Lord Michael Lewis

Sure it is Robert. That naked peach you like better then Peach Melba can only be "better" if it is a complex peach. There is no way that a commercially grown peach that you would buy in Food Emporium for $.99 a pound can be complex enough for you. The difference between a good NY Strip Steak and a lousy one is that a good one has a more complex flavor, deeper and beefier, and the texture is better. What you want to do is to distort the semantics like Glyn did so you can reserve the use of words like better to describe your personal preference. You want to say that raspberries and bologna are complex too and that is an example of complexity that is bad. Poppycock I say because that is not how the food industry uses the word. The DB Burger is a "better" burger then the Kobe Beef one because the flavors and the textures are more complex. No other reason. You whine about semantics, but it's typically foolish notions like this that force us to define terminology. Of course, you are at complete liberty to misuse language in whatever way you wish, but it is an act of gross arrogance to attempt to foist this misuse onto others. Complexity is not synonymous with good; not even in wine jargon. Complexity can be positive when that complexity is harmonious, but alone 'complexity' is a neutral and descriptive term that carries with it no associations. And regarding Rightness & Wrongness, if we follow your 'logic', it may be wrong to have certain preferences. If cheese A is a wrong choice and cheese B is a right choice, what about Dish A and Dish B. Not liking something is on a cline that runs between extremes and also covers ‘liking something a lot’ and ‘indifference’. Clearly it is not possible to like everything equally and thus we have to have our preferences. Hate Game; Like Oysters; Love Fish. Is it wrong not to love oysters, but merely to like them? Is it wrong not to choose Dish B because you don't like it as much as Dish A? What you are saying is, in essence, that it is wrong to have preferences that differ from an established hierarchy of all things culinary. However, this hierarchy, like God perhaps, does not exist, rather, it is longed for by fearful and insecure people like you who obsessively need to categorize everything.

Which is an object lesson on the unreliability of anecdotal evidence. So I'll repeat; raw meat juice or serum is as you rightly say virtually tasteless. However, when the meat (muscle) is heated the fibres contract and the serum is forced out of the muscle. This serum (along with the exposed surface of the meat and fats) then undergoes a series of complex browning reactions as the proteins are denatured by the heat. Hence a moist rare steak is red and moist in the middle but well done on the surface. The flavour you describe we can put down to the browning reactions, but the moisture is serum that remains within the muscle. Now, if we continue to heat the meat more and more, eventually all the serum will escape, hence the driness of well done meat. As the serum arrives at the heat source it reacts by browning and creats yet more flavour bearing compounds. Thus, well done meat has less serum within it but much more denatured serum on its surface and as we know, protein denatured by heat is what differentiates the flavour of cooked steak from raw; quod erat demonstrandum

Not true, it's the browning reactions involving these juices that create flavour; more well done = more browning reaction = more flavour (not necessarily pleasant flavour). Although you half answer your own question, you don't seem to realize its implication. The true answer is that we seek to dilute (lessen) natural flavours all the time; this is one of the principles of cooking.

Preferably first hand reviews rather than 'articles' cobbled together from secondary sources, or written by architects who tour the facilities but don't dine.

And what distinguishes 'Upselling' from 'Selling'?

Finally a British restaurant critic has reviewed El Bulli (albeit with an inexplicable time lag). Coren's review is a badly written, but well intentioned, attempt at the impossible; that is, to devote nearly his whole 1000 words to a meal at El Bulli. I say good luck to the boy, he seems to be the only critic in the UK to realise the seminal importance of this place and how key it is in making sense of the what passes for creativity in the higher profile joints of our sceptered isle. I shall be reading him more regularly from now on and hope that some of the pompous fat wankers who call themselves restaurant critics will do the same.

Adam -- Does this book contain considerable food description? It certainly does, and lots of drinking too. It also has some splendid jokes; such as the one about the jealous husband and his ring of fidelity. In addition it lists several unusual synonyms for the virile member; a personal favourite being "Mister Go Rough Stiff and Low".

