Steve Plotnicki

Robert - To take one aspect of your very impressive post, one of the more rewarding moments of being a wine collector is when you can dispense with the critics. Not that one can do it completely. Unless you are a professional and taste every day, you need some reference point because there is too much information to gather. But if you travel to the regions you like to drink each year, you can pretty much eliminate your reliance on the critics. This is much harder to do with food. There is no way I can taste the food from Hiramatsu without going to have dinner there. This inefficiency make us rely on restaurant critics in a way we don't rely on any other field of criticism other then the movies or theater. We can test drive cars, feel the material of the suit we are buying, sit in the chair we are thinking about, we can even go over to the bookstore and read a few pages from a book we are considering. But a restaurant is one of the few things where you have to actually make a purchase in order to sample the wares. And that is why we are so reliant on restaurant critics. And it's worse in France because there is only one voice which is Patricia Wells. Not that I think she does a bad job, I think she does a good job. But that doesn't leave us with much of a choice if we would like a more in depth opinion then what she usually has to offer. JD - This is essentially correct but it is oversimplfied. There is a reason they would usually choose Passard over Ducasse and that goes to the reasons they like to eat haute cuisine. Your conclusion of different schools of thought gets closest to what makes an academy tick and you would find that the people who prefer Passard all belong to the same school. But as long as you raised it in this context, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what the Academy of Perfectionism is? To me it sounds like it is really a front for conservatism. The reason that professionals are not best suited to critique their own fields is because they prioritize things differently then outsiders do. When I eat at Ducasse or Passard, it is only of secondary interest to me how a dish is made. I never get that far if the dish doesn't pass muster to begin with. In fact I am only ever interested in how they made something when I enjoy something so much, and it's qualitites are so unusual that I go out of my way to ask. I can think of a few instances recently where I did that. I asked about my spinach at Arpege and I asked about the way my cod was poached at Blue Hill. Otherwise why something tastes the way it tastes does holds no interest for me. And I can't imagine why any diner would care about it. Especially if it isn't good. And in reality, as Robert B. so succinctly put it, the quest to know can interfere with one's ability to follow the narrative. Fat Guy - I can't quite put my finger on it but there is some inconsistancy in a statement that Ducasse is the top authority on food, as evidenced by his achievements, and then saying that you don't like appeals to authority. It seems to me that in order to really speak of Ducasse's merit as a chef, you have to disepnse with arguments that rely on authorities such as Michelin stars etc. and hold his food up to the light. This is why I always gravitate to the concept of signature dishes, i.e., lifetime achievements that are recognizable on a single case basis. And I don't look at the entire body of an artist's work. This conversation would be at a much higher level if we actually discussed Ducasse's food, and could hear why you think particular dishes are good? The arguments set forth by those who admire Passard's cuisine are replete on this board and his famous dishes are spoken of and discussed all of the time. Yet there is very little written about Ducasse's actual food other then he made it. In fact I don't know of a single dish of his that is recognizable. And I don't know of any achievement of his that would call for a new codification of the cuisine. Clearly if he had invented something new, whether it be a type of cuisine, a new technique to apply to food, or a new philosophy about food I would have heard of it. I do read a few food articles you know. Exactly what is it that he is codifying? Isn't it codified already? Or is he just rewriting the same old codifications and changing the name of the author?

No the main difference between Bach and Ducasse is that Bach invented the harmonic combinations and Ducasse is just refining existing codifications by tweaking the techniques. It lacks the originality and creativity that Bach showed in his time. Adria is the one who is inventing and codifying an entirely new technique these days. Well excellence is fine. Chefs and other professionals in the field value excellence. But what people ultimately value is self-expression. Ducasse can make the perfect chicken with melting root vegetables but it isn't fine if the dish leaves people cold. That he did it perfectly will never be good enough for me. He has to do it with passion. Sure Ducasse is a force in the market and has a body of work that can't be matched by anyone else. But I personally don't see it as having that much impact on the food I eat. And again, it comes back to the notion of signatures. If his chicken with melting root vegetables was copied the world over, I would probably feel differently about him. And without specific instances to point to, there is very much an emperor's new clothes aspect to his work. But maybe he will be like Van Gogh and years from now people will copy his recipes and they will be served all over the world. But I have to tell you I don't see it. And I certainly can't taste it when I go to his restaurants. And you are right about Ducasse slow cooking the vegetables first. But that also makes the point that he didn't offer an aesthetic around the improvement in technique. Passard did and that is why he got the credit. And I'm sure that it was the same for Bach. I'm sure there were lots of composers at the time who were tinkering with those harmonic combinations. But Bach, like Shakespere, like Louis Armstrong, captured something human in the way he did his codifications that made people feel it in their gut, not just intelctualize them in their brain. And that's why he got the credit. He didn't do the best job of inventing it, he did the best job of presenting it.

