Steve Plotnicki

J.W. - I don't know. Maybe I'm crazy. After reading your last response I did a Google Search of Bernays and found excerpts from "A Social History of Spin" by Stuart Ewen and read the chapter "Visiting Edward Bernays." As I was reading about Ewen's trip to Cambridge, Mass to vivit Bernays he said the following about him, "The explosive ideals of democracy challenged ancient customs that had long upheld social inequality. A public claiming the birthright of democratic citizenship and social justice increasingly called upon institutions and people of power to justify themselves and their privileges. In the crucible of these changes, aristocracy began to give way to technocracy as a strategy of rule. Bernays came to maturity in a society where the exigencies of power were-by necessity-increasingly exercised from behind the pretext of the "common good." Bernays, the child of aristocratic pretense who fashioned himself into a technician of mass persuasion, was the product of a "social conscience" that had grasped the fact that a once submissive Dumb Jack, in the contemporary world, would no longer be willing to quietly place his tired head in his folded hands at the end of each day, only to awaken and serve again the next morning. Born into privilege, developing into a technocrat, Bernays' biography illustrates the onus that the twentieth century has placed on social and economic elites; they have had to justify themselves continually to a public whose hearts and minds now bear the ideals of democracy." I don't know about you but that sounds like exactly what I have been saying. And I have never read a single book on economics in my life. I think a good university should give me an honorary PHD . It even allows me to return this conversation to the original topic and point out that Craft's confusing menu is a product of continually having to justify yourself to an increasingly democratic public. Here is a guy like Collichio who wants to do something that is different from every other NYC upper middle American restaurant so he has reinvented how to communicate what they serve. This conversation is always about whether it is fair for the world to be ordered on money or not. One cannot read a writer on this topic (whether it be on this board or in the greater body of written work) where the writer does not wear their heart on their sleeve on this issue. And the conversation always come down to the question of Mao's point of what other system might be fairer? I must confess I have never seen a good answer to that question.

"Supply and Demand ceased to be an even remotely equitable mechanism for distribution when Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew, taught those who controlled supply how they could also manipulate demand." J.W. - But that only deals with price points and the "injustice" that flows from market manipulations. But what does it have to do with whether the public wants something in the first place? No amount of market manipulation (either on the supply side or the demand side) will make the public buy something if they don't want it. Besides, I didn't say that money was distributed fairly. I said that people have a fair chance of being recompensed by what they add to our glorious economic system, which will in my experience fairly value what they put into it based on supply and demand. What that has to do with Coca Cola I don't know.

"I'm just upset that Plotnicki says my values are without merit because no one's buying them" Bux - Gee I haven't said that. What I did say is that while your values might have merit, their merit might not have any value (monetary.) They might merit other types of recognition. As for luck and Lotto, I think that any statistical analysis would find that the number of people who became millionaires through sweepstakes is not enough to base a conclusion on luck being responsible for anything. And I think if you were to analyze a group of successful people, you would find that the "lucky ones" were those who took advantage of opportunities that were presented to them and the unlucky ones didn't. But if you really want me to justify Lotto it's easy. The people who won are simply lucky that some smart guy figured out an ingenious way to make money for the state.

"I think money is distributed by supply and demand rather than any system of fairness." Bux- But supply and demand is a system of fairness :confused: Not to belittle the profession but, the reason college professors make the amount of money they do is because the supply of potential professors far outweighs the demand. But on the otherhand, the number of atheletes who when a 6' 5" guy has his hands in their face can throw a ball into a hoop from a distance of 23 feet 49% of the time instead of 47% is maybe fifty people. I'm sure if you were to look at what the 50 top college professors in the country make, I'm sure you would find they do quite well. It's just that nobody is writing about their salaries on the back page of the New York Post every day. And this is true for chefs as well. There is Didier Elena making $125K a year as the executive chef at ADNY and Ducasse must make a huge multiple of that when he's not even there. As for people being happy/unhappy in there work, I wish I had a good formula for that one.

How can you pick just one wine? I think every region has it's candidates. But if I have to I will say that the greatest bottle of wine I ever had was a 1985 DRC Montrachet. It was the single most powerful bottle of wine I ever had including red wines. The finish must have gone on for 90 seconds. But here is a list of worthy runners-up. For mature white wines, 1985 Niellon Chevalier-Montrachet is in the category of ethereal. 1983 Trimbach Clos St. Hune is amazing as well. I never had the '76 but I hear it's otherworldly. For young white wines, 1996 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres (at Jardin des Sens in Montpelier) and 1996 Niellon Chevalier-Montrachet (twice at La Palme d'Or in Cannes and once at the late Sono in NYC) are both beyond belief and in the years 2010-2015 will be amazing. I'm not sure what the Niellon is selling for but the Coche-Dury is already selling for almost $600 a bottle. Red wines are tougher because there is more variety. Probably the two best bottles of mature Bordeaux I ever had were 1955 La Mission Haut Brion and 1961 Latour. For young Bordeaux 1990 Cheval Blanc and Latour are both astonishing bottles. 1978 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Monfortino and 1982 Gaja Barbaresco Sori Tilden are the best Piemontese. 1983 Guigal La Landonne and 1989 Rayas Chateauneuf du Pape from the Rhone (people like the '90 Rayas better but I think the '89 is among the best balanced wines ever made). And highly underrated are 1958 Marquis de Riscal and 1954 Cune Vina Real Gran Reserva both phenomenal wines from Rioja. In California, 1985 Stag's Leap Cask 23 is a phenomenol wine. And 1982 Grange is the best Australian for me with 1981 a close runner-up. Burgundy is harder because the wines are less obvious. But the trio of 1964, 1978 and 1990 La Tache probably trump all. But if one excludes ridiculous wines like La Tache, I would probably say 1964 DRC Grands Echezeaux, 1969 Clair-Dau Bonnes Mares and 1985 Ponsot Griottes-Chambertin all rock. My god this post has made me thirsty. Fortunately I'm having a wino dinner with friends tomorrow who will bring interesting bottles to dinner.

