Lord Michael Lewis

Let me make a tenuous but, hopefully illustrative analogy. How does the utterance: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Differ from: Shall I texture thee to a clubber's tray? ? Superficially, very little. Both utterances obey the rules of English syntax, morphology and orthography. Furthermore, both contain ten syllables, which alternate between unstressed and stressed vowel. Both are questions. A reasonably intelligent human with no knowledge of English could, by merely comparing the two utterances, glean a great deal about the English language. Enough in fact to produce an enormous number of unique utterances generated by the following surface pattern: modal+subject+verb+object+preposition+noun phrase But mere use of the system to generate novel utterances does not even begin to create meaning. Indeed, the system is only important as a means to an end. I believe there are some chefs who have something to 'say', (which may or may not be worth listening to) in that their culinary 'utterances' have transcended their system of delivery. However, too many only go as far as to master the surface system in order use it for novel, crowd pleasing, but ultimately nonsensical ends.

Balance, as it has been overwhelmingly used here, seems to stand for: maximization of variety throughout dishes and by extension throughout a meal. This would suggest that balance is then an imprecise label for the complimentary synergy that exists between different foodstuffs and drinks. However, as a definition, it is highly unsatisfactory; instead of being critically applicable to all cuisines, it has, in fact, been directly extrapolated from the classic French model. This means, were it necessary to explain, that when considering the nature of the balanced meal or dish we must begin with, and continually return to, the French ideas of combining colour, texture, taste, ingredient, technique etc. to produce the illusion of super-abundant variety. In fact, at least for myself, contemplation of what we mean by balance draws one’s attention to the supreme importance of combination as part of a professional cook’s repertoire. Indeed, I would go further: combination, skilful or not, is what many of us interpret as talent on the part of a chef. Perhaps it is this, and a personal disillusion with fine dining in general, that serves to reinforce my belief that the office of star chef is one of the most intellectually superficial on the planet.

Here I refer to a feast-fast continuum. Many dishes from the classical repertoire originate in feast dishes; however, for the rich, the notion of feast-fast became obsolete as lack of imagination as to how to spend one’s money resulted in perpetual feasting. The result of this can found in ‘French’ fine dining around the world; it’s hallmark being a total excess of protein, fat and sugar; albeit manifested in ‘high quality’, expensive ingredients. Essentially haute cuisine was and, by many standards still is, gentrified gluttony. Pragmatically, Catholicism associates guilt with base pleasure but then assuages it by penance; ie. You can do it as long as you regret it. For this reason, no one considers it a fatal flaw of French haute cuisine that one is belching fire, and basically out of circulation for twelve hours after a meal. Rather it seems appropriate.

The cut you choose will depend on how many people you are serving, but for +/-6 try bone on sirloin (never roast without the bone). When it's done and rested take the meat off the bone in one piece and then carve it. One point about beef (any cut; steak, roast) which is to be served evenly pink/red is that it should be at room temperature before cooking, otherwise you are cremating the outside while the interior remains stone cold, as a result the cooking time is far too over-extended and the end result is dry and multi-hued. With bigger cuts this means leaving it out for eight or so hours.

French food does often seem to engender post-meal suffering. And as Tony says, this should be viewed as part of what balance means. Certainly the Asiatic view of food as medicine is thoroughly absent in French haute cuisine and the excesses in their approach to achieving balance consider little more than the food's relationship with the head. Perhaps this has something to do with Catholicism.

Nouvelle Cuisine was a reaction against the restrictive legacy of Escoffier, and in which the creative role of the chef was recovered. In fact, "post-modernist" Ferran Adria firmly roots his own cuisine in the ideals of this culinary seed-change; Los Secretos de El Bulli, p37; Altaya '97.

This was not intended to be criticism of the individual, but rather, a criticism of the (food) culture that created him. However, with a few minor alterations the link you posted would be indistinguishable from one of Blumenthal's Guardian columns. I would go further though and say that this particular take on post-modernism is worse than your scientists, because it does not seek to solve any particular problem. Instead, it is a pointless exercise in the means jusifying the end.

I don't agree with you -- This is Post Modern cuisine, as it is currently understood in the UK.

It's ease of imitation and marketability that have given your Post Modernism its ubiquity. For every Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock there were hundreds who said, "I can do that". Like it or not, Post Modernism is rooted in tradition and its best exponents are not only aware of, but have successfully produced Classic Cuisine. Unfortunately the media in general and certainly the dining public often lack this knowledge base and aren't able discern why an Adria is a genius and a Blumenthal is not. But the lack of any benchmark by which to judge them, other than a comprehensive knowledge of the classical repertoire, has provided an army of incompetent chefs with the loophole needed to surge forth and flood the dining rooms of major cities with their Cuisine of the Absurd. A similar thing happened in the eighties with Nouvelle Cuisine. Denatured, out of season, artificiality are the hallmarks of this new breed of fashion chef. Show-offs, who can't fry an egg without separating the yolk from the white. It's all so pointless. I hold out little hope for your Renaissance (shouldn't this be Neo Classical?) men, at least outside France, Spain and Italy. It is just not sufficiently media friendly enough. Who wants to write about doing things well, when they can write about Snail Porridge and making beetroot taste like blackberries with lots of scientific gobbledygook thrown in? I wonder if journalists will start writing about Food Technologists with the same gushing awe; after all, they've been responsible for turning natural ingredients into highly flavoured pap for years. A recent casualty of the inexorable march of the Post Modern chefs has been London's Pierre Koffman, a shy and modest man who devoted his career to perfecting a repertoire of perhaps forty dishes and was at one stage holder of three Michelin Stars. If a chef of that calibre can't survive in a world-class city like London, what hope is there?