Fat Guy - That was one of your best posts ever. And I wish I had the time to address all of it. But I have been summoned by Mrs. P for a shopping mission and I shall return later. By then I am sure that Mr. Brown will have posted and some of the heat that I have been taking about explaining aesthetics will be firmly on his shoulders. But if I can comment on one thing you said, whether I am expert in Bach or not (and I'm not so there,) the one thing that is glaring in your comparison to Bach and to Ducasse is the timeframe they worked in. Whether or not you like Bach, and whether or not you find that harmonic possibilities that he codified meaningful or merely a bunch of "mathematica' formulae," it's hard to say that music would have been the same without Bach figuring it all out and writing it all down. But we are 350 years later in time. I don't see what Ducasse is adding of interest other then a refinment of the same techniques that was codified all the other chefs of the 20th century? And I knew you would agree with me about the tomatoes.

Toby - That's a funny story. I think they had mild stirpes. You sold seperate baskets of them. Not that I actually sat down with all of the tomatoes and came to a precise conclusion, but on cutting a variety of all the tomatoes and serving them those green suckers stuck out. But you are also correct when you say that different tomatoes were "better" at different points in the season. Towards the end of the season the yellow ones were better because they seemed to be firm when some of the other varietys seemed to get a little watery.

And another thing. This thread was about Arpege. It wasn't about the relative abilities of Passard versus Ducasse or the worthiness of Arpege versus any of Ducasse's establishments. It was Fat Guy who introduced the competition between the two, and who did so in a way that "dissed" Passard and Arpege. And if you were to give anyone a lecture about fine dining being a relative experience, tell your fellow moderator. But don't chide me and criticize the "stabs" I have taken at Ducasse in the context of a discussion that started and was framed by Fat Guy.

Bux - Well you see the green ones that look like plums were the best tomatoes I had this season. And based on serving them at my home on a number of occassions, most people commented about the green ones. And indeed when I had dinner at Daniel, Daniel Boulud was talking about how phenomenol the green tomatoes were as well (I'm sure Toby will fill in the name of the species.) So I don't know what to tell you. Just because you can't or didn't try to tell doesn't mean that the rest of us can't or shouldn't. And it isn't like I tried to either. It's just that they were noticeably different and superior to the point that it was obvious. The yellow tomatoes that were beefsteak like were also terrific. Not quite as distinct tasting as those green one's though. But they had a hell of a lot of flavor. And the small orange cherry tomatoes had some killer acid to them and were sweet as sugar. Those were the three best tasting of the summer to me.

But I agree that Ducasse is the world's best chef. Just like I think that Wynton Marsalis is the world's best trumpet player. In fact Ducasse is probably the best chef that ever lived. And Wynton is clearly the best trumpet player that ever lived. And like Ducasse's plates, which like you said you can identify as Ducasse, you can tell it's Wynton who is playing a mile away. His tone is magnificent. It's regal. It's the most confident tone that anyone ever brought to trumpet playing. But what does any of that have to do with what makes for a good restaurant or good jazz recordings? You are the one who always discounts the notion of "soul." You say there is no such thing. That whenever I or anybody else here uses the phrase you dismiss it as our personal preferences hiding behind words. But you couldn't be more wrong about it. There is such a thing as soul. It's what makes Ray Charles sing America better then anyone else. Or it's what makes James Brown better then his contemporaries and timeless. And it's what will make Sucker MC's last into pop music eternity (I figured I had to give myself a plug there.) And it's what makes the Ramone's a better band then groups with 100 times the technical ability. It is an individualized, unique way of applying technique to a set of variables that communicates an aesthetic to someone's core. It isn't exclusively an intelectual exercise. It's an emotional exercise too. But if you want to keep evaluating Ducasse on an intelectual level that is fine with me. But don't go trying to act as if his cooking has been stirring people's emotions. There is absolutely no proof of that either from you or anybody else. In fact, if you look at positive reviews of Ducasse you have offered, both yours and Ms. Wells, it seems that soulfull would be the last way one should describe his cuisine. But then of course we could get into a discussion of what soulful means. And then you or somebody else could claim that Ducasse has soul. Like people used to claim that Pat Boone sang with more soul then Little Richard. And that wouldn't surprise me either. If eGullet can tolerate a discussion which questions the quality of Montrachet versus St. Veran, and has posters who ask for empirical proof that Montrachet is superior, yes the food that Ducasse offers can be soulful, creative, original and anything else you can think of.

