Steve Plotnicki

Hang on hang on, I didn't say anyone forced you to eat pasta. I said that it's an integral part of the meal and it is served as a course all by itself. But I'm not understanding why you say there isn't a "starch only course?" What else would you call a pasta course? Yes the pasta is flavored either with a topping or something that is stirred into the dish as in a risotto but the course revolves around the starch. I remember one time being on vacation in Italy and I bought a local food magazine. It included a food supplement where they published recipes and beautiful color pictures from about 30 of Italy's top chefs. Speaking from memory, nearly half of the dishes were pasta dishes. And the single most famous modern Italian dish I can think of, Gualtiero Marchesi's Ravioli Aperto topped with god leaf, is a pasta dish. As for the Chinese and the Japanese, the Japanese have formulated their own version of haute cuisine (using many French techniques I might add) but IMO the Chinese, despite their delicious cuisine have not. There is Nobu, Tetsuya, Morimoto, etc. I don't know of a single Chinese chef or restaurant that is famous on an international level. Your last point about correlation and cause asks a good question. But, surely you can't be saying that there is a shortage of money at the high end in Italy and therefore all they can afford is pasta? Because that is were this question lies. How come Italy, with all their delicious food on a traditional level, and with all of their inventiveness and creativity in things like design and fashion, hasn't managed to produce a single chef who is making an impact on the international food scene?

JD - I didn't say that there weren't starches in haute cuisine. I said that there wasn't a starch only course. And that the Italian way of serving a meal, where they insisted on serving a course that revolved around starch, held them back from creating a more modern cuisine. And I believe that Robert B. made the point that the pasta course is the most varied course in an Italian meal, and that Italian meals revolve around that course. I also made the point that the French when using starch, served it as a side dish flavored with a little gravy. As opposed to the Italians who combine the starch with a more substantial sauce that is thickened with bits of meat. Otherwise Robert S's sauce for his pasta sounds fine. But he needs to leave those cornets out. Too much starch. Whiting - Not speaking english definitely hurts. But don't you think it falls under isolationism? The French aren't good english speakers either. Yet they managed to overcome that and invade the rest of the world with their culinary technique. Countless French cookbooks were translated into English. Very few Italian cookbooks that I know of were translated. In fact that's a good statistic for this thread. I am going to go to KAL tomorrow morning and compile a list of cookbooks over the last 30 years which were written by Italian chefs and which were translated into English.

I third the Robuchon/Patrica Wells book. I don't think there is a more user friendly French cookbook. And it's photgraphed beautifully. An underrated but terrific book that we use all the time in our house is Roger Verge's Vegetable Cookbook. Great recipes and also beautifully photographed. The Natural Cuisine of Georges Blanc, which I believe is his first book, is another fantastic book as well.

Tony - I'm not puzzled because I haven't heard or question those reasons. When I say I'm puzzled I mean that I don't understand why someone hasn't been able to overcome those reasons. Robert B. - This is true about postwar design. Except when does the great tradition of eating in France start? When do the palaces of haute cuisine start showing up on the scene? Lucas-Carton is art nouveau so what is that, turn of the century?

But they have and they haven't been particularly successful at it. That's really what has us scratching our heads.

Robert - It's relevant because the gastrotourists are disappointed in that aspect of travel there. If you do not define yourself that way, this prong of the thread has no relevance to you. Otherwise I competely agree with you.

Cabarles not a veteran. hehehehehehe .

Ron - Well wouldn't publishers who release cookbooks about Italian cuisine (books written by high end chefs or their cuisine) be in Italy? Don't get me wrong, there is a booming cookbook business for traditional Italian cuisine in almost every country. I'm sure Marcella Hazan is the equivelent of a money press for publishers. But in the high end, fancy technique category, the only book I can think of that was released in recent years is Don Alfonso which is outside of Sorrento on the Amalfi Coast. And that is only because they had three Michelin Stars for a few years (down to two now I believe.) If you go back to the link I posted with the Gamberro Rosso top 10 restaurants, I don't think a single one of those chefs have published cookbooks. Adam - Well you are exactly right. It would seem obvious but it doesn't take for some reason. Not only that, and Robert B. will confirm this, many of the top rated restaurants that are near the French border cook more in a French than Italian style. People complain about it all of the time.