"except to say that the hardest-working people in this country are certainly not the rich but, rather, the migratory lettuce-pickers and so forth who are responsible for the food you eat. And they will never see the insides of the expensive restaurants you "deserve" to eat in." Pan - I think you have a grave misconception about how hard successful people work. Whether it be investment bankers who are all at their desks by 7:00am every day and who regularly work 12+ hour days plus time on the weekends or someone like my father who owned his own butcher shop and left for work each day at 5:00am and came home at 7:30 each evening. If only people were compensated by the hours they work, or the amount of manual labor they perform, the world would be a different place to live in.

Wilfrid - Well it takes one to know one if you know what I mean. You actually have raised a sub point. The system is far less open to people who are not of European descent. Though this has started to change with the number of people of Asian descent coming into America. As for the people in the kitchen, lots of people of Mexican descent these days and I am sure we will see their children eating there when they grow up. "And how many have failed? It's usually easy enough to explain why the wealthy among us deserve their wealth, it's often less easy to explain why others deserve so much less. Should I accept the fact that money is distributed by merit, I still wouldn't understand why the rich should have access to the best restaurants any more than I accept that they should have access to the best universities." Bux - If they failed they have succeeded at something else. Including working for the people who succeeded which is so often the case. But as for distributing money according to merit, how else should they distribute money, and why would that be any fairer? Isn't it fairest when it is distributed according to how popular ideas are?

"Steve, if you believe that laissez-faire economics still works in a monopoly-governed economy the same way that it did in the 19th century under relatively free enterprise, then we have nothing more to discuss. J.W. - I don't understand that. When I am in a place like Craft, a large percentage of people who are eating there are people like me. Sons of immigrants who are self-made and have nothing to do with monopolies. In fact who owns restaurants like Craft are exactly the phenomenon I am describing. They are children and grandchildren of immigrants whose ancestors came here as peasants or the lower classes and now they themselves can earn upwards of $1,000,000 a year for their efforts. Show me that phenomenon in any other country in the world. In Britain, how many restauranteurs that aren't British have risen to that level. And in France, which non-Frenchman has established that income level for themselves being a restauranteur? Italy? Spain? It doesn't exist. Having sold popular culture for so long, I don't believe in the myth that market forces shut out good ideas. In my experience, good ideas always seem to come to the surface with time. In fact I built an entire company on that theory and was quite successful at it. Even today, if one wanted to compete with a monopoly it can be done easily if you are smart enough about it. How many people started niche beverage companies which competed with Pepsi and Coke only to cash them out for tens of millions of dollars? Or how many independant movie studios sprang up and exploited a segment of the market that the big studios were ignoring. Or how many people became farmers to supply places like Craft with top quality ingredients? You know there are two sides to this coin. One says that monopolies stifle creativity. The other says that monopolies are big and clumsy and the natural diffifulties of running a business that size creates space for entrepreneurs. Being inundated with McDonald's and Red Lobster necessitated the advent of places like Craft. That doesn't seem like such a bad trade off to me.

Robert S. - Well your last post identifies one of the problems of urban dining. There is no "there" there. And while there are usually ingredients that are local, there isn't a prescribed local flavor to them that is obvious to everyone. But in spite of that difference, the recipes are inspired, or even an exact copy of ones that come from places that are inundated with terroir. Chefs who were frustrated having to consistantly go down that road were probably inspired to create dishes that became popular like Caesar Salad or Fetuccine Alfredo. But ultimately this comes down to a simple issue of whether the ingredients we get here are good enough to create a local flavor. Someone here mentioned the white asparagus they had at Craft not being up to muster. Well during the month of May you can go into countless plain restaurants in Germany and have fabulous white asparagus that taste of the terroir. In my opinion, this gap in available ingredients that taste of their terroir is why I think I like the courses like raw fish and homemade charcuterie at Craft the best. Wilfrid - You are indeed right. One can only measure how important any variable is on a case by case basis. But I'll take that as a confirmation of my position because I read the opposing view to be that it is never relevent . "My point was not that one form of elite selection is superior to another, but that access to expensive restaurants continues to be limited to a small number of diners who are arbitrarily chosen by their circumstances." J.W. - The use of the word arbitrary is possibly the single best evidence of how the people who refute this argument don't get it. What made America different than Europe is we were brought up to believe that our individual destinies were a product of our own making. That each individual person had the opportunity to reach whatever level they aspired to if they worked at it hard enough. While there might be a hiccup in the system every now and then, I fail to see how that isn't true? And the key to the system is that we all agreed that monetary compensation is the fairest way of rewarding achievement because it is decided in a democratic fashion. As opposed to elites deciding who was worthy. So who gets to eat at Craft isn't arbitrary, it's intended by those who can afford it, and who have the faculties to be interested in, and understand the experience. It's not an accident, it's on purpose.

