Spend the Night Together'. The Syrian chef's hummus wouldn't be made "better" by the application of such techniques. Okay, here's my bottom line. I don't think there's any metaphysical validation for aesthetic/critical judgments. In other words, I don't think there are any facts about the universe which make Beethoven better than the Beatles or French haute cuisine better than Syrian food. The only standards we have for making judgments are standards dreamt up by humans. At the same time, I want to avoid relativism - the position that because judgments of the kind we're discussing can't be validated by empirical observations or logical deductions, then any view expressed by anyone is just as right as any other view. The way to avoid relativism, I suggest, is by insisting that any rational judgment reflects the application of a set of criteria, which may not be "objective" in the sense that they are based on facts, but are "objective" in the sense that a community of people interested in the subject can have a rational discussion, and come to some sort of agreement (doubtless not absolute) about what the appropriate criteria are. (Deep breath): It follows that, if you do insist on making judgments across sub-genres , we would have to arrive at some criteria common to those sub-genres. Now, I never meant to imply that Beethoven and the Beatles have nothing in common - they are each, in their own ways, working with melodies, rhythms and harmonies, but I have great difficulty conceptualising a set of criteria which would allow us to judge them by the same standard. The aims of their respective musics - even right down to modes of consumption - are so utterly different. Where this leaves me, in the broad scheme of things, is that I can accept statements like: Seinfield is better than King of Queens (or whatever), but not King Lear is better than King of Queens. I know it drives some people crazy to hear it said that a play by Shakespeare cannot be considered, as a matter of absolute fact, a better piece of art than some sit com. Believe me, I sympathise. Philosophy doesn't always offer you the conclusion you like. But that is where my analysis comes out. Incidentally (and I have this on my mind because I really started looking at these issues because of the debate in the academies about literary canons): I do not believe you can subtitute a sit-com for Shakesepare if you are going to study English Literature. Shakespeare is an essential part of the English literature syllabus. But I don't have an aesthetic basis for saying that English literature is a better thing to study than TV comedy (for practical reasons, it might be).

I agree with you entirely, Katherine. Indeed, what I have seen of results from intervention trials, where some members of a opulation with "unhealthy" lifetsyles are switched to "healthy" lifestyles, while the remainder continue as normal, suggest that there's at least a possibility that dramatic changes - even suposedly for the better - may actually be harmful to health.

You want all the posts on e-gullet on your bio thread? Steady, now.

I am happy to discuss rates either per hour or per hundred words although on second thoughts it might encourage Messrs Shaw and Johnson to start submitting bills for legal advice.* Warms my heart to see The Beatles compared with Herman's Hermits rather than with Beethoven. But can't resist pointing out that lack of complexity is not necessarily a fault in an art work. The Rolling Stones would not have improved their hit records by introducing Stravinsky-like complexity: quite the reverse. Those pop/rock groups who have tried to make their music more elaborate in imitation of classical composers have usually produced a ghastly hybrid (Rick Wakeman, Yes, etc). So, analogously, I am still unconvinced by the claim that French haute cuisine is better than Syrian, or Greek or Moroccan food against some abstract general standard - although personally I much prefer it. *I know they are not giving legal advice and that Board users are not their clients, I am joking.

Maybe someone could sketch a hypothetical junk food case that would be worth taking on. I am having some difficulty conceptualising it. Heart disease is the most obvious adverse health outcome. You need a plaintiff with a demonstrable heart condition. Ideally it would be a plaintiff without much heart disease in their immediate family, who takes a reasonable amount of exercise, and does not drink to excess. They have to be a never-smoker - that's essential. Then you would want to be able to show that they eat pretty much exclusively the food sold by the "junk food" chains you are suing. You need all the above just to have a hope in ####'s chance of convincing a jury that their heart condition couldn't equally likely have been caused by a bunch of different factors. But next: what is your argument against the companies going to be. Failure to warn? Failure to make a safer product (I did read a New Yorker article a while back which gave grounds for believing that McDonalds could be making healthier fries)? The companies will point to the billion-dollar diet-promoting industry in this country to show that the plaintiff certainly had knowledge of the risks of a junk-food high diet, and voluntarily assumed the risk. They will then point out that, while they offer some low fat alternative products, they can't provide the kinds of products consumers demand and at the same time make them so safe that they can be consumed to excess. Play out the scenarios - if I were an attorney (and I'm not), I would not be investing in an experimental case along these lines.

