Steve Plotnicki

Fat Guy - While I agree with everything in your last post, isn't the threshold issue, is there such a thing as bad abstract art? Which raises the question of how would we know in this instance? What's the difference between bitter as an aesthetic statement and bitter that's unenjoyable and is used inappropriately?

Well how come those betalnuts that everyone in Guam eats and which are addicting didn't catch on elsewhere?

It's rewarding when one gets a "yup" from Wilfrid. Other great thinkers on this site (like Lxt) are much stingier with the yups even when I'm right .

It's a strawman question. What Fat Guy wants to know is why it lacks relevance.?Or, maybe it has relevence that he doesn't know of. That's why he framed the question that way. It gives someone who thinks it has relevance the chance to offer proof.

But you are discussing art in the abstract. Restaurant cuisine is not in the abstract. It has parameters we accept and which are identified as "dining." Dining is something we do, not something the artist creates. It just so happens that artists or craftsmen create things that are part of our dining experience. Now of course we can rehash the "what is dining?" discussions we have so often. But again that is in the abstract. I submit that when we walk in the door at a place like Gagnaire the dining experience is sufficiently framed that the reference points we adopt are the standard ones. Someone touched on this point. Was it Michael? And that is the exact issue I am raising. Has Gagniare "crossed the threshold" of what is acceptable to diners into a sort of area that is more like performance art that features food, some delicious, some challenging etc.?

Hollywood - No that's backwards. The question started with the assumption (correctly so) that the answer is no.

Lxt - I don't believe that you can use your Stravinsky's point as being analagous. Food isn't art. You don't need to enjoy Stravinsky's music for it to be good art. In fact it can be great art and disturbing music. But horrible tasting food isn't "good" food no matter how artistic or cerebral it is. You can't serve rotten, moldy food with maggots on it and claim it makes an aesthetic statement so it is "good food." Food, like clothing or decorative arts has to have a pleasing functionality in order for it to be good.

Adam, Wilfrid & Hollywood - We can argue about the definition of relevence all day long. But Fat Guy, myself, Francesco, etc. are all using the same definition. Clearly Italian food is relevent as a cuisine because it is the most popular cuisine that people cook at home or eat when they go out. What we mean when we say "relevent" is what other chefs, food critics, and a certain type of person who eats at a high level for a hobby are currently talking about. For example, Adam, when you were in Tuscany over the summer, did you eat at Arnolfo, Enoteca Pincchiori, Gambero Rosso, Da Caino or La Tenda Rossa? Those are all mutli-star restaurants in Tuscany that the type of person we are describing would travel out of their way for. Of course everyone loves a great Bisteca Fiorentina and a plate of Fagiole. But those aren't dishes that are among the chatter in the worldwide food scene. And if you don't know it, there was a time in the late 80's and early 90's when the Italian chefs were making a push to be noticed. Chefs like Marchesi were getting international attention. I remember articles about La Scaletta in Milan where people were writing poetry about Pina (the chef's) blueberry risotto. So there was an Italian new wave. But it never really peaked. It never had the impact on the high level of international dining that the rest of us are using as the threshold for the definition of relevence. Francesco - But you, Robert B. and I keep touching on this point in different ways. The reason there was a demand for haute cuisine in France is that they built a restaurant culture. And the reason they were able to build a restaurant culture was because there was a class of people with discretionary income. This ability to spend money on "frivolous things," or as Robert so succinctly put it, "decoration" is a French phenomenon. Look at the great French architects and designers, Guillmard, Charreau, Mallet-Stevens, Corbusier, their masterpieces are constructed for private clients. Look at Charreau's Maison du Verre. (which I know how to see for those who are deperate,) It was built as a combination doctor's office and family residence. How much more middle class can you get? That a tradition of fine dining came to the fore in France happened contemporaneously with a tradition of a certain type of fashionable clothing, and fashionable furniture for your home. All things that rely on a class of people with sufficient discretionary income. But your point about innovators is a good one. The world is organzied according to masterpieces. Schools of thought are much easier to sell if you can point to the masterpieces the schools created. They are symbolic of the entire underpinnings being formulated properly so here is the masterpiece which our great theory has produced. So putting it in the terms that the original question was stated in which is relevence, not a single Italian chef that I can think of has produced a dish that is pointed to on the worldwide stage as contributory. But I agree with you about the English chefs. Their fame is disproportionate to their contribution. It arises mostly from their location. A cab ride instead of a flight away. Fat Guy - When I go to a French restaurant and they serve me risotto or apply balsamico to my food, I find it bogus. Leave that for the Italians. Even if it tastes good. It never strikes me as being authentically French. Aside from those examples, the cuisines of both Piemonte and Liguria have much in common with the Savoie and the Alpes Maritimes. This changes as you go further south into Emiglia-Romana and Tuscany where the cuisine starts to take on an Italian identity. It's the same in the Dolomites where the cuisine is extremely Germanic. Go to Bolzano and you would think you are eating German food. But considering that the hotbed of Spanish cooking are the regions that abut the French border, the Basque region and Catalonia, one would think that Liguria and the Savoie are the most likely candidates to have spawned the Italian Adria.