Robert B. & S. - I tried to raise this point earlier about chefs like Collichio and Portale being influenced by Italian cuisine. Does it come down to the fact that their "American cuisine" has adopted the Italian stratagia of non-stock based cooking, and slow cooking foods to eke out the maximum natural flavor from the ingredients? The interesting question is whether they are consciously aware of their choice? I should add that the American steakhouse is predominantly derived from speakeasys of the 1930's which were mainly operated by Italian immigrants. "please note that this argument assumes that merit and the wherewithall to patronize fiendishly expensive restaurants are coterminous." J.W. - Well how else should merit be rewarded? A better belief in God? One who cedes to the the wishes of a monarchy or government in the best manner? To vary from the "Amercan way," one has to implement a system that rewards merit in a way other than being decided by people who want to participate in that choice. What should happen, should we give the decision as to who gets to eat in restaurants to panels of people who make choices for the populace (this is the French way no, or how it works at a university?) While the public is willing to cede control of those types of decisions when it comes to educational and cultural institutions, why would they cede it in regards to a consumer activity like eating at a restaurant?

"How can you push a button that removes the history of art and still have art books?" Robert B. - Gee that's an easy one. If the political environment in Spain in 1930 was different, then Franco might have not gotten into power. No massacre and no painting by Picasso. Does that mean that Picasso wouldn't have applied his technique towards some other topic? Of course he would have. And that is what would be in the art books. I don't understand why we can't seperate an artists ability to capture things, from what drives the subject matter. What happened in Guernica is an "accident" of history. But Picasso's talent is not.

Robert B. - What does any of what you wrote have to do with my point that if things like better wealth distribution were a function of 16th century politics, instead of 19th and 20th century politics, than the history of civilization that was recorded by artists would be different? Or what the art of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries would have looked like if instead of the church deciding what was good for the populace, the populace decided for themselves what was good for them? Just like they do today. Would the subject matter of the art from that period be different? How could it not be. So art books would exist, it's just that their content would be different because civilization would have evolved differently. This responds to J.W.'s point that things today are decided by a marketing director and not an artist (or chef in this instance) and that is a function of "Amercan culture." All I have pointed out is that to bemoan the lost conditions of yesteryear that instigated great art, the bad parts of yesteryear come with it. And in today's environment good comes with the bad too. And if the downside of things being valued according to popular choice is that a marketing director makes decisions and not an artist/chef, it also comes with an upside that who gets to dine in an establishment is determined by merit, and isn't hand chosen by royals or clerics. But you still haven't told me why Collichio's (or Picasso for that matter) words wouldn't be welcome when interjecting a statement of their goals? You can always ignore them if they have no meaning to you, trying to bring this back to the original point.

"If you don't like the taste of the food, the concept the chef had is of only intellectual interest, if that. If you do like the food, you might or might not be interested in the concept the chef had when s/he created the dish." Pan - I think it is even more basic than that. It is fair to ask any artisan what they are trying to accomplish in their work. That the limitations of cookery might make the question less relevent than with other disciplines doesn't really make much difference. In commercial ventures (this eventually gets to J.W.'s point,) commerce necessarilly taints aesthetics so the question gains a second (and possibly third) track of relevence. But ultimately the most severe limitation is that few chefs to begin with actually are cooking at a level that challenges intelectually. This is exactly what makes Craft so puzzling to many of us. The food is extremely simple, yet so many of us are confused when we go eat there. John Whiting - The problem with American culture is also what is great about it. It is based on the simple premise that consumer dollars will eventually pay for investment in culture. This more democratic approach to financing creativity (as opposed to a patronage system) has shifted the target of who creativity is directed at. The fact that this approach often results in things crass (McDonald's etc.,) isn't that offset by everyone having a say as opposed to just a few? And aren't attempts to reinvent or restate things (like Craft) the way we keep the process going? Eventually, someone comes up with an idea that moves the ball down the field or creative energy peters out (like what has been happening in France.) People are always bemoaning the lessening in the quality of aesthetics because of "Amercian culture" but I don't understand how we can bemoan that loss without also admitting that the basic human condition at the time those great works of art were created was mostly horrible.And that so many great works of art are a byproduct of the inequities. When I walk through a place like the Prado and there is painting after painting of portraits of Spanish royal families, and no paintings of common people, how does one appreciate the greatness of the art without recognizing that people lived in poverty at the time in order for those paintings to exist? I don't know about you but, if someone came to me and said Steve, you can press a button and it would erase the history of art but simultaneously issues regarding human rights, wealth distribution, etc. where progress was made in the 19th and 20th centuries, would have occurred in the 16th century instead, I would choose that door. That's because all it really means is that the art that would exist today would be the history of a different civilization and that we would have passed the McDonald's stage of our evolution 300 years ago. "There will always be those who "get it," and those who don't, but over a half century of successes by the avant garde over time has led to a backlash and the lesson many potential critics have learned is that it's hard to recognize the next avant garde." Bux - What is amusing about this is that critics keep insisting on imposing themselves on the equation, even when they don't have a clue about it. This is the point I was trying to make earlier on that criticism has tried to create a vacuum for itself to operate in to the point of saying it is necessary to exclude the opinion of the creator even while we don't completely understand what any of this means. How refreshing it would be for a critic to announce that they have no idea if something is a good work of art or not. That they don't really understand it. To speak about people like Adria and Gagnaire through the posssibities they offer while tempering their personal dislike or disagreement with the aesthetic they offer. I guess the simple way of saying this is that there is no reason to conclude whether the Avant Garde is anything but different until it is proven either way with time. And until that happens, I don't see why any explanation including the artists shouldn't be relevent to the mix.

