Steve Plotnicki

Stellabella - Actually I disagree with you. There have been two themes to this thread. One is how competent she is and one that says she is boring and doesn't add anything to the art of cooking and that if it wasn't for her good looks and figure, along with the way it is portrayed on TV and in print she would be a nobody. I mean when is the last time the New York Times ran sultry pictures of someone who wrote an article for the food section? It reminds of a story told in Geoffrey Stokes's book Star Making Machinery which is about the rock group Commander Cody and the Lost Planet Airmen. The story goes that as part of trying to widen the groups audience, their PR person got the Commander himself a guest TV appearance on the detective show Angie Dickenson used to star on. So when the Commander is in makeup right before his cameo the director comes into him and says, "whatever you do, when you're on camera don't stare at her breasts." Of course when he gets on camera the Commander can't manage to follow the instructions because it's both been called to his attention but even moreso, Angie is always dressed in a way to accentuate her breasts. So that we all notice the same about Nigella is no fault of ours. And if that isn't where they didn't want everyone focusing, and if they didn't want her to emit an air of superiority and aloofness, she wouldn't be playing peekaboo with the viewers in her grey cashmere sweater set from N. Peal.

"Do you mean Adria is famous for "a" technique, or for his technical ability?" Bux - If we can stop parsing the words, Adria invented new cooking techniques. Ducasse did not. And while that doesn't mean that Ducasse isn't/wasn't a great chef, his legacy is not related to any culinary invention other than the three star chain restaurant. Ducasse is a PR machine. His finesse and perfection have added nothing to the artform, only to the experience. They are not abstract in the slightest. They are concrete. "If the standard by which all chefs are to be judged is originality how can one chef leave a legacy of dishes that other chefs will use? " Being an original voice is the standard used in any art or craft. Do people copy originators? Sure, at the risk of not being considered as great. "That today's most visible serious chef can not produce a classic dish says what? " Robert B. - It says the same thing that it says when young tenor sax players can't make a jazz recording that will be considered a classic and stand the test of time. It means the artform is dying. If it wasn't, how could a chef like Ducasse thrive? If inventive young chefs were popping up everywhere, who would want to go eat at Ducasse? As for classic dishes, to me it's the great dishes that make it all worthwhile. It's like in jazz you can listen to any Coltrane solo and they're all good, but then again there's Giant Steps. That's what other tenor saxophonists are measured by. The peaks, not the average. I think another reason that there is less credit given these days is that the newer chefs aren't as famous/don't make enough money. In the old days, there were countless promotional meals cooked by "the old crew" and there was a sense of cameraderie that I don't think exists today. I think that plays a part in the Trama/Rostaing incident. In the old days, the chefs in the provinces really just ran a bunch of small hotels. These days it's big business and like anything else where business plays a big part, it's far more competitive.

"I should hot key the line from William Echikson's Burgundy Stars where Loiseau introduces his sous chef by saying he "cooks Loiseau better than I do." Bux - If that is the case, then why is Loisseau's restaurant in the shitter now? He opened his Paris bistros and La Cote d'Or turned to crap. If his sous chef was that good, why the decline? How about Jardin des Sens? As soon as they took over Maison Blanche in Paris people said it declined. You see if it was as easy as you are portraying it to be, every sous chef in France would have his own three star place. Obviously that isn't the case. As for the rest, you are taking what I said literally. It is just meant to say that when the chef is in the restaurant keeping an eye on things, then the odds are that your meal will be better. Or do you think you are better off when you are in Lagioule and Michel Bras is in Flint, Michigan? "Even if you're satisfied that Adria's fame is based on the unique technique he's created (and I believe that's still debatable, but one might first have to debate the definition of "fame") " Satisfied? It isn't questionable what his fame is based on. It's based on his unique technique. That's what he is famous for. Why else is he famous? And you've taken what I said about Ducasse and twisted it around. While Ducasse has promoted himself as a serious chef, I cannot think of a single dish he is famous for. As far as I can tell, he has added nothing to the haute cuisine repetoire.