Fat Guy - There is no point for me to repeat what I have already said. I don't think what you have expressed is an aesthetic. But if you really think it is, okay I will agree with you. It's an aesthetic. Now that we got that out of the way we can shift the emphasis. I don't find that an acceptable aesthetic for a three star chef to express (solely that is.) I have a different (and more rigorous I believe) standard and I eat at that level for an entirerely different purpose. But now I can repeat myself. Among people who eat at that level for the same reasons I do, Ducasse fails. His cuisine lacks the things we look for when we go out to dine. And that is what sets him apart from a chef like Robuchon, or others who worked during the height of what I will call the nouvelle cuisine period. They managed to be perfectionsists and they expressed an aesthetic that we found, no make that was, interesting and original. And I find Ducasse, with all his perfection, because of his lack of originality and creativity on the core level, which means, moving his discipline forward on an aesthetic level (using my threshold definition) actually lowered standards by placing the emphasis on the internationalization of cuisine so he could open a chain of luxury restaurants around the world. And if you find taking the heart and soul out of fine dining to be a good thing, or a good aesthetic, be my guest. But when people ask me why the food tastes the same everywhere in the world, I am going to refer them to you.

Well Italy is just another 15 minute drive down the coast road. Balzi Rossi is literally right across the border. Like 100 feet from the actual line. They have pretty good risotto there.

Fat Guy - Let's keep the debating technique to a minimum and keep the discussion to Ducasse and not about what I said. There is review of my March 2000 meal of Ducasse pasted into one of the threads on this site. It was a fair review, and if you recall, I liked my meal more then not. But it was nowhere near a perfect meal. Not even close. It wasn't even among the best 25 haute cuisine meals I've ever had. That's a long way from being perfect. As to the rest of your post, it really takes the thread down the wrong path. You and I might disagree as to the quality or validity of a chef's aesthetic, but there is no reason for there to be a disagreement about actual quality. I have enough confidence in your palate to know that if we were sitting at a table with a bowl of various tomatoes, that there would be very little disagreement as to which one was the best. And if there was, there would be an honest dispute between different types of quality and that is where personal preferences would kick in. In other words, when it comes down to sheer ingredients, your palate will usually ratify mine But I don't see any of that to be what this dispute is about. I don't see the honest disagreement. I see my offering a chef who expresses a strong aesthetic (Passard) or you brought up Thomas Keller, and I see you trying to offer perfectionism as Ducasse's aesthetic. And first of all perfectionsim is not an aesthetic, despite your valient argument as such, and second I'm wondering how you can make that proffer when it so clear that not everything Ducasse does is "perfect?" I mean there must be 500 reviews to read that pick apart his various restaurants on every level from nits to serious error. I know your response to this is that the media is against Ducasse. And that is probably true to a point. But why are they against him? Isn't it because he doesn't deliver what he promises? For someone who advertises himself as the world's best chef, unless one can harness the majority of public opinion into agreeing with you, aren't you going to get killed by the press? And if you are "perfect," shouldn't you be able to get a majority of opinion to agree with you? And don't try and misstate that as people agreeing with me. I'm a small pisher in the Ducasse criticism game. There is a body of work out there with a tremendous amount of negative criticism of the guy. I'm just wondering how you reconcile the concept of "perfectionism" with all the negative criticism when the basis of the criticism is that he is less then perfect? Spoken by the guy who always says he has no life and no friends. Heron - Just let me know when you want to go. The chef, Frank Cerruti, used to be the chef/owner of a great Italian restaurant in Nice called Don Camillo. Before he went back to work for Ducasse (he originally trained with Ducasse before going out on his own) his restaurant used to be one of my favorites on the coast. It was a small place (actually it's still there and his wife runs the place,) just a block off the pedestrian area where the market is. It was originally an old fashioned Italian joint, but when Cerrutti took it over he cooked a good combination of Nicoise and modern Italian. And it was a hip place too with the waiters running around in sort of Japanese outfits. But then Ducasse opened Monte Carlo and he hired him to be the chef there. So we went to have dinner there knowing that Frank is a great chef, and thinking that the combination with Ducasse had enormous potential. But it was so boring. Frank's risotto was better at his own restaurant then it was at Louis XV. There was no life to it anymore. It had become institutionalized and bland tasting. But there was one big improvement. Instead of the risotto being glopped onto your plate, they formed it into a perfectly shaped mound and they served it under a silver dome. So for less taste, and better shape, and the chance to eat risotto under a gilded ceiling, they charged us $50 more. But I'm ready to go whenever you are.