Robert B. - Let's be fair here. What I said in the original post was, "I mean if we were posting about a painting and there was a disagreement as to its interpretation, the artist coming onto the thread to explain what he intended would be welcomed." From there we have digressed to, second, you invoke some kind of analogy where an analogy doesn’t appear to exist;" The only issue I raised is whether the artist would be welcomed (or not if you feel that way about it) participating in a thread in the context of the way it was discussed in the compromised critic thread. Somehow from there we got waylayed by the Intentionist Fallacy. Furthermore, you then said that it doesn't matter what Collichio has to say, the proof is in the pudding (eating the food.) But I'm still waiting to hear from anyone what his words have to do with how the food tastes? They only have to do with what his goals are, what he is attempting to do and framing a context (which I thought was Robert S.'s point.) So under what circumstances would Collichio's (or even Picasso's) words not be welcome? Pan - People who are excluded from this conversation, because they either lack experience or don't have the necessary skills to participate often invoke elitism as the reason for their own exclusion. But in reality, the conversation is open to them so I don't know how one would call it elite.

"I think most people know that organizations that employ art historians are not “customer-driven”; that instead they are largely dependent on governmental and philanthropic largess, the latter of which is provided by businesses and individuals who realize that the quality of life and the glory of Western civilization would be much poorer without these organizations and the researchers and craftsmen they employ. The study of the miracle of civilization on earth comprises the art historians’ “customers”." Robert B. - You see I disagree with this. Five Million people a year visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art. That's a hell of a lot of customers. The issue for them isn't how many customers, the issue is how much those customers are willing to pay to visit "the history of civilization." If the Met wanted to prorate their cost of operation per customer per visit, the cost of admission would be so high their attendence would plummet. So the cost is subsidized by grants and donors. And the fact is, if the Met's attendence plummeted the subsudies would go down. So it is indeed extremely customer driven. "Great art has many more than two truths. What it means to an individual or to a culture is never fixed, predetermined, or quantifiable. " You keep talking about great art and I keep talking about food. The only analogy I made is that sometimes it's good to hear it in the artists own words. From what I can tell, you seem to be saying that is never the case. But you have yet to offer any evidence as to why that is other than theories that are applied to high art. You yourself called chefs quasi-tradesmen and not artists. Why are you then applying theories of high art in this instance?

Robert B. - Why is any of what you listed important? Is it not just made up by people who want to perpetuate their being necessary to the equation? If there were no "customers" for their services, would they continue to exist? Obviously I am exaggerating but I just find some inconsistancy in logic that says that the explanations of the artist are irrelevent but we can't live without the words of experts who interpert what artists really mean. There are two truths to every work of art. What it is supposed to mean and what it means to the person trying to appreciate the art. But just because people who view art make up an alternative reality, doesn't mean that every aspect of art is subjective. Can we imagine that Picasso painted a certain section of Guernica to be symbolic of a particular act of the battle and it was misinterpeted by critics, and that his explanation wouldn't be relevent? I can't. Sometimes reality just doesn't need to be reinvented. "Is it useful to know something about the environmental factors - social, political, economic, among others - out of which a work of art arises, or is it sufficient for the totality of the experience to be in the viewing?" Robert S. - Thanks for pointing out that it is really a practical issue. Like any other free speech concept, if the artist perspective wasn't relevent it would be rejected by those who hear it. But to have built a culture that limits that aspect of expression seems comes off as, and probably is to some extent, self serving.

"Chefs are quasi-tradesmen and quasi-businessmen. Their intentions, including the opaque one of modeling one kind of restaurant after another kind of restaurant, is irrelevant to the basic experience. Of course it is not without interest to learn such facts, but as a practical matter, it hardly matters: Robert B. - Two things about this. First, you have removed it even further from the context I originally used it in. The issue is whether a critic in a restaurant should be anonymous or not and I used the example of my being "recognized" to show the obvious benefits that occur when that happens. That the benefit is getting the artists perspective on their own work is something you can take or leave. But I haven't heard the argument about how it possibly can take away from the experience. It either has no value, or some value. It can't lessen. Second, restaurants like Craft aren't art, they are life. Yes you can go to El Bulli and have a totally cerebral experience, but that isn't what Craft is about. It is utilitarian to the extent that one can have luxury and utility combined. I don't see how any input from its creator describing how to utilize it could possibly fall under the Intentionist Fallacy. If I was a smart person I would be able to write a thesis on why the artist's perspective has been excluded by people who either appreciate art or do commerce in it. Not knowing much about art, but knowing lots about human nature, it isn't difficult to conclude that if the artists perspective became relevent, lots of people would lose their jobs. And it seems so obvious. Like who wouldn't want to know if the Mona Lisa is actually smiling at everyone or did it just happen to come out that way? And if it was on purpose, why? But if we knew the answers to those questions, probably a few thousand art historians would be out of work. And we wouldn't want that happening would we?