Steve Klc - What makes the French Laundry unique (at least at my visit) was that Keller did alot of work with an American palate of flavors that he applied 3 star technique to. The three dishes I raised, tomato tartar and cornmeal cake, oysters and pearls, and lobster, polenta and grape juice are completely unique flavor combinations for haute cuisine. And then creations like the salmon tartar ice cream cones and the coffee and donuts desert while maybe less creative flavorwise are certainly unque presentation wise. I can't think of another chef in America who cooks that way either as a function of intended flavor or texture. To me the biggest disappointment about the place was that too many of the dishes are the same ingredients as what you get in any top place and the application of technique isn't unique enough to distinguish them. But to go to a place and have 5 unique dishes out of a 12 course tasting menu is pretty good, and not something I can think of happening anywhere else in this country other than Jean-Georges on a day when he's in the kitchen.

"Ducasse was a famous chef when he had one restaurant. He didn't become famous because he had a string of restaurants. Bux - There's a huge difference between Ducasse and Adria. Adria has his foaming, his jellies and his freezing. Tell me what is Ducasse's culinary legacy? I can't think of a single thing Ducasse has contributed to the culinary playbook other than efficiencies in running three star establishments. When Ducasse first opened in Monte Carlo, he was cooking Northern Italian cuisine. His big thing was making risotto. But Ducasse was fortunate (smart?) in that he opened in a high profile location and was able to create a huge PR campaign around it. Had his first restaurant been in lower Slobovia, I doubt he would have the empire he currently has. There were articles everywhere that spoke of Ducasse "finding" these Italian treasures. Hard to compare any of that with a simple place in Roses. "Is there something inherently bad about expanding and does it matter if you consult or franchise, as long as you do it well and improve the breed." I have nothing against chefs capitalizing on their reputation/ability. But what is important to me is being able to eat a meal from the chef's own hand. I'm quite happy that Ducasse can open ten restaurants but what I'm really interested in doing is experiencing *his* cooking. But I can't really do that. I can only get a meal prepared by his entity. While that meal might be excellent, it probably has lost the type of individuality I look for when eating a three star meal. In fact I think that as a general rule that at three star establishments one eats better when the name chef is standing at the head of the line inspecting each dish. And at El Bulli that is what happens because despite his fame and (possible) fortune including his ongoing business opportunities, Adria is in the kitchen cooking every night.

Suvir - Can't help you off the top of my head but, you should go down to your nearest bookstore and look through a copy of Gourmet Paris by Emmanuel Rubin. He is the food critic fro one of the major Paris daily newspapers and his book is laid out by where to get the best of each dish. I'm not sure he has a listing for Tarte Tartin but I know he has one for Baba Rhum so it'sd worth a shot.