Marcrosan - Yes but Heston Blumenthal, Gordon Ramsey and others are British. It doesn't matter how they express their talent. Whether they cook French, modern British, inspired by modern Spanish, etc., they are British chefs working in Britain and have international acclaim. There are no Italians I could describe in a similar manner. As for otherr countries developing their own version of haute cuisine, I listed them earlier (including derivitive of.) But how about Spain for one? Adam - Well it is odd which is what FG's question was about in the first place (drawing my inference.) Why Italy is so isolationary on matters culinary is puzzling. Especially with their core cuisine being so delicious. Ron - I am sure if you call Italian cookbook publishers you will find that their business is pretty dead. And the same happens to be true of the French cookbook business as well. Spain, Britain and the U.S., now they have cookbook businesses that are booming. Even Germany is having a good run and the Australian cookbook business is great.

I want to place an order for a pound of "Fat Guy's Home Roasted Coffee" (see I started a business for you already with a snappy name.) How much is it and where do I pick it up? Or do you deliver? Grind it for cone drip please.

Macrosan - Well it's not true. There are restaurants in other countries that meet the standard I am describing. They are either haute cuisine or derivitive of. How about Tetsuya in Australia? How about the Fat Duck? How about The French Laundry? Spago, Gordon Ramsey, Nahm, Charlie Trotter? Those are all restaurants that have worldwide attention. There are no restaurants in Italy that get that type of attention these days. How about fish? Italy is a country that is surrounded by water. Name one chef in that country who is famous for preparing fish? In France you have Divellac, Minchelli and a few others and in the U.K. you have Rick Stein. Why are there no restaurants or chefs in Italy that are famous for preparing fish? And more importantly, why are there no restaurants or chefs in Italy that are famous for any reason at all during the last ten years? Peter - I stated three reasons why high end Italian cooking isn't relevant. Word of mouth, cookbook releases especially ones that are imported into the U.S. and U.K., and articles published in the food press about chefs or restaurants in Italy. You completely ignored my *factual* evidence to try and change the subject into what Italians like. You then upon ignoring the facts I laid out, called it a matter of my opinion. Well I'm sorry if you don't like those facts. I know, facts can be pretty stubborn. And all your name calling of me, your snide comments and your buffoonery will not change those stubborn little facts that show you really don't know what you are talking about. Show me evidence that says Italian restaurants, chefs, or cuisine are getting attention on a worldwide basis? Because that is the only statement I have made. That they aren't and that the reason is that they have failed at the haute cuisine level. Telling me that Italians "like their pasta that way" is not responsive to anything I've said. I'm glad you liked Arzak. My meal was "correct" and nothing more. I apply a higher standard then that. And I've heard others (especially chefs) agree with you gush about the place as well. Maybe I was there on an off night. But then again, I haven't had anyone whose opinion I really trust think the place is better then very good. Tony - I think JD's point was to say to Peter that in spite of his not agreeing with my style or substance, the posts are supposed to be about the topic, not a person. I fail to see how your last post is really any different then Peter's, albeit said in a friendlier tone. If you have something to say about me, or too me, that is what the PM system or email is for. But trying to say it publicly only means you want to draw the attention of others to the conversation.