"Steve was using the artist/chef analogy again and I'm not sure we ever even settled the validity of that. But be that as it may, what an artist says about her/his work is often wholly different from what the art critical world would say about it. And, an artist is speaking from an interior voice. It can be important to not demystify the work by referring to one's personal sources." Stefany - A few things about this. First, if you reread my post, I intentionally tried to make my example stay clear of this argument. An artist describing his own intentions can only be unchallenged. I don't see where subjectivity or interpertation comes into the mix? Now whether he was successful at his intentions is another thing. But my example didn't go that far. Same here. Hearing that Craft is like a steak house in Collicchios own words, while being an indisputable fact doesn't mean that it comes off that way, or is obvious to a diner. But it is helpful information in any analysis of the place. Secondly, we can have a whole thread about the history of how it became that artists own opinions about their work became inferior to the interpertations of their patrons. Where the rubber meets the road on that issue is why patrons/diners feel the need to completely exclude the artists own feelings from the mix? Don't you think that when you hear an artist explain what they intended that it can compeletly change your perspective about their work? Their must be so many works of art that one would appreciate differently given a roadmap by the artist. Andy - I don't think my experience was atypical for the place. Yes we got the royal treatment, but that is only because so much of our experience was having interactions with Tom and Marco. But I think that anybody can walk in off of the street and get the same meal. Like everyplace else, you have to know how to ask for it. Mogsob - Well you raise many of the historical issues of the Craft debate. But your big point ultimately comes down to the emperor's new clothes point. What's the big deal about, especially at a $100 price point? In my opinion, there are two ways to use the place that make sense. One, ignore the menu. Order a simple meal of charcuterie, steak and salad etc. and forget about everything else. If you lower expectations and use the place like a simple bistro, it will meet expectations and the price point will be less than $100 as well. Of course, that backs us into the Union Square Cafe argument of why do I have to reserve a month in advance for a better version of what I can cook at home? Which means that our expectations are not totally within our own control. Or you can take the whole hog approach that we experienced the other night. IMHO this is the way to go. Bux really put his finger on it by bringing up the Penn Dutch analogy. The way for Craft to meet expectations (yours and mine that is) is to order every appetizer, charcuterie plate and vegetable for your table. That is where the action is and that is where the "top quality ingredients" concept will seem most obvious. But in order for this formula to work you need to change expectations from Craft being like Gramercy Tavern or Gotham to it being high end family style dining table, like that place Fat Guy went to in Bama or wherever. And I think the key to that strategy (and this is apparant from my review) is to keep the emphasis off the main course, and to make whatever it is you do order for the main course unsual. Considering how they plate the food there, I think you need six people for this to work well because if anything, we were served too much food. Not in terms of how many different dishes there were per course, but what the size of each dish was.

Robert-Sometimes I can write in a stream of consciousness. This one was harder. I started yesterday morning, wrote the first few paragraphs and the rest took me a good part of today. The issues here, for me, are subtle ones that I found both hard to frame as well as adequately articulate. And sometimes things are so simple but it takes a while to figure them out. Like this was my fifth meal at Craft (one of them at Craftbar) and it only struck me at the end of writing this piece that what is really eating at me about the place is that I want the meal "reconstructed." It's funny because as I sat down to write this response, the phone rang and it was a friend of mine who happened to be at Craft on Tuesday night as well. It was her first time and I asked her what she thought. "I don't know, I felt it was kind of the emperor's new clothes. The food was so plain." And if you aren't having the type of meal I had with a plethora of flavors, one can easily come to the same conclusion she came to. But your response made an interesting point about "Conterni." I was looking at the James Beard Foundation website and looking at the pictures of which chefs won awards. There were Tom and Marco for best new restaurant with Craft, and there was Alfred Portale winning some type of longevity award for Gotham. And it made me think about how Italian cooking strategy has been transposed into the Amercian kitchen. I was even thinking of writing a post about it and then your response appeared and sort of included this point. The thing about eating in Italy is that the tastes in each region are so well defined. One isn't going to confuse the taste of Liguria with the taste of Piemonte, even though they are contiguous provinces. What's missing for me at the types of places in NYC that we are discussing is that the ingredients don't express definitive terroir. Maybe that is one of the reasons that I am asking for descriptions of the ingredients and where they come from, so I learn to associate the flavors with location. As for dining there, well it's harder than a kosher deli, but I think you can handle it without a meltdown. Mao-I think that's the size of the Chef's Tasting Menu. I think anybody can go in and say cook me dinner and they will serve that up. I don't think my eGullet fame had anything to do with our getting any additional food. But if you would like to believe that when a chef hears my name he goes into high gear and serves up everything in the kitchen that isn't nailed down, feel free to. Bux - You know I am of two minds about posting under my real name for the same reason. But on balance I think it's a good thing. I don't think that we are unfair here. And I think that most chefs love rising to a challenge of cooking a meal for people who can really appreciate it. Your analogy of Penn Dutch dining is a good one, and even though they print the menu in the style of an ala carte steakhouse, the food arrives at Craft in semi-communal fashion. It has made me think that if I was at Arpege and they served that Diver Sea Scallop with slow sauteed carrots that I went so balistic over family style, how the dish would be ruined unless somone instructed you how to compose a plate. Jin-I'm of two minds about chefs participating. If it comes naturally that's great. But I think this situation is a little forced for anyone from Craft to appear here. But you never know.