Fat Guy - I didn't say any of that. I said; 1. Based on my own experience Ducasse's food and restaurant are nowhere close to perfect 2. I can't find anyone who wants to go eat there with me The rest of it you made up to make the conversation look circular. But there are a whole lot of points in my last thread that you haven't responded to including why you think that an obviosuly imperfect meal is perfect?

Fat Guy - You wrote a bunch of hyperbole. If the perfection you speak of was present when I ate at Ducasse, I would gladly be the first to report it. And others I know would be reporting it as well. In fact I wish it was true. I have no vested interest to be against him. In fact I'm much happier when there are more places to eat then not. But I have seen no sign of the perfection you describe. Because if it was there, someone among us would at least be reporting that we like the place on that level alone. Here is my most typical experience with Ducasse. I went to Monte Carlo in the first year it opened. My meal was at best average. Since then I must have been in the South of France at least a dozen times. And for awhile I had the desire to go back to Monte Carlo and give it another chance. And you know every single time I tried I couldn't get the other people I was travelling with to go along. They had all eaten there at least once already and none of them liked it. In fact I probably tried to organize a Ducasse dinner on at least half a dozen occassions but I couldn't convert one opportunity into an actual meal because nobody wanted to go. And ask Robert Brown. He spends the summer in Nice. Louis XV is a 20 minutes drive down the coast road from his house. Did he go to Ducasse this summer? He schleped all the way to Troisgros for dinner, flew to Paris and ate two meals at Arpege but didn't dine down the road from his house. Why do you think that is? But even if his cuisine was "perfect," perfection doesn't live in a vaccuum. What about personality? What about sense of authorship? What about emotion? What about intelect? Those are all things I find sorely lacking at his restaurants. How can something be perfect when those things aren't present? When I was in Paris two weeks ago, I went to the Pierre Herme shop on rue Bonaparte. I bought myself an Isphahan and I went to sit on a bench in front of St, Sulpice to eat it. If you've never had one, it's a raspberry macaron with fresh raspberries on it. But when you bite into it it has an entirely different flavor and texture then you were imagining. And it was only when I started to pry the macaron apart to see what was making me so happy, I realized that I had eaten it once before at Korovo and what I was finding interesting were slices of Lychee. Now to me that's genius. Herme took a standard item and improved it to the point where he transformed it into a "better dessert." It wasn't just a plain macaron anymore. And not only that, everything about it was distinctly Pierre Herme. That's the standard I use when I evaluate food. And for my money Ducasse doesn't meet the standard.

But there are a number of diiferent circles. There is the circle that revolves around its utility. Then there is the circle that is a model of symmetry in two dimensions. Then there is the circle you describe, as one that could be ugly, that has nothing to with a circle itself but the environment in which it is presented. Some circles are presented as a geometrical shape. And some circles are presented to express something. It all depends on intent doesn't it? That brings me back to my original question. What is Ducasse's intent when he offers this "perfect food" other then to show you that food can be perfect?