Well the wealthy Bolgnese had a tradition of cooking stewed meats in fancy sweet sauces. Today's Bollito Misto is the heir to that line of cuisine. And it is also true that the further north you go, the cooking gets more like French and German cuisine. But they all still have a pasta course. Actual pasta in Emiglia-Romana and risotto or polenta in the north. How come, if they adopted the culinary traditions of their neighbors, did they not abandon the pasta tradition? How come Veal Milanese (wienerschnitzel) follows the pasta course?

Adam - I can't take exception with what you said. But you are avoiding the socio-economic aspects of the cuisines and what is ingrained in the heart of the populations. What I'm really getting at is that the Italian penchant for pasta has to do with their inability to divorce themselves from their peasant past. It's like the Brits continuting to eat pie after they could afford not to . Not that I am saying the Italians should discard pasta as part of their daily life. But their inability to discard it at the haute cuisine level has prevented them from creating what Fat Guy is describing (and which I agree with) a relevent cuisine. Every top rated restaurant in Italy serves a pasta course. Like Robert said, it's the heart of the meal. But this clinging to the peasant past has not hampered the development of French cuisine where large, thick slices of slowly braised or roasted meats were served as the main attraction and where the carbohydrates were turned into a side dish.

Gee the last series of posts were terrific. In order; Bux - Well it depends on the chef. Some chefs telegraph what their food is about. Take Pacaud. He doesn't serve a tasting menu. It's a three course affair. After you eat there, it is very easy to realize that he offers a no-frills approach to fine dining. Large portions of the best ingredients cooked perfectly. And that I didn't like my meal there has nothing to do with my being able to deduce his intentions. Same with Passard, a meal I obviously like. It isn't hard to tell what his goals are when you eat there. He has reduced his aesthetic in a way where it has real clarity to it. I can't say the same thing about Gagnaire because I can't figure out what it's about. On my first meal there, my pork dish was a mastepiece. I walked away from that meal knowing more about pork then I knew before. That had the type of clarity I like in a meal. But this meal was lacking that sense of purpose and I walked out of there not only not liking my meal, but confused. There can be a number of reasons for this. But in keeping with the genral theme of the last few posts, it is possible that the level of abstraction is beyond what I, or eaters in general can tolerate? That is the issue with Gagnaire. Is it abstract art or is it gobbledygook? And, I think this is the real question, is there such a thing as food that is the equivelent of abstract art or is it a false premise to begin with? This gets back to the converation we had about Adria and the notion of being delicious. Schaem - Your post is evidence of what I am trying to get at in my response to Bux. Is the pairing of oysters and Foie gras a brilliant pairing? Is it an expression of Gagnaire's restlessness? Is it gobbledygook? Michael - The obvious response to this also has to do with the notion of "deliciousness." Ultimately food is a sensual exercise. And I can't see that Gagnaire won't be tied to the deliciousness standard. The question to ask is whether his artistry has surpassed the threshold of creativity that seems natural given the technique he applies. Which is pretty much standard French technique. Serving Foie gras and peanut butter might be a brilliant personal statement by an artist but it won't matter if people think it tastes lousy. Chefs, are bound by the ideal that the emotion they have to elicit is "yum." Evoking the emotion of "isn't that interesting" is entiely dependant on converting that into a yum on additional visits. Because I'd hate to see us use a standard that says hard to understand is accpetable just because the chef exhibits artistic flair and surface brilliance (not that I am accusing Gagnaire of that.) Fat Guy - The easiest knock against Gagnaire is that certain of the dishes that he serves you among all those small plates are good enough on their own for him to offer them as a full sized portion. This is the biggest flaw that I can see. He sacrifices what can be permanent greatness for the right to submerge them into a multi-flavor and texture statement so he can make an artistic statement. That is what makes his restaurant so difficult for people. There are no set pieces from his repetoire of dishes to sample. And I'm sure he has them, he just isn't interested in offering them because he is an "artiste." Now I'm not criticizing him for this but I think much of his criticism would go away if he had a few anchors to his cuisine. This issue goes to a point that Robert B. always talks about. What chefs do these days. The contemporary chefs like Gagnaire and Adria dictate what you are going to eat and really don't offer much choice. They work as if they are real artists, and each time you visit there is an entirely new show of their works. ButI think most diners have more of a museum approach to these places. They want the reference point of a few pieces that offer the essence of the artists style.