Adam - Thanks for a measured and unbiased response. And before I respond, everyone is acting like I do not like Italian food, or that I do not understand how good "real" Italian food can be in Italy. Quite the contrary. I know it quite well and have enjoyed it there on numerous occassions. In fact I'm on my way there in a few weeks to do nothing but eat and go wine tasting. So in spite of the protestations of a number of people here, it isn't a matter of me not liking the food. I have actually made one very narrow point which is, at the level of dining we would call high end, Italian restaurants and their chefs have had very little impact on diners outside of Italy. Now I haven't offered that as an opinion, I have offered it as a fact based on three things. Word of mouth amongst travelers, cookbooks published by authors, more importantly ones that are imported into the U.S. and to U.K. specialty cookery shops, and articles published in the specialty food press for either travelers or professionals in the industry. I think anyone here who keeps track of these things would corroborate what I just said as being true. Now it used to be different. There was a time between 1982-1992 where the "new cuisine" in Italy was of interest to many people. Nuvina cucina was hot. Pictures of Gualtiero Marchesi's open ravioli appeared everywhere and other restaurants were getting big press and people were talking about the chefs. But around 1992, maybe a little bit later it died. And since then it has had very little relevance to the three categories I layed out. Now the Italian lovers on the board hate to hear the truthful answer to why that is the case. But the reason is because the chefs were basically unsuccessful at creating a modern version of Italian cuisine that people outside of Italy were interested in. Of course that doesn't mean that the food they were cooking wasn't any good, it just wasn't good enough to compete for attention on the worldwide food scene. And to many of us who know what eating in Italy can be like, and understand how good it can be on a lesser level of dining, we always scratch our heads that not a single chef in Italy figured out how to push the cuisine to a higher expression of culinary artistry. That is why the various protestations put forth here do not respond to this point. Italy might have great cooking in the style of grandmothers but the country is without a Alice Waters, Thomas Keller, Wolfgang Puck, Nobu etc. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that those of us who are "gastrotourists" would find that odd and would wonder why that is the case? As for your specific point about Spain, I've been to Arazak (overrated but a terrific and cheap wine cellar) but your paraphrasing is a little bit off. What I have said is that the regions that the Spanish version of haute cuisine is taking place in does not have many other tourist attractions. Like you used to be able to go to the Cote D'Azur for a week and combine museums, beach, shopping etc. with 3 three star restaurants and 4 two star restaurants plus a bunch of famous casual places. The Costa Brava and the Basque region are not user friendly in the same way and to eat at the four starred restaurants on the Cosata Brava means some awfully quiet days. You are literally going there just to eat. I can assure you there is no shortage of restaurants in Italy serving their indiginous version of haute cuisine. There are hundreds of them and they are super famous inside Italy. It isn't unusual to be there and to put on the TV and to see someone like Vissani or some other super modern chef making something wild looking. But nobody outside of Italy cares about it. In fact even the people on this board who have been arguing against my position don't care about it. They are pushing traditional Italian cuisine. It really has nothing to do with Francophile or Italophile or anything else. It has to do with the fact that the French, and the Spanish, and in some part the British and the Americans are successful at their haute cuisine and the Italians are not as successful. That's the whole thing in a nutshell and I don't know why that statement has everyone so fertootsed because it is to a large extent, generally true.

Wilfrid - We are having a similar discussion to your point about haute cuisine being a marketing label in the Italy/relevance thread. It doesn't surprise me that the first use of the phrase coincides with the era when the French applied arts started to really boom. In fact the famous exhibition of art deco furniture organized by Levy was 1929 I believe. As we have discussed on threads about British cuisine, the French seemed to prosper between the wars. Others had a harder time of it.

Mogsob - Well thanks for getting this conversation back on track. But the original question really implies, why haven't they created their own version of haute cuisine. They certainly have tried. I've eaten in a number of restaurants. And as I said earlier, they aren't bad places to dine. They are good. But they are missing that special element that the French have incorporated into their cuisine. As to the issue of whether this new cuisine is culturally consistant and not international in style, I also think that doesn't make a difference. Remove the burdern of it having to be Italian to qualify. All it needs are an Italian chef, or a restaurant in Italy. Even with lowering the bar to that standard we still can't name a single person or place that "makes the list." Robert S. - And there are many great deco furniture designers from Italy as well. As to the rest of your point, see above.