Becoming "well dined" as Robert Brown defines it is very expensive, and is not attained by eating "prole" food. Hence the well meant, but ultimately futile, attempt above to avoid the 'elitist' arguments that have dogged so many similar threads. Generally, "well dined" is far closer in meaning to "well dressed" than to "well read". One thing that should be made clear about "being well dined" is that it has no real connection with satiating hunger. Just as Armani shirts aren't worn to keep us warm. It forms part of a treat mentality; in which we consider ourselves worthy and deserving of the, often absurd, expense. We can continue this parallel with fashion; both are ostentatious, superficial, a way of asserting a believed superiority and are arguably non-essential. However, there is a cline on which we can place individual diners including ourselves: at one end, there is the intrepid individual on a personal quest for culinary knowledge and on the other, the bragging collector of expensive experiences who hears but doesn't understand. To conclude, it may be that while an interest in the culinary arts is to be expected in a cultured individual, it doesn't follow that this interest or a furtherance thereof, is a condition of being 'cultured' any more than who designs your clothes.

You sould try this in Bilbao: GORROTXA Calle Alameda Urquijo, 30 Bilbao 48008 Telephone: 944 434 937 Fax: 944 220 535 It's a masterclass in traditional Basque cuisine, and helpful in understanding the restaurants you'll be visiting in Donostia. Besides, Bilbao really doesn't have anything on Donostia's level so, although I don't know the restaurant, I fear that Zortziko may turn out to be quite second rate.

Don't forego Mugaritz or Zuberoa; I'd sooner drop Berasategui, which has been a bit flat since the third star.

With the passing years one sheds one’s impressionability, thankfully, and becomes less distracted to that which is designed to attract attention and more drawn to that which has integrity. With language, even when grammar is obeyed, lexical permutations are limitless. And so, with ingredients and technique culinary possibilities seem boundless. However, only a very small part of what is possible makes sense, gastronomic or otherwise. Maybe it’s through this realization that we realize that there is far more probability in rubbing shoulders with perfection amongst the commonplace than beneath a bevy of outlandish, but novel, garnishing. I should add that I am still only nineteen. (Shouldn’t this thread be in the Symposium?)

Are you ever asked to purchase recreational drugs or arrange orgies? (If yes to both, do PM me with your hotel details) P.S. Have you heard the story about Ursula Andress and Jean Paul Belmondo's stay in Paris' best hotel?

I forgot feijoa.

Yes it is. But do you think it was conceived as art? Keen eyed moviegoers will observe that Leatherface has stick of Wrigleys Gum poking out of that small jeans' pocket that people normally use for hashish.

While I'm certainly not arguing that prepared food is Art, I am surprised at how glibly you write off the externals of experiencing a dish. Eating (for want of a better word) is a two-stage process. first externally, and subsequently internally. The first part of the process involves anticipation of the second. Indeed, as with language, without using our predictive powers, particularly our visual knowledge, the event is virtually meaningless. While we can make some sense of food once it's in our mouth it is a low level evaluation based on a cross reference of only three, perhaps four, of the senses and is mainly Bottom Up processing. In order to comprehend what we're eating we need to see it in order to activate our previous knowledge (Top Down processing) and bring it to bear on each new situation. It is not then unreasonable to suggest the external stimuli are those contribute at least equally to the higher pleasures of dining. *********** As you rightly point out, recording the performing arts is very recent, but it has not altered the definition of Art, and no one would suggest that a recording or print is a performance or a paiting; they're substitutes. It could be argued that Escoffier's written work was a substitute for his cookery just as sheet music or the text of a play are technically lesser substitute for the real or recorded event. Indeed, many chefs claim that they can read and experience a recipe just like a composer can work with sheet music alone.

Orange; it's a fruit and it's a colour.