Mogsob - Are posts on eGullet art? Adam - I have a copy of the Artusi. I was just laying in wait for you so I could come out of the bushes. The theme of the book is also to eat in a healthy manner correct? My question wasn't about was their cooking for the aristocrats. Obviously if there were aristocrats they would get hungry everyday . My question was, like France, how come aristocratic cuisine in Italy didn't convert to a local version of haute cuisine like it did in France? If I can Plotnickiize the answers in three parts (sounds like a sonata doesn't it.) 1. No centralized seat of power 2. Not a great restaurant culture (which is a wealth distribution issue and probably is partially caused by number 1) 3. Stuck with a pasta course at every meal The pasta course, as Robert alluded to is really the cornerstone of Italian cuisine, and it's also the weight that hangs around its neck. It is really an ingenius invention of the poor. It takes the smallest amount of meat, braises it either in or to make some sauce, and then flavors the paste. There are unlimited variations. Every single thing on a menu that can be served either on their own, or as a side dish can be cut in a shape and prepared in a way where it can be spooned atop the right shape and thickness pasta. So I think there is a fourth reason 4. They spent too much time making the pasta I know that is sounds funny (I am actually laughing out loud) but it's sort of true. About ten years ago when there was some type of buzz in the foodie community about novina cucina, one of the food magazines in Italy offered a supplement with recipes from the top chefs which were beautifully photgraphed. A good percentage of them were of modern variations of pasta. In fact the single most famous dish (and possibly the only dish) to come out of that era was Gualtiero Marchesi's open ravioli with gold leaf. So I would say, in that conclusory Plotnicki tone, that spending endless time trying to make a bunch of paste and water sophisticated in the way the French would call something sophisticated is a waste of time. I see this as the defining difference between the cuisines. It isn't as though the French lacked good wheat and water either. They could have made a pasta course. Why did they reject that method of dining in favor of something else? It has to come down to money and the ability of a middle class being able to extract the ingredients from a plate of pasta and serve them whole. Let's take a ragu Bolognese. What is it? It's some chopped meat, vegetables and herbs cooked to a gruel. It's a good foil for a plate of pasta as it moistens and flavors it. But if you are in France they will serve you the same exact thing except the meat is cut into larger pieces and they call it a stew. And what do they serve it with? Some pates. Wide noodles like pasta. Or they serve it with rice. Except there is one gigantic difference. Instead of serving it on the pasta, they serve it alongside. And then they take a few spoonfuls of gravy to moisten and flavor the pasta. The pasta has been transformed from being part of the dish to being an accompaniment. Divorcing the main ingredient from the paste seems like a very small point, but I think it's at the heart of why Italian food seems anchored to its pasta, oops I mean its past (are there any etymologists who can check that?) Why? Most food cultures have had a golden age where they discarded old traditions and adopted new ones. How come the Italians insist on using pasta as their canvas for everything they cook?