Paella

Robert - Gee did I say that they (the Italians) didn't have good 20th century furniture and decorative arts? I just said that they didn't elevate their artisans to the same extent that the French did. And architects and designers like Charreau worked in large part for an upper middle class clientele. How about rue Mallet-Stevens in the 16th arrondisment? A street of upper middle class houses. Or Corbusier houses built for private clients in Paris and the South? The point isn't that French decorative arts and cuisine was superior (even though that might be the case,) the point is that the French created flourishing industries around special craftsmen in those fields to a far greater extent then any other country in Europe. It's the same for Austrian decorative arts dating from the turn of the century isn't it? Someone should do a quick study to see if cooking techniques that were devised for the Mitteleuropa cuisine championed by people like David Bouley were developed contemporaneously with that period of decorative arts. As for modern cuisine being indiginous versus it being international, why do you think that is? What about the cuisines of Spain, Italy and a few other countries made them not conducive to invent a higher tier of technique to be applied to traditional cooking philosophy? Only two things stick out to me. Like Italy, Spain's national dish relies on starch which isn't conducive for haute cuisine, and their inability to be able to afford good quality meat and poultry, and their inability (because of lack of affordability) to serve them whole or in large slices. That and the fact that during the most formative period of French applied arts (1920-1940,) those countries were in the throes of fascism. Look at Germany and what the Nazis did to the Bauhaus. Do you think German food fared much better then Kandinsky did?

Jones you are thinking like a mathematician. Just because Italy did not create a level of artisans that catered to a UMC doesn't mean they didn't have one. Agreed that it is likely the case but not necessarily. It could have been cultural reasons that kept them from expressing themselves in that manner. But if you look at the decorative arts of the early 20th century. the French are at the head of the class. Yes there are designers and architects from other countires who made an impact, but a large percentage of them are French. Do you find it surprising that their cooking proficiency developed contemporaneously with their development in other decoravtive arts? And why do you think that is? Remember this is going on between the wars. When the Brits started eating pie again. And when the Spaniards and Italians were headed towards putting Fascist governments in place.

You mean why did the French create a level of artisan that didn't exist in the Italian system? Money. Which is what we keep coming back to. Haute cuisine, like Pierre Charreau homes and furniture, is a function of a middle class with discretionary income. Like I asked earlier, show me the Italian equivelant of creations like the Maison du Verre. I think it's the same in all countries where a culinary revolution took place. The U.S., U.K., Spain, etc. Burgeoning upper middle classes with lots of discretionary income to spend on what were historically luxury items.

Peter P. - The dish you mentioned has gotten no publicity that I know of, I and nobody seems to be talking about it. In fact there aren't *any* Italian chefs who the international food scene seems to be interested in, nor have they created dishes people seem to be interested in. That isn't my opinion, it's an observation of what the facts are. Of course you can disprove me and tell me one Italian chef or dish he created that people are talking about. Tony - I don't care whether they want it corrected, I want it corrected. I'm the customer and I want them to deliver the goods. They deliver the goods in France, they deliver them in Spain, and in far more then 2 places these days, they are starting to deliver them in the U.K. and in the U.S., Australia, Japan, etc. They are generally not delivering them on the haute cuisine level in Italy. And for you to say they don't want to correct it is bullshit. They must have 300 restaurants in the category trying to get it right. None of them, aboslutely zero have had any impact on the culinary world in the last 10 years. Robert S. - I used facile as in the facility to change positions easily. Not to accuse you of being simpleminded. I didn't even know that use of the word existed. My apologies if you took it the wrong way.