Sadly, this will not be possible given the topic title. In the search for a consensual definition of Art it may be of some value to consider works of art as they consensually perceived. The common threads that hold them together seem to be: i) They are considered to be representational artefacts worthy of representing a society's cultural achievements (there is always a lot of argument about this, but the criterion stands). Due to this historical perspective, we tend to define Art by its permanent examples. ii) They should not be the things they represent. Essentially they serve to evoke something, whether this is an apple or depression. Gustave Courbet's Still Life with Apples and Pomegranate fulfils the criterion in the above, so for most it's Art. The apples that inspired his painting, however, are not. They are part of the real world/creation and their real/miraculous nature precludes them from being Art. Cheese, therefore, is not Art, but Dieter Meyer's cheesy canvases could, at least, be considered so. How does one use this template against the food of Adria, for example? First of all, we have to ask ouselves why Adria's name crops up so regularly in discussions of this nature. Clearly, there are elements to Adria's cuisine that correspond to ii., mainly the fact that his food doesn't seem to address hunger, or at least, satisfying hunger is not a priority. One could go on, but perhaps the main reason that so many cite Adria as an artist is that we instinctivley recognise Art, and in this case our instinct defies the definition of the inadequate linguistic tag, 'Art'. Art as an emotional and intellectual response came before 'Art' as semantic label. The fact that this emotional response has been unsatisfactorily encoded into a familiar word does not mean that we should reject what we sense to be Art if it does not fit the definition, but rather; the definition should adapted to include the stimulus.

Actually the reason you provide was given by Nico who 'handed' his stars back first. MPW quickly followed suit and was heavily criticized by Nico, amongst others, for publicity seeking. Marco, it seems, felt that he no longer needed rely on Michelin for publicity.

I'd wager that Hibiscus will be passed over as it hasn't had nearly enough press attention.

GORGIAS-10 Here Plato has Socrates say that he doesn't consider cookery an art, rather an experience. Clearly 2500 years ago they had as much difficulty attaching a value to the rather semantically slippery word, 'art' as we do now.

Ian's post opens up a rich set of possibilities for discussion on this thread. Seeing as how there seems to be no disagreement that Proust on madeleines is Art, but that madeleines themselves are not. We have to accept that Art is a proxy for actual experience. Perhaps this is why we have a problem with food, because it is sensorially experienced rather than intellectually decoded. Indeed, most of the claims that Cooking is or isn't Art focus on whether or not a message can be encoded within a dish. Taking this further, it may be reasonable to claim that food, in the proposed heirarchy, is above Art being, as it is, so worthy of Art's attention.

I have some of this stuff in a cupboard. It's in squares, it's rock hard and it tastes of little or nothing. Any preparation suggestions?

If this is the case, and it would seem sensible, then there are a few points that need to be clarified before moving on into the realm of meaningfulness. First of all what kind of formation are we talking about? A specialized degree, i.e. Kitchen Management & Food Production, or studies not related to cooking? There are strong arguments for both. I've often thought that a basic grounding in Western Art History taught parallel to the classical French repertoire would serve to further chefs' understanding of the important difference between innovation and the more common invention. Another problem is the intellectual straitjacket that any formal study forces one to wear. Accepting the value of a degree means accepting academic methods and values. A recent debate here ran up against an impasse over the definition of a priori. Try as I might I can't see that this kind of academic minutiae would trouble Ferran Adria, his creativity wouldn't allow it. Finally, I'd like to know what percentage of the top 500 chefs have been the recipients of higher education. My instinct tells me that most of them will have found their way to top despite their education rather than because of it. This could be explained by the fact that few academically bright teenagers are attracted to kitchens.

For many becoming a chef is a result of being formally uneducable. For the very very few who become well-known and make some money there are millions who don't. Were a potential chef to have that formal education, and by this I think we mean a university degree, I doubt very much that he'd fancy starting off as commis chef and working his way up over five or so years. There are a few chefs that do have some "higher" education, and it's interesting that most us probably know who they are and what they studied. The fact that a chef has a degree or better marks him out as something of freak, albeit a freak whose food is taken all the more seriously because of their sheer rarity. Think of Michel Bras, Miguel Sanchez Romera and closer to (my) home Alistair Little. The fact that they are highly educated and dedicated to cooking seems to give their food a status above that of their peers'. It's debatable whether this is always deserved. On balance it seems that on a personal level a university degree is undoubtedly as useful for a chef as it is for anyone, but where its value really comes into its own is in the restaurant marketing mix to which we middle class diners are all exposed and all susceptible. Like, as they say, attracts like.

Your change in attitude and current revulsion toward fatty food is a classic symptom of liver problems (seriously). Go and see a doctor.