Fat Guy - She speaks of his narrowing his focus in relation to when he cooked in St. Ettiene. So what she is describing as narrow I might be describing as "all over the place." He hasn't compressed the essence of Gagnaire according to my definition of what essence means. Cabby - I don't mean to say that a particular Gagnaire dish is over my head, it's just that there is so much going on with the food that it's hard for me to honestly say I have a complete grasp of his intentions. And before I offer an opinion that is conclusory, I want to feel that I understand what makes his food tick. Which I honestly can't say is true today.

Robert - But what about the Italian arostocracy? As was nicely demonstrated on one of those history of French cooking threads, the aristocracy supported people like La Varenne and his peers and somehow that evolved into French cuisine. Is there no Italian equivelent other then Catherine di Medici? Did the Italian noblemen eat peasant food? I find that hard to swallow. I happen to agree with you about pasta. The concept of a pasta course has subsumed the entire Italian meal.

Robert - Are you trying to say that the French raised the concept of fashion into being a form of art? It sounded like that was what you were saying. And if that's the case, isn't that a function of their catering to the bourgoisie? You know more about this then I do but, doesn't it all come down to the fact that Italian cuisine is based on the notion of food as sustenance and the French have added frivolity(is that the right word) and fancifullness to the equation? And if this line of thinking is correct, where does one put Italian opera in the mix, a discipline that mixes the most frivolous themes with the most profound technique? How come the Italians didn't evolve their cuisine like they evolved their arias?

I'll go along with that Fat Guy said with one small observation of my own. Most tasting menus are served one dish at a time. In response to some answers here, I've given Gagnaire a little poetic license and said maybe he should serve two. But what he does is serve 4-6 at a time. And while when it is working it can be fantastic, when it isn't working it compounds the negative aspects of his cuisine. But I am raising a further question about that approach which is to ask if it is somewhat dated? The "shock value" of getting a small plate of sweetbreads with your John Dory (which is what he served the cousin) doesn't seem as cutting edge anymore. This part of the conversation reminds me of how men who dress stylishly usually start dressing more conservatively as they get older. Yes they keep their stylishness and flair, but they have compressed the essence of themselves into smaller touches that often make an even stronger statement. Brash and outwardly bold statements wear well with the young. That's my best take on it from this vantage point. Which is basically my gut because I'm not experienced enough with Gagnaire's cuisine to really formualate an opinion I would call conclusory.

Well you have raised another aspect of why a meal at Gagnaire is difficult. The menu really doesn't reflect what you are going to eat. There are so many dishes with each course, many of them not listed on the menu. that in some ways it's like a smack across the face. I was actually thinking of raising this point in my main review but thought it would be better if someone else here evoked it so the context would be framed correctly. In essence what Gagnaire does is to serve you a tasting menu with many small plates served at the same time. And when I refer to his cuisine as having "flourishes" or I call it "symphonic," it's that aspect of the cuisine I am trying to articulate. But it's also the approach to the meal that I felt was sort of dated this time. I think I would prefer it if he served the meal in three sections, and each section was then comprised of five or six dishes that he served one or two at a time. I think that approach, or some other approach which makes the diner more focused on each plate would bring a little clarity to the cuisine. For example, my lobster three ways had three little plates laid out in front of me with three other plates of various side dishes scattered about. In many ways the side dishes were a distraction. I think I would have like it more, and he would have made a clearer statement if he served the three lobster preparations like they lay out three pieces of different quality toro in front of you. There is an inherent way to eat them built into the way they serve it to you.

Well I guess the meal could be over my head. And it also could be that the spring menu (which is what he was still serving) wasn't a particularly good one. But that isn't my instinct. If the meal wasn't an off night, I would say that Gagnaire has hit a fork in the road. He has been cooking in this improvisational, large flourishes of flavor and textures style for more then 20 years now. Once upon a time it represented the avant garde but I don't think that's true anymore. Gagnaire's notion of unique pairings and combinations has been surpassed by the way the Spanish brigade has thought about, and presents food. In fact I thought my meal at Fat Duck was more unusual then my meal at Gagnaire. That isn't to say necessarily better. It's just to look at them both in relation to where the cutting edge in dining is these days. And I also think that's a different point then how good did the meal taste? And maybe looking back at the meal now, there is an aspect to it that seems dated. That's probably why my gut instinct is that Gagnaire should change emphasis and not stress improvisation and wide flourishes as much as he used to and offer a more concise version of what Pierre Gagnaire's all about. That is as opposed to his traditional emphasis which was always focused on what he can do.