And I'll add these tasting notes from my meal there in 1999 --------------------------------------------------------- We had a 7:15 dinner reservation at The French Laundry. I had eaten there in December 1997 and although I had a good meal, I didn't think it was the best restaurant in the U.S. as many believe. I was looking forward to try it again. The wife of the other couple we were with is an attorney who does work for a few wineries in Napa, hence the VIP tour at Opus. She also represents a 3 star restaurant in NY so when we walked into the Laundry, the Maitre d' told us that the chef of this 3 star restaurant just called and told them to take good care of us. a We were off to good start. This was supposed to be a birthday dinner. We were celebrating their 40th birthday with this trip, and they were celebrating my 45th birthday by treating me to this dinner. Pretty festive eh?. In the springtime in anticipation of this dinner, I had purchased 2 bottles of 1959 Latour at auction from Morrell & Co. I had also split a case of 1983 Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet (the year I got married) with a friend which I had bought at Christie's in London last June. In order to give the wines some time to get over bottle shock, I had shipped them out to Napa the week before along with a bottle of 1900 Malavazia Madeira. All three bottles were so perfect, they looked as if they just came from the winery. Perfect labels, everything. I was psyched. When they seated us the maitre d' told us that the chef would like to prepare a selection of canapes before serving us a tasting menu. The men were to get a selection of dishes, the women another. Who were we to argue. In anticipation of a foie gras course and wine for dessert, we ordered a bottle of 1983 Doisy Daenes Barsac. As this was sheer gluttony at its best, I'm going to just list the courses and I will have a bit about them afterwards: Salmon Tartar Cornets which were ice cream like cones filled with herbed creme fraiche and topped with salmon tartar. Sunchoke soup with sage and thyme oils Tomato sorbet, yellow and red Cornmeal pancakes/ Tomato Tartar Tapioca pudding and oysters topped with caviar/ Panna Cotta of Cauliflower topped with caviar Rissotto with White Truffles Crispy Dorade on a bed of juliened veggies and olives Lobster on soft polenta in a grape juice reduction Terrine of Foie Gras with Pumpkin Tart Tartin Veal Filet with minced summer truffles Latour cheese with pears that were poached in white wine and candied walnuts Grape sorbet Dark Chocolate brownie served atop a sliced pear with pear sorbet atop. I have one thing to say. By the end of the meal we were exploding. We kept saying that they must have a joke in the kitchen. "Let's feed them until they beg us to stop." In particular I can rave about the following dishes. The tomato sorbet was just fantastic. The most intense flavor of tomato I've ever had. It came out in a scoop like ice cream. My wife raved about the Oysters & Pearls (tapioca and oysters) and my Panna Cotta of Cauliflower w caviar was oh so memorable. SFJoe, the lobster and polenta w grape juice made me think of you. It was such an odd combo :~), yet so delicious. Those 3 were the most unusual. The risotto and foie gras while delicious were a bit more traditional and not as earth shattering. Now the wines. I don't think I've been at a meal where the wines delivered what they were expectd to. Usually you get an off bottle, poor storage, corked, etc. Too many variables for perfection but I guess if you ever were to have them be perfect, this was the night. The '83 Leflaive was slightly golden. It was thick and mature tasting. Refined would be an understatment, as would long. It was as distinguished a white wine that I've ever had. At the peak of its drinking plateau, maybe a tiny hair past. One of the best examples of chardonnay that I've ever had. 95 pts. This wine went like water. I was smart and saved a 1/4 glass for the lobster course. The others had less self control and we had to order a half bottle of 1996 Francis Jobard Meursault en la Barre. It tasted like orange juice after the Leflaive. Tha Latour was from another dimension. It had absolutely zero brick at the edge. The wine looked as good as the bottle, brand new. Even the sommelier after he decanted the wine came over to me and asked me where I got the bottle. He'd never seen 40 year old wine that looked this young. The wine tasted young as well. '59 is more acidic than the '61 Latour and this wine was true to form. Just so overwhelmingly powerful. I can still taste the finish. 99 pts. We didn't fare as well with the '83 Doisy Daene. I found it a bit dry for my palate. Could it be tannic? Is the wine closed? It was good but not the moderate blockbuster I was hoping for. 90 pts but might improve. All in all, a great meal and a great birthday for all. I know there are many people who call this the greatest French restaurant in the U.S. Well I didn't find the place to be very French at all. I thought it quite American, especially his use of grape juice in a number of dishes. Whatever, it's a great place. A+ for The French Laundry.

Jaybee - My overall point here is that in business the legal burden of protecting oneself falls on the inventor/creator. But the public doesn't like that. They want the RCA's of the world to be fair with the Farnsworths of the world. Save to say the world doesn't work that way. Especially when you are talking about public companies that have no conscience. But the flipside is that the public doesn't really care one iota about inventors. When people saw a TV set for the first time they didn't give any thought as to how scrupulous the inventor/promoter was. And if you said to them that the price should be $5 a set higher to compensate the inventor they would say hell no. Their heartstrings are only as long as the length of their pocketbooks. Let me give John Whiting some red meat here and say that one of the great dichotomies of Capitalism is that the market is self interested when the issue can be liquidated into a financial instrument that benefits them. But when the market doesn't have their own resources at stake they are willing to adopt the concerns of those who have allegedly been taken advantage of. I'll give you the perfect example. The music buying public is very anti-recording company and they believe the artists are ripped off. Yet, the public is perfectly willing to download Napster or MP3 files and not pay the artists any royalties for them. Explain that one to me? Robert B. - My question about old school cooking (and we were discussing this at Loulou if I recall correctly) was were those dishes ever any good in the first place? Or did we just know less at the time? Also, when you think of the Ducasse-Adria nexus, take into consideration how much percpetion plays into your conclusions. For instance, would you be more prone to thinking a dish was really modern and innovative if it came from Adria's kitchen and would the reverse be true from Ducasse? Are you open-minded enough to set the "big business" aspect of Ducasse aside and willing to fairly assess the food? It's a tough question for me and it says alot oabout personal biases. Because when I walk into Ducasse I'm not a blank slate. And neither would I be at El Bulli.