Hey Fat Guy how are you? Are you just about to leave Vancouver? Your posts have been great. When is the next installment coming? You missed big stuff in the neighborhood. China 93 on the corner of Lex and 93rd is now China 93/Viet Grill. It's a whole new world of takeout. Actually, when I was introduced to Marco he said "Fatguy.com" Then I straightened him out. But Collichio and I were talking about you because you were both James Beard winners. Jin-I think that lots of chefs read this stuff but won't come out of the bushes. I don't blame them in a way. Though it would be nice if one or two got comfortable enough to do it and then maybe others would join in. Rosie-Have you considered 45 minutes?

Jaybee-Except for the champagne we brought our own wine. And I had a small can of Bumble Bee tuna for lunch the other day. How did you know? Damian - Well it isn't that unusual. They know Fat Guy really well down there because of the articles he wrote on Gramercy Tavern and Tom. So there's a reason to tune in here. You should go and try it and let us know what you think. Wilfrid-That menu is one of life's biggest mysteries to me. I can't figure out why I can't get my arms around it. I feel like hiring a panel of graphic designers to do a critique of it. Regardless of how many stars you think the charcuterie deserves (only one, it's just charcuterie ), I think they will expand the selection and add more items to the menu. Some nice soft, spicy salami would be good. And Tom told us of some homemade prosciutto he has hanging somewhere.