Not to be confused with the bar inside Craft - which I could get nowhere near on Saturday night - this is a separate space a few doors down the block, although connected with Craft's kitchen. I don't know how new it is, but I noticed it on Saturday night and managed to grab about the last table in the place. Menu consists of only three entrees (all around ฟ), plus a bunch of appetizers and sandwiches, and they were serving much the same wines as Craft by the glass. Having raved about the rabbit ballotine at Craft, and read in the "Craft is dull" thread about the excellence of the game bird terrine, I chose a plate of mixed salumi to start. The prosciutto (slightly too salty), coppa and spicy salami were "outsourced", but the three items the waiter identified as made in house were astonishing: moist slices of duck ham, dense and powerfully flavoured little pieces of porcetta, and a mortadella which was simply the best I have ever tasted. The waiter told me that the Craft kitchen buys whole animals, and the charcuterie being produced for Craft and the Craft Bar reflects an effort to use as much of the beasts as possible. This is craftsmanship of the highest order, and if this little empire growing on 19th Street were doing nothing but making and selling charcuterie, that would be good enough for me. My entree was a fish stew: a bowl packed with big shrimp, mussels, clams, delicate squid and some chunks of white fish, in a rich, very slightly spicy sauce (not a very liquid dish, which was fine). Every ingredient was perfectly cooked, and I just couldn't find a fault. พ, I think (maybe ภ). As at the mother restaurant, sides are separately priced and plated. Four people at a table near me all ordered the meatball entree, with no sides, and looked a bit puzzled when they were each served ungarnished three meatballs (that would be twelve meatballs altogether!). Bet they were good meatballs, though. If you've not been to Craft, and are still not convinced it's for you, this is a relatively inexpensive way to dip your toe in the water. But book ahead. Personally, I am now convinced that the food coming out of Craft and Craft Bar is exceptional (which I admit is why I wanted to sneak out from under the "Craft is dull" header).

My mistake. But anyone who goes there needs to read it from the beginning!

Thanks, Steve. Believe it or not, I do sometimes hesitate before making that kind of post, because it's so easy to muddy the water if one doesn't succeed in being clear. But I congratulate myself today, because you got my point exactly. (Edited by Wilfrid at 5:02 pm on Jan. 25, 2002)

Thanks for clearing that up Ron. If anyone has been pondering the concept, here's one reason it may be unattractive to lawyers: whereas very very few non-smokers get lung cancer, all of the diseases associated with junk food consumption occur very widely among people whose consumption of junk food is minimal or even zero. If I died of a heart attack and my estate wanted to claim damages from several major junk food chains, they would have to show - at least on the basis of probability - that my heart trouble was caused by consumption of junk food, and not by the other food I was eating anyway, not by alcohol, not by lack of exercise, not by genetic predisposition, and so on. And because these circumstances would vary in the case of each potential claimant, there would be difficulty in getting a class certified, and thus less prospect of a big payday. An alternative might be to argue on a strict liability claim that junk food is inherently unsafe. Can't see that either. (Still not an attorney, by the way).

Well, I found that Tirelire restaurant at last, and anyone who's mad enough to want to know how should consult page 11 of A Balic's member bio: http://www.cityvox.com/profil/0,3997,LYOENGPLICIT22320,00.html?

As a philosopher, I have been trying to arrive at a clear statement of some of the distinctions discussed above for some years, and this will probably demonstrate I am not there yet. I would prefer to shelve terms like "high" and "popular" art, because they are going to appear pejorative to some ears. Similarly, can we bracket the notion of being "evolved", as that's a slippery, metaphorical use of a term which has precise definition in biology, but probably not elsewhere. Start with music (although literature would do) and I'll get back to cooking. I would like to suggest that we judge different kinds of music by different criteria. When we review a Beethoven string quartet, we praise it (or otherwise) for how well it succeeds in a whole bunch of ways I am not going to try to list. Turn to a string quartet by Grieg, and the criteria by which you assess it are going to be very similar (if not identical) to those you applied to Beethoven. On the other hand, listen to a Rolling Stones record. You may enjoy it more or less than Beethoven - that's up to you - but I submit that you assess its appeal by very different criteria. You can't get away with saying that it's all just music. It follows that saying Beethoven is just better than the Rolling Stones - or the reverse - is meaningless. it prompts the question: better at what? Beethoven was not better than the Rolling Stones at writing R&B hits. I would generalise that to say that when one finds oneself making comparisons between examples of "high" and "popular" art, one is probably forgetting that they demand to be judged not by different standards but by different criteria. "Animal House" is a better comedy than "Snow Day" makes sense; "Animal House" is a better comedy than "Volpone" is just unintelligible. As you can guess, I think that no intelligible critical judgments can be made in the abstract; they all rely on applying certain criteria to the object to be judged, and the more explicit the criteria are made, the better the critic is doing his job. Michelin stars are obviously based on criteria derived from French haute cuisine - incidentally, I am not sure "systematisation" is a particularly important criterion, because I think we could detect system in all kinds of different approaches to cuisine. As I have suggested above, then, restaurants working in the tradition of haute cuisine are readily assessable using those criteria, and it is no surprise that the criteria can be used to assess restaurants like I Bulli. But if those same criteria are applied to - okay, Syrian restaurants, if you will, then it is no surprise those restaurants do badly. It is as if you were to measure the Rolling Stones against Beethoven using the criteria appropriate to judging Beethoven - of course the Stones do badly, just as Beethoven does badly if he's assessed on criteria approrpiate to the Stones. Finally, Michelin have to use some clearcut set of criteria to evaluate restauarnts, because, as I said, such judgments cannot be made in the abstract. Developing criteria which would encompass the range of world cuisine would not only be exceptionally difficult, but would, I am sure, lead to a general decline in the precision and usefulness of what Michelin do. Look, for example, at Larousse's recent attempt to turn what is essentially a first rate encyclopaedia of French-based gastronomy into an encyclopaedia of global gastronomy. All one can expect is that Michelin recognise - and preferably make explicit - the criteria they use, so that the public are not misled into thinking that a French restaurants with one star is better in an absolute sense than a Syrian restaurant with no stars; just that it meets Michelin's criteria better. (Oh, forget it, how you communicate this to the public I have no idea !!).