Just to show you how facile the arguments are in this thread. You say the following; And in your last sentence you then say the following; Well if you notice, I originally said the 50 top chefs. And my choice of words was a specific one. When I said it, I didn't mean home chefs. And I didn't mean chefs in school cafeterias. And I didn't mean chefs on cruise ships. The inference of who I meant was obvious, yet I have to defend it from other inferences. "Chefs" are people who cook in what we would consider as restaurants on the "haute cuisine" level. Are there any other types of chefs we ever talk about? I don't understand what the problem with saying that, Italy has completely failed to produce chefs or restaurants that are as well known or influential as chefs and restaurants in most every other country that has an upper middle class. I look at that as a huge failure on the part of Italian cuisine. And I also think it is too bad and something that should be corrected. And constantly telling me that I can get a plate of fresh and delicious calamari there isn't responsive to that point. I already know the calamari is great there. I've been there 10 times and I've eaten many a good meal. But all the "haute cuisine" type meals I've eaten there while fine, are disappointing when I impose the same standards I would impose on a place like Gagnaire or the French Laundry.

Peter - All of your arguments, Macrosan's arguments and Tony's arguments are about the definition of the words. All of you want to do nothing else but to prove that the inference that I am drawing (and which many other people here drew as well) is not the exclusive definition of those words. WE ALL AGREE ABOUT THAT But what we also said is that using our definition, high end Italian food does not have much relevance to people. Nobody seems to be rushing to eat at the restaurants. Nobody seems to be writing articles about the food. And I haven't seen any of the chefs on TV, in magazines or in newspapers. In fact you ate at 4 of the "relevant" restaurants yourself and didn't like them. If we agree on that, there really is nothing more to say about it unless you (and the others) keep insisting that I can't use my definitions. And if that is the case, please read the thread and you will find that there is an entire cast of people who have accepted them. So I don't know what to tell you. The fact that you can get a good plate of spaghetti and meatballs or fried calamari has nothing to do with the fact that, Ferran Adria, Heston Blumenthal, Thomas Keller, Nobu, and countless other chefs DO NOT COME FROM ITALY. In fact if you were to make a list of the top 50 chefs in the world, it is questionable that a single Italian would make the list. That's what some of us have been talking about and I don't see how you telling me that your squid dish was delicious responds to that point. Nobody but people who are diehards for Italian cuisine is paying any attention to that dish. That isn't a matter of opinion. It's a fact.

Yes of course if that is what Fat Guy meant. But Fat Guy modified the definition of gourmets by saying as it applies to "modern gastronomy." In that context if modern gastronomy means "latest technique," how does Macrosan's answer apply. Or why don't you just tell me what "modern gastronomy" means?

Macrosan - I commend you for a noble answer and its respectable attempt to honor the Italian tradition of dining and cuisine. And it is all true as well. But whether it applies to the original question depends on the definition of the word "gourmets" and what they like to eat. If you are willing to call Chez Panisse etc. "modern gastronomy," sure it has much relevance. But if the definition of the term is those restaurants who create, and/or adapt, the latest techniques in cooking, your answer doesn't apply. And I'm not even representing what Fat Guy meant because there is room for both answers. But, I'm not sure why people like Tony are being so stubborn when they refuse to admit that if "gourmets" is defined as people who are interested in modern cooking technique, that it is very easy to conclude that it isn't extremely relevant. Robert S. - Thank you for that clarification. As you have written, the practice of haute cuisine is not to be confused with other styles of cooking or dining. So if we infer (haute cuisine and its derivitives) onto Fat Guy's question, we can answer it a certain way. And if we don't draw that inference you can answer it another way. Dom - Your post is funny. It reminds me that whenever I look at the menu of a Chinese restaurant in Paris and I see "Raviolis de Crustace ala Vapeur," they really mean steamed shrimp wontons .

Well how about two star restaurants? One star restaurants? How about starred restaurants on France? What experience do you have in any of these restaurants where your opinion would be informed to the point that it would give rise to you making personal comments about me and my opinion? Did you ever consider that I'm right and that the reason you don't know that it is because you haven't eaten in any of these places? Your comments a few pages back were in relation to why Italian cuisine *isn't* relevant. Now you have been arguing that it might be depending on how we define relevant. Which one is it? Relevant or nor relevant?

Come on. Tell us what you really know about this topic. Or is criticizing me and my opinion the best you can do?