One of the great debates of the winter was about the restaurant Craft. While my opinion of Craft is well known to anyone who reads this board, I always considered myself open minded about it. In general, my inclination was and is to like it. Combine that with the chef/owner Tom Collichio being one of the nicest guys on the New York restaurant scene and I was always looking for an opportunity to see if I had missed the boat somehow. I mean I have friends who go gaga over the place. And while I have eaten a few good meals there, adjectives like boring or over-complicated came too easily to me. Yet I hadn’t rushed back for a reassessment. I waited for the right opportunity, figuring that space and time would be helpful and would allow me to calibrate my palate accordingly. Finally the other night some friends invited us to share a “Chefs Menu” dinner with them, which they had won in an auction to benefit the children and widows of victims of 9/11. The place was buzzing as usual. I have yet to be at dinner at Craft, or even walking by it, when the place doesn’t seem full of activity. Not only were most tables full when we arrived, but almost every seat at the bar was taken. After a few minutes they sat us down and then the Executive Chef at Craft, Marco Canora came over to the table to chat with our hosts. They operate a rare wine business in the city and they do business with many of the top restaurants so they know most of the chefs and all of the sommeliers in town. After they chatted for a minute or two, our host turned to me and said,”Marco, I’d like to introduce you to my friend Steve Plotnicki” whereas Marco looked at me and said, “Steve Plotnicki, you’re the guy from eGullet.” Feeling a combination of elation from being a cyberceleb, and awkwardness because of what I wrote about the place, I said to him, “have you read the thread about Craft and what I said about it?” Save to say he had read every word. From that moment on I was like a big fish swimming in his small pond and he was intent on catching me with a hook made out of delicious food. A few minutes after Marco went back to the kitchen, Tom Collichio appeared at our table. He had been fully briefed by Marco. Like what Bush must have gotten before he met with Sharon the other day. Collichio was loaded for bear. He had all sorts of questions about the things I had written, as well as some of the things some other people had written. “How come you find the menu so hard to use? Do you know how long it takes us to make the charcuterie?” etc. I said to myself, this is how William Grimes must feel after he reviews and then visits a place. The questions quickly dissolved into an explanation of how Craft came into being, and the statement by Tom that despite the hullabaloo, Craft wasn’t any different than the old fashioned steak house where they served everything ala carte. That brought a “that’s what I said” from my mouth. But he asked me why in spite of that certain people were still confused by the menu. I felt as though I was the poster boy for a certain strain of menu rejection that was a phenomenon unique to that restaurant. But our food was going to come soon so he bid us a temporary farewell. “I’m going to go upstairs and log on and read that thread and then come back between courses.” Before we get to the food here, I have to tell you that it was all good-natured. Both Tom and Marco are the sweetest guys, and they were inspired to have me see the light. We started with a raw fish course. They bombarded the table with plates that Marco served himself. He explained what each dish was as he laid the plates on the table. It included; Fresh Sardines from France marinated with carrots, onions and coriander King Salmon belly (the Toro of the salmon as Marco said) with olive oil, lemon and ramps Hamachi with coriander Snapper with ramps Grilled Calamari with garlic, parsley and olive oil Tuna loin sashimi and tuna tartar Chick Peas marinated in lemon and parsley Arugula Salad I felt a sigh of relief not having to navigate my way through that menu. I can honestly say that if I had to order, I never would have ended up with what they served us. I can’t put my finger on why but the menu doesn’t inspire me to order that way. But let’s not get bogged down in minutia. What’s important here is the food. The food was terrific. The salmon belly and the snapper being my favorites, with the calamari a close runner up. The only thing I didn’t care for were the sardines, a little fishy (or sardine-like if you will) for my palate. But chalk that up to personal taste because they appeared to be glorious specimens. And the chickpeas and arugula played perfect foils to the high acidity of the marinades. It was a perfect way to start a meal with your palate being called to attention by acidity while soothed by the smooth texture of raw fish. We drank the following, 1978 Ramonet Montrachet - This was the first vintage of Montrachet for Ramonet. The wine is extremely rare, with only 75 cases made. We were speculating on how many cases could be left in the market that had not yet been drunk and we couldn’t imagine that there is a combined total of more than four or five. It was my first time having it and it certainly didn’t disappoint. The nose was just glorious. It actually smelled thick. My first sip brought back a recent memory of having a 1999 Ramonet Montrachet in Beaune this past February. There was a distinct link between the two bottles that allowed me to get an instant perspective on the ’78. Here was a twenty four year old bottle of white Burgundy that was bright with acid, yet it wasn’t harsh. There was smoothness to it, a length to it that held it all together. There was sort of this nutty, roasted lemon flavor that was bathed in melted butter. It might be presumptuous of me to say this but if I get the chance to drink it again, I would decant it for three or four hours before drinking as the amount of change it showed just being in the glass was substantial. Lots more packed in there. This wine will last another 10-15 years. A perfect bottle of wine. From raw fish we were going to move onto charcuterie. One of the things that Craft is known for is making their own charcuterie. But before they served the course Collichio came back to visit us again. “Did you read the thread?” I asked. “No but I have four pages of notes that I took when it was first posted and I just read through them.” I have to say that I was a bit taken aback at how much interest he had in eGullet and what we said about his restaurants. He proceeded to say that when the Craft thread was going on he was tempted to join in the thread. I asked him why he didn’t and he said he came close on a number of occasions but eventually decided not to. Going off on a tangent, and this is probably worthy of its own thread, here is a perfect example of restaurant criticism where any notion of anonymity should be abandoned in favor of accurate information coming to the forefront for the benefit of diners. I mean if we were posting about a painting and there was a disagreement as to its interpretation, the artist coming onto the thread to explain what he intended would be welcomed. But here Collichio feels somewhat awkward. It just emphasizes the point that restaurants are looked at through a consumer lens where a certain standard of separation between consumers and those who cater to them is expected. While in other aesthetics our need to have the maximum understanding outweighs other variables. In fact I asked him if he had read the “Compromised Critics” thread and he said he hadn’t. When I told him what the issue was he laughed and said that there really wasn’t such a thing as an anonymous critic, we all know who they are and what they look like. He went on to say, “How much can we change something for a critic? What can we do, give them the center cut of a piece of meat? There isn’t really anything we can do to make the experience not a typical one.” It was just about that time that Marco showed up with our charcuterie. He served us, Porchetta stuffed with mortadella Duck Ham Duck Terrine with foie gras Ballontine of Rabbit Beet Salad Fava Bean and Pecorino Salad The porchetta was really excellent. Better than when I ate it at Craftbar a few months ago. Last time I found it sort of bland but this had more oomph to it. Somewhat saltier as well. I wouldn’t mind if they spiced this up even a little bit more. The duck ham is just terrific. It just melts in your mouth. And nice flavor to the duck terrine that seemed to be a combination of breast meat wrapped around delicious foie. Not being a rabbit eater, I took a bite of the ballontine to see if I could acquire the taste on the spot. It was fine, but a little dry I thought. I skipped the beets but as always I think the fava bean and pecorino salad is one of the best dishes there. Nice course but it could have used a pate/rilletes type of dish to introduce a different, coarser texture. We drank, Jose Dohndt Blanc de Blancs Champagne (nv) – We bought this off their list. Very good champagne for a non-vintage bottling. Touch of residual sugar. Mousse of larger than average bubbles but nice and mild on the palate. No harshness to the wine at all, or sour taste that champagne has sometimes. Went well with the charcuterie as each sip refreshed the palate and the touch of sweetness perfectly played off the spicing. More visits from Tom and Marco. Conversation about everything from the beautiful wine storage units that line a good deal of the room, to what type of olive oil they use in the kitchen (they bring it in from Italy palate at a time.) Finally they arrived with what must have been half of a baby lamb. They served chops, shanks, loin and shoulder either roasted or braised along with sweetbreads that were sautéed. The meat was extremely tasty, with the shoulder tasting a little salty, like the lamb had grazed on salt marshes. Forgot to ask them if that was the case or we are just talking about expert salting on behalf of the kitchen staff. Along with the lamb came a plate of steaming gnocchi with grated Parmesan cheese on top. I didn’t taste them (wheat sensitive) but Mrs. P said they were the best gnocchi ever. Light as small clouds that would melt in your mouth. They also brought a plate of mixed mushrooms and a small pot with morels in a cream sauce, sautéed wax beans and baby carrots that were roasted until soft on the inside and caramelized on the outside. The carrots were fantastic. Good course with lots of delicious food although we were a bit stuffed before the course began. One complaint was that the lamb and the mushrooms weren’t served hot enough and were closer to room temperature. This has been happening to me a lot in restaurants these days. Is it that they want to serve things at room temperature (I abhor that) or they cook things and then they sit around cooling down until they are ready to serve them. Can’t figure it out here but I would have enjoyed the food much more if it was hotter. We drank, 1990 Frederic Mugnier Musigny – Nice and jammy. Good fresh cherry pinot flavor. With a little air I thought it showed some stemminess but it blew through that phase pretty quickly. Fairly light in body for a wine with so much stuffing. Couldn’t tell if it will pick up some weight with time. Just beginning to drink and as delicious as it was this night will be exponentially better when fully mature which should be in five to seven years. We were then given dessert menus and I immediately had a severe attack of Craftmenudyslexia. All I can say is that my complaints are well documented in the other thread and they still hold. Maybe they should just give people a magnifying glass and an organizational chart with the menus. Since that dinner, my wife has decided to carry a small flashlight in her bag just so we can navigate through impossible to read menus. But I ordered the panna cotta, and they brought us a series of different ice creams and sorbets which were all pretty tasty. So how was Craft? Very good, but really not much different than my prior assessments. I much prefer the “serve us whatever you want” way of dining there to the choose one from column A, two from column B way the menu is laid out. And if I were to make any suggestion as to how things could be improved, I think they can really enhance the dining experience by including detailed descriptions of the ingredients. I mean if the concept of Craft is serving the best market ingredients, tell us about them. Make our mouths water when we read the menu (but first design a menu we can read ). The other thing I decided that bothers me is the concept of ala carte vegetables and side dishes given the style of cooking they do there. While I understand that the menu is laid out like an old fashioned steak house, I find the food at Craft is prepared with much more finesse than the gruff style that steak house food is cooked in where a side order of hash browns or cottage fries (read not expertly prepared) are the perfect accompaniment to anything that comes with a char crust. The cooking at Craft, which is intended to showcase top quality ingredients, depends on exposing subtleties. Forcing diners to choose which vegetable is the proper accompaniment to their main dish is a greater burden than being able to get the cream spinach right to go with your porterhouse. I think ultimately that means that too often, less than the perfect pairings end up on your table. For example, we didn’t eat the soft shell crabs (though we tried to order some and they ran out) but I have had them in the past and they would go smashingly with the carrots we had. Yet left to my own devices, that combination would not have been obvious to me before I tasted the carrots. To have a restaurant whose purpose is to bring out the best in the best ingredients pass up the opportunity to create pairings that showcase those ingredients at their best seems sort of a mixed message. Unless I am just being a dolt about it. But based on how many people have chimed up with small criticisms of the place, I will respectfully defer the title of dolt for another occasion. Trying to quantify my feelings about Craft and reducing them to a rating is even more difficult. There are certain aspects to the restaurant that scream out for four stars, like the raw fish course and even simple things like the incredibly fresh arugula salad that accompanied that course. But then I have a hard time giving something like the lamb course more than 2 stars, even as good as it is. Maybe I find that the ala carte menu concept has deconstructed the main course from the side dishes in a way that has eliminated a clever use of saucing to bind them together? And maybe I demand that there be “more cooking” in a restaurant than the simple roasting or braising of top ingredients? I mean many of us complain about places like Union Square Café because of the cooking being too simplistic. But then we rave about Craft because the simplicity comes with a proffer of “best available ingredients.” There seems to be some conflict in there somewhere. I think it boils down to that there are occassions where I am the best person to make choices in a restaurant. And then there are other occassions when I think I’m better off with the chef making those choices for me. Whichever way, I'm going to have to go back at least a few more times to try and figure it all out.