I'm not sure that this is what I asserted. Rather, I was suggesting that on a psychological level bungee jumping and overcoming disgust are similar processes because they both involve cedeing security. That does not mean to say disgust is felt only towards dangerous foods, but rather towards foods that could be dangerous; bearing in mind that when making this evaluation we err on the side of caution, so included in this group is also the unfamiliar. To expand on what exactly these 'dangerous' foods might be, the common factor appears that they are ones that could be highly toxic or mortal. This would explain why we don't generally feel revusion towards to foods that are 'bad for us' in the long term.

Regarding green vegatables and children's dislike of them, I have read that, once again, there are strong evolutionary reasons why this should be so. Green vegetables are loaded with compounds that serve to protect them from insect damage. Cabbage and Broccoli are prohibited to children in their first year as the infant liver is unable to deal with these substances and which are, to them, effectively toxic. Indeed, many people only acquire a taste for green vegatables in adulthood despite the former admonishments to "eat up your greens" of their (trusted) parents. 'Morning Sickness' too, is thought to be part of this same auto-defence mechanism as it coincides with the period in which the foetus is devolping its own internal organs and is consequently most vunerable to toxins. Interestingly, mothers who experience extreme 'morning sickness' have a substaintially lower incidence of delivering defective babies.

All fair points, yet I don't think incompatible with the suggestions I made earlier. The reactions you describe in points 2 & 3 can be ascribed to caution. It is a sensible measure to mistrust the unfamiliar. Although one hasn't learned to dislike something, the benefit of the doubt is still allied with the disgust response. This seems to me to be a survial strategy. Interestingly, this would also suggest that all preferences are acquired, or at the very least based on trust. It would be hard not to be disgusted by even a favourite dish, if one had previously seen the cook scratching himself.

Isn't there a good argument to suggest that American Cuisine, as opposed to the myriad immigrant cuisines, is actually a forerunner of what we euphemistically term today Fusion?

In any examination of disgust, a good question to begin with is; why is there commonality amongst the items that provoke this reaction? Disgust is rarely aleatory; rather, it has been suggested, it is a hard-wired safety mechanism much the same as vertigo in response to heights, or the drawback response when faced with fire. Granted, much of what we are disgusted by is learned, but that too would seem to be a result of hard-wiring; part of the success of our species is our ability to learn from secondary sources. This means that learnt aversions to foodstuffs are as powerful as instinctive aversions. The reaction engendered by putrefying game, I would suggest, is instinctive. On the other hand, the reaction by the British to horsemeat is not. Rather it is cultural; but either way the effect is the same: the very contemplation of consumption effectively makes this eventuality impossible. It is also interesting to note that the hard-wired reactions are often to particular foodstuffs. Harold McGee writes persuasively about the pragmatics of revulsion toward cheese; and many cannot bring themselves to eat tomato even in tomato eating cultures. This, as a strategy for survival, is quite reasonable as tomato screams a vivid red warning, and is closely related to Atropa Belladonna. Interestingly, it is considered poisonous by Chinese Medicine and as a result is absent from Chinese cuisine. Perhaps an appreciation of Disgusting food can be likened to meeting the challenges of survival. Fear is, in itself, challenging, and a recurrent feature of becoming an adult is the continued confrontation with fear. So maybe it shouldn't be surprising that whilst some choose to throw themselves out of aeroplanes, drive fast or take crack, others choose to eat things that are disgusting, and learn to love them.

Basically the cooking process for pork Rillettes & Rillaud/Rillons/Rillots is the same, i.e 3cm Cubes of meat. However, when making Rillettes the meat is subsequently pounded in a mortar or chopped before covering with fat. Rillaud/Rillons/Rillots on the other hand, are covered with fat whilst still in their cubed state and consequently keep for longer.

No it's not! Everybody knows that it's Rillauds that should be left untouched for a year.

It's perfectly reasonable, indeed better, to cut the pork into 3cm cubes. It can then be hauled out of the fat and shredded with a fork before serving. Indeed, if you handle the cooked pork before covering them with fat it will drastically reduce the time that they will keep for. And, it is said that pork rillettes shouldn't be touched until a year after preparation.

Examples please.

Complex

Just to show that Plotinki's concept of the truth is as confused as his ideas on complexity: Not Heston Blumenthal

Yes, but fine dining is not one of them. Or is there such a thing as free lunch?

Ironically, Plotinki's application of the term 'compexity' can only be understood from a relativist perspective... Not that it'll make much difference.

I've said this before somewhere, but; no chef opens a second restaurant because he loves cooking.

I'll just slip this in again. If on the dozen or so occasions in this thread when you have used the term, "popular", and said "the world loves oysters" when what you really meant to say was "acceptance by a knowledgable group of people that creates some type of standard", then it would seem that it is you who is confused.

First of all, the world doesn't love oysters. Secondly, are we supposed to understand that it is 'what the world loves' that sets the high standard? Wouldn't that place Coca Cola and Macdonalds at the top of your hierarchy. Thirdly, perhaps you could address the substance of my previous post and the one on well-doneness of meat. If you don't, I, and the thousands who have PMed me on the subject, will assume that you incapable of formulating a reasonable argument and you will have to excavate a hole in which to accomodate your credibility.