Tony - Sorry to say this but it's a second rate (and possibly third at this point) wine. When you are the publisher of one of the most powerful wine magazines in the world and can have any bottle of wine you want (and write it off) you can do a lot better than to drink Jordan. For example, the couple sitting to the left of us was drinking 1972 La Tache. Moi, I was drinking 1999 Meo-Camuzet Clos Vougeot. The wine list at Lespinasse has every single bottle of great Bordeaux on it, many top Burgs and Rhones and if you like New World wines, all the top Ca. wines were on the list. How one picks that wine in that environment beats me.

Robert - Do you think that Duck a l'Orange and Quenelles de Brochette shouldn't have been demonetized? What is the argument for them having continuing value? And I am not making any value judgements when I ask that. Either of those dishes can be good when made really well. But why should they appear on menus? As for Ducasse and your assessment of his role in his business, not every chef has found it necessary to become a brand in order to make themselves famous. Look at Ferran Adria. He isn't a tireless self promoter who has licensed himself out to third parties. His fame has come as a result of the unique technique he created. Unfortunately Michel Trama while being an accomplished chef hasn't managed to add anything as compelling to the culinary repetoire as Adria's foaming. Ducasse on the other hand is at the other end of the spectrum. I don't think he has created anything but how to franchise the 3 star experience.

Correct. Oscar's was the best of the latter. In fact it probably was the last of the latter that was any good. Somewhere in the late 70's, fresh fish went out of style in this town. I think it had to do with organized crime controlling the fish market. The only fish available was under their control, and fresh fish wasn't exactly on their agenda. Other things have suffered in the same way over the years. This town used to have multiple places which made good pizza, then all of a sudden everybody was getting the same crappy sauce and cheese. Le Bernadin actually started to reverse the trend. I don't exactly have my dates straight but, I think a little research would find that the Feds cracking the organzied crime ring at the fish market and the emergence of Le B happened around the same time.

To me the room matters a lot. For example, the Hotel Negresco in Nice has decor that is extremely outdated. And that extends to the decor in its restaurant Chantecler. But meanwhile the young chef at Chantecler, Allain Llorca, practices a modern cuisine. But despite mutlitple visits to Nice since Llorca replaced Dominique Le Stanc, I can't bring myself to go there despite being curious about the food. But if Llorca moved to hip new quarters I would run not walk there. I feel the same about where I sit in a room. I want to be in a location that allows me to suss out the feel and rhythm of a room. Quite often I am led to a table by a host only to ask for a different one. And usually I am able to point to the table I want. When I'm at a restaurant, I like to see what the clientele looks like and I like to see what type of gymnastics the waitstaff goes through to please everyone. Especially tableside service which allows you to get a good idea of what lots of different dishes look like. I am nosy about what wines people are drinking too. For example, the other night I was at Lespinasse and the publisher of a famous wine publication was seated at the table right in front of me. He was drinking Jordan Cabernet Sauvignon which told me alot about him. And any dish that appears in the room which seems to be off menu will immediately make me summon the waiter for a confab. As for noise, I prefer there isn't any but that is more out of my control. In a very noisy room, I try and engineer getting a table against a wall. A table in the middle of a noisy restaurant can ruin an evening. Temperature, good meal bad table etc.? These are all things that matter on a case by case basis. If I get seated in Siberia, that just means the food has to be that much more special. But if I get a ringside seat, I'm easier to please.

Oscar's Salt of the Sea was one of the great restaurants in NYC. It is the type of seafood/fish place that doesn't really exist anymore. Sort of like what Legal Seafooods in Boston was in the old days. It closed before I moved into Manhattan from Queens. But we used to go there for big occassions. I think we even spent a New Years Eve or two there. Otherwise it's amazing how few places have lasted.