Steve Klc - An excellent follow-up to our criticism of Sietsema. If one were to analyze the various ingredients they serve at Sugiyama, the menu on any given night has gems flown in fresh from Tokyo that are truly worthy of oohs and ahs. Whether it be funny Japanese mushrooms or real Kobe beef, it is always at least one or two things per meal. And they don't keep it a secret either because the waiter usually describes each dish. I have found that this rejectionism of quality goods and ingredients, which includes expert preparation, by the cheap eats crowds have left them with less than the necessary faculties needed to be expert in things culinary. But it is like my friend Sasha Katzman says, it was only after he got to drink all the great wines of Bordeaux and understand them that he was able to understand which $10 wines were the really good ones. I think it is no different here. How reliable is the opinion of someone who has rejected a top quality chicken, whether it be for price point or where it was being served, when they recommend a roast chicken at an Bolivian restaurant in Jackson Heights?

JD-You said you disagree with me but then you went on to agree. "Terroir" as I am using it is food that tastes indiginous to Provence, especially that region. I don't know if you ate a whole lot of meals there back in the 80's, but the cuisine of the 3 star chefs centered on local ingredients to a far greater extent than today's menus seem to. Verge in particular. In fact Verge's vegetable cookbook is a testamont to those ingredients.

As long as Robert is making a list, La Cave in Cannes is excellent. And has a fantastic list of local wines as well as Cote de Provence and Bandol. And I always liked La Palme d'Or in the Martinez Hotel as the best of the "haute" restaurants on the coast these days. Great wine list too. Josy Jo in Haut de Cagnes is similar to Loulou, but a little less high powered. And I always liked Boccaccio in the pedestrian zone in Nice as the place with the best Paella. I used to like La Meranda although Robert says it isn't what it used to be.