First of all, perfectionism is not an aesthetic. It's a technique that is applied to an aesthetic. There are people who can draw perfect circles by hand, but that doesn't mean they make great art. Secondly, even with all of your negative comments about Passard, and I will include what Wells said as well, you both admit that Passard does have an aesthetic. Whether he executes on it or not is a different issue. Fortunately he has executed on it both times I've been there. But I also have heard of stories from people about when he has failed to execute it. But the difference of opinion comes back to why people eat out. I said this in my last post. We need to analyze who makes up a chefs critical mass of acclaim. Among the people who share my reason for fine dining, I can honestly tell you that not only do they not say that their meal and experience at Ducasse was among the best meals of their lives, I can hardly find anyone who has anything good to say about the overall experience. From my gut, if I said that Ducasse's approval factor among the people I am describing was as low as 25% I would not be exaggerating. And everything else you said is absolutely correct. Ducasse's range is much broader then Passard's. And yes Ducasse is an orchestra where Passard is a string quartet. But so what? My standard is one of being interesting and challenging. And a brilliant string quartet trumps a perfectly rehearsed orchestra that executes perfectly but does not play with a level of passion that I demand as a preprequisite to enjoyment.

Steve Klc - Thank you for a measured response that brought the tone of this thread back to the spirit of the original post and the responses it garnered. Maybe I haven't explained myself clearly. But in the context of that question it might be easier to. It all depends why you go out to eat. That functions on at least two levels. For people like myself, Cabrales and Robert B. (if I dare speak for them) our three star dining revolves around challenging the chef to move us emotionally, ephemerally and intelectually. Three star meals that are sorely lacking in those components, while they can be very enjoyable, and Ducasse falls into this category for me, very good but uninteresting, are not the reason I decide to plunk down 500 euros for a meal. And it isn't as though I use that standard for food and not for other disciplines. It's why I spend my money to see Sondheim and not Llloyd Weber. Sondheim's characters express themselves at a level of complexity that makes me want to pay $100 for a ticket. Lloyd Weber's music, while perfectly fine and hummable, and well constructed as if they are opera arias, are less interesting because it does not delve as deeply into the character's emotions. This last point segueways well into your second question (and it also does a good job of framing debates on quality and taste we have around here) which is why Ducasse and Adria are considered the top of their profession? And that's like saying to me, why do you think that Sondheim is better then Lloyd Weber when there is no comparison between their commmercial success or fame among the theater going public? LLoyd Weber wins in this category on every count. More composers are trying to emulate Phantom then Sweemey Todd. How can you take that position? The answer is it depends on what you are trying to measure. If you are trying to measure who the most successful chef is by how much they influenced current cuisine, then Adria and Ducasse are clearly at the top of their profession. But if you want to measure their work in greater detail, one of the ways of doing it is analyzing the quality of the critical mass that supports them. If you ask people who are interested in being challenged at a meal about Adria, they will all tell you it is the most challenging meal anywhere. But I believe that almost all of them would write off Ducasse in that category. But if you changed or added the component of ephemeral and sensual satisfaction to the meal, Ducasse might do better then Adria because Adria is perceived as more interested in the route to the result then the result itself. But if we add yet another component of who is the world's most complete restauranteur taking everything into account, Ducasse would win hands down over almost everybody else. I think the only person who approaches him on that count is Daniel Boulud. Like I have been saying, I am speaking for people who are in the category of wanting to be moved by a chef's work. When I ask what Ducasse's aesthetic is, the answer that heightened aesthetics is not a prime aspect of his cuisine is not a good answer as far as I'm concerned. Because heightened aesthetics is why I go out to eat. But it goes downhill even further from there when the person who advertises themselves at the world's most famous chef (and implicitly best) doesn't offer food that is interesting enough to support the proffer.