"aren't you actually making the case that another chef--even copying Robuchon's recipes, techniques and presentation--would in fact be making a wholly different dish--factored through his own unique aesthetic--with a different yet still "original" result?" Steve Klc - The answer to that question is yes. But the problem is that the level of originality someone else brings to a dish usually has little meaning. Let's take a simple example of something with a unique taste where the chef has to apply only the slightest bit of technique. Let's take a steak from Peter Luger's. It's uniqueness derives from how they choose the meat and the environment they age it in. The cooking technique applied to it takes little effort. It's mostly based on the type of gas grill they use and at what temperature it cooks at. I'm sure that anyone on this board could learn the art of how to cook a steak ala Luger's in a matter of days. And with all the Luger's copycat restaurants out there, nobody has managed to improve on the original. But I think it would take someone quite a bit longer to be able to learn how to prepare the Robuchon mashed potatoes from scratch and get them perfect. The level of subtlety needed in adjusting the recipe based on variations in things like how watery the potatoes are is quite demanding in my opinion, and the kind of thing that takes years and years of experience in kitchens perfecting. And there is evidence to back up my theory. Think of how long people have been making mashed potatoes. Why did it take until the 1980's for someone to perfect the dish so there was a commonly help opinion as to where you could get the best mashed potatoes? And to keep the analogy to painting, how many painters stood in the fields of Provence and painted the sky? Hundreds, thousands? If it was so easy, why does Starry Night stand so far above those other paintings? Unfortunately, too little food has the unique qualities I have described. But places that have managed to capture a certain taste or a flavor thrive. And that is true whether we are talking about a simple Tuna Filet Mignon at Union Square Cafe a Salmon with Sorrel at Troisgros or a Chile Con Queso con Choriso with home made Tortillas at La Super Rica in Santa Barbera. They know something at those places that others don't. This is why I can't find myself sympathizing with the writer of the article that we are responding to here. Creativity boils down to a series of choices one makes based on a combination of skills and environment. Sometimes those choices work out and sometimes they don't. But whatever the result, we are fortunate that others are the judges of what we create, something the writer of this article seems to have forgotten.

Steve -There is no such thing as authorship when it comes to recipes unless one makes sure that their stamp on a recipe is indelible. Most of the chefs who have managed to accomplish an imprimateur on a dish have done so because they are tireless self-promoters. People like Trama, who I find to be less than a good marketer of his talents are ripe to have their "creations" stolen from them. Of course it is possible that what he has created isn't a large enough advancement in cooking for it to be credited to anyone. Some people are just magnets for public relations (Thomas Keller). Some are wallflowers who prosper but in relative obscurity from the public (Michel Bras.) But if you and I were to study why one is reknown and the other's reknown is limited to food fanatics, we would conclude that it's a funny combination of originality, personality and promotion. I mean look at the Robuchon mashed potatoes as an example. They are just mashed potatoes for god's sake. But everyone is willing to attach the Robuchon name to them because they have been so well publicized that way. On the contrary, I don't know of a single dish that Michel Trama is responsible for creating.

"I agree with your comment about the value of having the business acumen and capital to make an invention into a business." How Farnsworth lost his idea is insignificant compared to why he lost it. That it happened to be Sarnoff and that Sarnoff had a particluar style in business is just how it happened. Farnsworth could have lost it just as easily to somebody scrupulous. The fact that Sarnoff might have been unscrupulous (and the article hasn't convinced he was, only that he was hard nosed,) only means that Farnsworth needed that much more capital and acumen to accomplish what he set out to do. Look at what Sarnoff did at the 1939 Worlds Fair when he introduced television. There is no way Farnsworth ever would have figured out how to launch TV on that scale. If we had to rely on the Farnsworths of the world, TV might not exist to this day. But it is a romantic notion for readers that creative people get screwed. It sells lots of books. Unfortuntely the writer's pitch usually depends on having someone be the bad guy, even when most of the blame should be placed on bad business judgment. As for the mashed potatoes, you have misunderstood what I wrote. I haven't said that the mashed potatoes can't stand alone. What I said is that Robuchon's mashed potatoes are better experienced as part of a meal he designed. It is only in that environment that one can fully understand the context of how the potatoes are supposed to blend in with the other dishes. How the spicing might be part of a larger palate and how the texture of the potatoes at the time they are served mesh with the other dishes as well as compliment the ones that preceded it. And of course I can go to a restaurant in NYC and eat mashed potatoes from the same recipe. But that misses the point entirely. Robuchon's potatoes are designed around the use of a certain type of potato that comes from a certain location, that are hand picked to his specifications, and where he uses a certain type of butter and a certain type of cream to get the consistancy and flavor right. In fact, all of those things might be custom grown/produced for him. Now how can that be recreated in NYC? And of course this doesn't even address the fact that he buys a certain type of Bresse Chicken to roast, and prepares it in a way that is intended to go perfectly with the potatoes! You see where I think this is analagous to painting is that it is similar to how a painter organizes his work. The light he chooses to work in, the surface he paints on, the colors he chooses, how he mixes the paint, darker, lighter, thicker, thinner, all natural things that he manipulates to create an aesthetic. The reason that paintings are unique is that a painting is really a series of choices as to how an artist decided to deal with all of those variables. I don't find the craft of cooking to be much different. The Robuchons of the world are always adjusting and tinkering to make their aesthetic work. This years crop of potatoes are more watery, too much rain in Britanny this year and the cows didn't pasture the same way as in past years and the butter is off. Truffles aren't aromatic this year for some reason. Weather in some growing region was too hot and things are overripe. Salt marsh lamb are perfect. Not to make it too cliched but, a meal at Robuchon is more than a highly expert chef cooking a great meal. It's about a craftsman who knows how to express the terroir of the ingredients he has chosen to create something original that will have his signature on it.