Because the taste of real Italian food is dependent on the ingredients being from the terroir. Why Babbo is more successful at it is they go out of their way to try and replicate that taste, sometimes to the point of importing handpicked ingredients. I remember I once went to the Italian Wine Merchant when they first opened. They were serving as hors d'ouvres for their customers a soft salami that Bastianich brough in from Trieste less then 2 hours before. The stuff was phenomenol. The best salami I ever tasted. And one of the reasons is that it tasted of being there. This theme of "local ingredients' is a major theme that runs through all aspects of European cooking. Take carnoroli rice. What makes it so good when you eat it in Italy? Is it the water they use in Lombardy? . Is it the butter they use that makes the risotto be rich and creamy? Or what are the cows are fed? Because when you get it to NYC the quality of the risotto it makes isn't anywhere as good. I think Italy exported their cuisine to the best of their ability, save for the concept of local terroir which they couldn't replicate here. And because they couldn't replicate the terroir, we ended up with the style and not the substance. A lot of food that walks, talks and feels Italian but isn't really Italian. But I think that chefs like Collicchio and Alice Waters are correcting this mistake on the part of the American food business. But now that they have found that appropriate ingredients are available, there is no need to copy Italian cuisine because we are well on the way of developing a local cuisine that is indiginous to America. It's that point that makes the "relevency" of Italian cooking strategy, and the question of why it never flourished a relevent question. And unless someone who is a champion and innovator appears on the scene, they will be relegated to the delicious, but more like home food category.

Wilf - Don't worry. You wouldn't get a portion that is big enough to do more then whet your appetite. What he does is take the central ingredient that you order and offer you many small plates with different preparartions of that ingredient. So it isn't like you are going to get a tranch of woodcock that is going to make your eyes bug out of your head, A small square of the meat is more likely. This style was seemingly broken for my wife and the fiance because they recieved a gigantic plate of wet duck meat. But where it can be great is if the various presentations, and the various side dishes are well coordinated, which in this instance I don't think they were. But for example, with the lobster they served me what was essentially a mano flan, even though they called it "glace." It was terrific on it's own, but it didn't add anything to the overall dish. And in fact it clashed with the best of the three lobster preparations which was with ginger and citron.

Bux - My point was that the people in the countries I mentioned have developed a taste for French food. But the Italians don't see to have developed a taste for it the same way. Witness Fancesco's tale of Ca Leivi and the locals calling it "French" when he thinks it's the perfect Ligurian restaurant.

Hey Balic don't make this thread go down that road. Mogsob's point about peasant cuisine really has nothing to with how Italian cuisine evolved. If the French could get over peasant cuisine, the Italians should have been able to as well .

At the Daniel level yes. I think the food at Cafe Boulud can be better then at the main restaurant. Not better as in attempting to meet the same standards, better as in more interesting to eat given what it is. Less luxury on your plate and more food.

Adam - It is known as trolling for pedants. It's so fuuny that in typical eGullet style, the comment I made about sushi now includes my having said something negative about soba and udon. Well that's why Moroccan, Chinese, Turkish and many other great cuisines of the world seem to be standing still. I still think that what drives modern cuisine is extra money in the economy at the upper middle classe level. No bourgoise, no inventive cuisine.

Okay, I think that Daniel and restaurants like it in NYC are at a disadvantage when comparing them to their French counterparts. The level of intimacy and detail that exist at a meal in France is not present in NYC at anyplace other then Ducasse. So if we put that issue to the side and assume that if Daniel was in Paris the scope of the meal would be tweaked accordingly, from the standpoint of conception and execution the food is at the level of a three star restaurant . And in fact I believe that if Daniel was operating a restaurant in France instead of NYC he would have three stars. But he would have to tweak he way he presents himself to conform to Michelin standards. But none of that is to say I had a great meal there. My meal there was just good to very good, with a few stunning dishes thrown in. But there is not much seperating a meal at Taillevent from a meal at Daniel other then the obvious diminution in quality that comes from serving 200 dinners as opposed to 65. And indeed after Vrinat, Daniel is probably one of the hospitable and charming hosts in the restaurant business.