I'm English and I agree with you about Delia. People are always putting her cookbooks on their wedding lists! I bought one once, to give as a present. It was called something like "Delia' Complete Cooking". Looked inside. Not one recipe for brains. Complete? Pfui.

I wish I'd said that in my post above. Enjoyed the food very much, but really didn't need to have a one-page menu explained to me or to have everything served on a separate dish. But I am now slavering for the game bird terrine. If it's as good as the rabbit ballotine...well, this is turning out to be a very serious charcuterie restaurant. I will try to slide into the bar some time this weekend and check it out.

Euuch! Wear gloves.

The show with Jamiroquai is the only one I've seen - didn't mean to, but I was trapped by that horrible fascination. Two jovial mockney blokes in one kitchen. Quite vile. Highlight was JOl (as I shall call him) plonking a huge prime rib roast on the table, and explaining: "It's called the forerib. Now, that's not becuase it's got four ribs sticking out of it." Nothing if not informative. And what has Jamiroquai done to deserve that vast stately home. He sells those records?

I entirely concur with Steve's description of Taillevent; but if it still appeals, take heart - I did get a dinner reservation there at first attempt. I guess I tried it a few weeks in advance. Maybe I was luckier than I realised, but it can be done (unless things have changed in the last eighteen months or so). I did go to the trouble of having the reservation made by a French friend.

Doctor and French Butcher. Yup, bad combo. I find the boudin noirs underseasoned, and always add a good dose of salt and pepper. Where they score with me is texture. I have eaten so many versions in New York which are mushy and gooey - not right at all.

A nice variation is to add some pieces of blood sausage. You need to cook the blood sausage in the oven first, let it cool, then slice or chop it as you please and fry it crisp. Replace the lardons with this, or use both and have a party!

I'm impressed. Cool spatula work. Don't forget to tell Steven Shaw what kind of spatula you use; might make his day.

This bit puzzled me when I thought about it. Like me, Tommy, you're doing a potato crust on the top, not all the way round (because we're not charging อ for the dish). When you brown the potato in the pan, are you putting the finish in the pan potat-side down. And then why don't the potato slices fall off or stay in the pan when you take the fish out?

Oh yes, it's certainly worth asking M. Carre how much something is before he slices and trims it into an irresistible presentation for you. I have had some surprises there, both good and bad. Generally, I think his prices are around the same as Dean & Deluca, which is indeed steep. Hope you enjoy your goods; I am very fond of his saucisse sec.

I recall Les Halles did an acceptable version. It shouldn't be difficult: D'Artagnan served me one which was unobjectionably composed, but had then been seasoned with about half a pound of coarse salt.

I thought Flay was about to chin Jack McDavid once. Flay was doing some fairly simple prep, and good ol' Jack weighed in with some comment like "What you got to remember there, Bobby boy, is you need to...(etc)", to which Flay replied, without a flicker of amusement, "Yes, I know Jack, I do this for a living." I would back Jack to punch his lights out. Not sure who would win a Flay/Malouf bout; she's pretty buff. (Edited by Wilfrid at 3:54 pm on Jan. 23, 2002)

TCD, I'm glad it's not just me that keeps these lists. Interesting: we would probably have a little over 50% in common if I had managed to get to Babbo and a couple of others on your list. Laurent Gras left Peacock Alley last year, or I would certainly have included. I don't know if it continues in any form. Also, I assumed Bouley Bakery was still closed, or I'd have listed that too. I read recently that the Le Perigord had been overhauled and modernised; I certainly liked it when it was old school.

I have nothing whatsoever against Jackie Malouf, and deplore violence to women, but the vivid mental impression of Bobby Flay whacking her on his show has made me laugh immoderately. Is it only me that misses Dean "I'm an old-time saucier from way back" Fearing and his mile-wide smile. A big problem I have with Alton Brown's show, and even more with Bourdain's, is the youth/music TV-inherited camera style. If stuff's worth talking about, can't you point the camera at it long and straight so we can see it?