The writer of the article really oversimplifies things when he says "This is the reason that so many of us work for big companies,". Farnsworth is really just the typical inventor/creative person who places too much value on their creations and not enough value on having sufficient working capital to get the job done right. It's quite common to see a creator taking this type of self-righteous stance because they do not want to ackowledge the role that money plays in their success. Here as soon as I read that Farnsworth misgauged the amount of working capital he needed, I know he is doomed, especially since we are talking about something as capital intensive as the media business. But even though the writer doesn't say so, the implication is that Farnsworth doesn't want to (read need to) share the proceeds of his invention with too many investors. I'm not sure how much more working capital he needed, but there is some number that would have allowed him to corner Sarnoff, instead of vice-versa. But given the circumstances, I don't think it's fair to say Sarnoff took credit he wasn't entitled to. That is only true if you narrowly define creating TV as inventing the patents for it. But as the writer of the article makes clear, there's a lot more to it. And in reality, Sarnoff got credit because Farnsworth was a screwup as a businessman. As for eating dishes that chefs copied, I much prefer to eat the original creation from the hand that made it. Although food and painting are not analagous, I don't really want to view a copied Van Gogh. I want to see the real thing. Experiencing food is the same though not really as individualized a discipline as painting. But even simple dishes like Robuchon's mashed potatoes are best enjoyed from his own hand. It is only in the environment of Robuchon's restaurant that we can experience them as part of a complete experience, as part of a package of flavors that will give them secondary and tertiary meaning.

Stellabella - I don't think this thread has evolved into Nigella bashing. If you reread my post, I differentiated between why she is popular (naughty posh) and how effective she is (harmless as Simon says, neither adds nor detracts.) I would say the same thing about lots of TV food personalities including Martha Stewart, Delia Smith or Nigel Slater. And I don't read Amanda Hesser either. Neither of them writes about food at a level that piques my interest.

"I could think of plenty of examples, but here's one: I would rather eat a well-executed duck a l'orange and a few fried potatoes, than an unsuccessful braised duck with marinated figs and eight spice sauce on a root vegetable puree." Wilfrid - I know exactly what you mean but I find it's easier to find a good braised duck with figs than finding a good Duck a l'Orange. In fact, I have found that quite often classic dishes like that sound better than they taste, even if made well. There has to be a reason that certain dishes have fallen out of favor with the public. I often wonder if these dishes were ever good, or if we just didn't know any better, or if they just aren't made well anymore. Then there are other dishes like cassoulet that never go out of fashion so there must be a reason.

Lesley - I had a really mediocre meal at Christian Ettiene a few years ago and I wouldn't go back there. Whenever I'm in that region I take the 35 minute drive north to Mondragon to eat at La Beaugraviere. But the trip is really for their staggering wine list which is well worth the schlep. The food is plain, but can be inspired on the rare occassion. But the wine list? My god it's unbelievable. The other 35 minute trip that is worthwhile is to Lourmarin where you have Le Moulin de Lourmarin and La Feniere. Otherwise I think all the others are six of one, half a dozen of the other, all of them plain.

John - I am starting to feel like the Israelis. Everytime you or somebody else brings up poliitics, morality or ideology as a reason for what makes something good or not, and I then point out that that those things have nothing to do with why something functions well or whether it tastes good, I get blamed for being the one to introduce politics into the discussion. If you or anyone else wants to keep pro-Capitalist politics out of the discussion, I suggest that other political models aren't credited or discredited for good and bad inventions. And that great things are discussed solely on the merits of their greatness. Not based on the failures of things which are similar.

Ron - I think you're right. The difference is that Nigella does it all within the framework of being naughty posh. A type of woman that we don't have in the U.S. We are used to Ivy Leaguers like Hesser and they are a dime a dozen and sort of boring by now (sorry Amanda, don't take it personally.) In fact, I think that any American woman who acted like Nigella wouldn't be given anywhere the same level of respect she is given. Ultimately she gets away with her schtick because underneath it all there is an air of superiority about her. She is intimate yet aloof. Sexy yet not attainable for mere mortals. She can be the biggest screwup in the kitchen but in the end of the day when the camera has gone, she is still in her posh kitchen (and her posh bedroom) and you are not. That is what makes you want to see her the next time. Personally I can't watch her for more than 2 minutes before switching channels. Not that she isn't pleasing to the eye and fun, I just don't see what she adds to the hobby of cooking. To me, most TV chefs don't add anything because they are poor communicators about food. Even someone like Emeril who is a great communicator really projects more of his own personality and not great detail about the food. For my money, Mario Batali and Gary Rhodes are the best at communicating the essence of what makes a dish tick. They dig into the ingredients and how they play against each other in a way most other chefs aren't able to. But it will be interesting to see if Nigella is able to become a TV personality in this country. I have my doubts. Although I must say the response on this thread towards her has been mostly favorable.

Now what does any of that have to do with cooking, or even creativity? The writer has a bias towards design that revolves around functionality. Nothing wrong with that although he doesn't ever really say what is wrong with an item revolving around its design and not its functionality other than he thinks functionality is more virtuous. As a foundation for his argument he points out that originality is a recent phenomenon (last 100 years.) But he fails to point out the true issue which is that people having enough money to choose between different types of lemon squeezers is a recent phenomenon. Heck, people having enough money to have lemons is a recent phenomenon in some quarters. Before I collected wine, I bought a Philipe Starck corkscrew. It's still sitting here on my counter. But today I would never think of buying something like it. I want "real" wine tools because I consider myself a true wine afficionado. Personally I don't think anything is wrong with either approach. People who have a more casual relationship with things should be allowed to express themselves by buying fancily designed corkscrews. And people who own significant wine collections should be able to buy corkscrew contraptions that uncork a bottle in 4 seconds and cost hundreds of dollars. But the writer obviosuly feels differently because he says, "I have been intrigued with our continuous search for originality, our fascination and admiration for its results, and with the fact that reaching an "original" result has never been questioned against the real aim and goal of our profession: user satisfaction." Well I'm glad he feels that way about it but it happens to be not true. He doesn't want to accept the fact that users often find highly designed but less than optimally functioning items as being satisfying. That article is just one more explanation by an artisan who wants to order the world according to what he thinks is virtuous in his profession. And in spite of the fact that I happen to agree with him on the substance of his point, it makes no difference in the reality of how the world works. In our society people vote with their wallets. And as much as we try and legislate what their choices should be, there's no way to do it. It's great that we live in a world where the people who want to buy mixing bowls can choose between ones that have been designed for better functionality because they are able to rest on the heel of the base, and ones that are hardly functional because they are sculpted like a Rodin. Everyone has a mixing bowl that suits them. But what I don't see is why artisans who make mixing bowls of virtue need to comment about bowls who deal with functionality in a superficial way and which are more interested in aesthetics? If disfunctionality is a big issue for consumers they just won't buy the product.

Alan - You know I thought the list would make me feel more nostalgic than it did. It seems like a bunch of dairy restaurants that aren't much missed these days. And then there are a few places like Hisae's that I used to eat at. Looking at that list, I could easily say that ethnic food these days is better than it was back then.

Liza - Yeah the mochi (pronounced moochie) are good for dessert. They are Japanese profiteroles except with rice and sweet potato flour dough on the outside (so they are kind of frozen gloopy) and different flavor ice creams on the inside. It's perfect for me since I don't eat wheat flour. They were so good when I was there 2 weeks ago that we ordered a second portion after finishing the first one. A dish that friends of mine who are regulars there love is the whole fish done tempura style. It's usually a daily special because it varies based on what's fresh. They also have a good wine list and the 2000 Weinbach Riesling Cuvee Laurence (I think it was that one it might have been the Cuvee Catherine) went perfectly with the food.