Bux - I also commend you for your modesty as well. But while your attempt to use the Cepes in Olive Oil as something that might be worth plunking the $160 for dinner at Ducasse, I can't imagine it, especially after having eaten there. If I want Cepes with olive oil I can go eat at Il Mullino (a place I hate) for $60. Fat Guy - Passard's aesthetic is minimalism. He has reduced (a good word for cooking no?) the concept of haute cuisine into two components. First, he has developed cooking techniques that are non-invasive. Everything is gently and slowly cooked to maximize flavor. He is sweating the flavor out of the food. Not only is the taste intensified, it makes his food have a certain texture (obviously one you don't like.) The vegetables are all satiny and have a crunch to softness factor that I've never seen at any other restaurant. The second aspect of his cuisine is to limit the number of principal flavors in a dish. The dishes themselves are simply composed. Look at the lobster with turnip. Thin slices of claw meat are topped by a sweet and sour sauce. The turnips are sliced so thin so as to hardly impose a taste. They are just there for crunch. But while the above might make for a bunch of interesting, or even great dishes, what makes it genius is how he has composed the meal. Intense yet subtly balanced food allows him to build a crescendo of texture. And the fact that he has texture built into the menu allows him a backdrop for how he introduces and varies acidity. Of course there is the addiitional component here of the food being cerebral. I've just described the sensual aspect of the food. I haven't even gotten into why it's interesting on a cerebral level. I will leave that for Mr. Brown to disseminate. But I will say that the point of the meal starting with an egg and ending with a chicken wasn't lost on me. Now I don't find any of what I just described at Ducasse other then he is also interested in cooking methods that maximize the flavor of the food. But on that level I find Passard extremely successful and Ducasse less so (from my own dining experience.) That is probably more about how their establishments are organized. Passard is in the kitchen and Ducasse is a brand name with a test kitchen. But I will put that point to the side. Take Ducasse's Cepes in Olive Oil promotion. What's the point of that dish? That many Italians immigrated to America and bourgoise Jews happen to like Northern Italian food? Never have I seen a menu at Ducasse that spoke to me. Occassionaly he offers a theme menu like the asparagus and morel menu that caused me to dine there. His all seafood menu was something I was interested in as well but for $250 a throw I passed. But if my $160 asparagus and morel menu was more interesting, better thought out and executed with the degree of precision that Ducasse promises, I probably would have gone back for the seafood. But here we are, 2 1/2 years later and I haven't been back. But I think the icing on the cake of this repartee is the passage you quoted from Patricia Wells which says; Well if you read through this thread, you will find that I describe the various arguments made about Ducasse (from your side of the argument) as describing luxury. And while luxury is an aesthetic in and of itself, I also go onto say that I am using aesthetic to mean something cerebral, not just ephemeral. Finally there is the issue of my liking Taillevent, where the meal is about being pampered and not about cutting edge cuisine. You want to know why I like Taillevent but do not like Ducasse (and saying I don't like Ducasse is not really correct. It's a good place, I just don't see the point of it all.) That point goes to the issue of why I go out to eat, and what it is I am interested in accomplishing at a meal of this type. Taillevent works because the proffer they make about the experince you are going to have and what they deliver are in synch. They don't promise cutting edge food, yet they have a few signature dishes on their menu that every gourmand knows and which are so good, that your pal Ms. Wells included them in her various books. The Watercress Soup (which MartyL waxed about on the Taillevent thread) the lobster sausage and the chocolate cake with the pistachio sauce. Not only that, the food is very well priced, and they have the best priced wine list, relative to their location, in the entire world of haute cuisine. We drank two Premier Cru Burgundies, one from 1989 and one from 1995 and our entire bill was less then 900 euros for four people. What a contrast with ADNY where I needed to get into the $700 a bottle range before I could find anything interesting. And that was from the original list from when they first opened. Those wines have been picked over and now the cost would be at least double. Ducasse, as far as I'm concerned, does not deliver the proffer he offers about his establishment. To me his proffer says, eat food prepared by the world's most famous chef in the most opulent environment and with the most professional service in the world, i.e., come to the world's best restaurant. But that proffer comes with the implied statement that *we will serve you the best food you ever had and together with all the other formalities and frills we impose on the meal it will be the best meal of your life.* And to my way of thinking they fail to deliver that promise. Because the world's greatest meal needs to go much further then what Patricia Wells said about the experience. It needs to say that the food is creative, unique and original as well. If in your self-promotion and self-aggrandisement you are going to imply that is what you are about, you have the obligation to deliver "the best" on every level. Especially at those prices.

Or how many lollipops are on the dessert trolly (sorry Steve Klc I couldn't resist.) Not really. She has a personal gripe with me. And she thinks the right thing to do is to interupt inteligent conversation (ahem) with snide comments that are directed at me. Her husband too. They can either stop or we can raise it to a fever pitch. Their choice. As to my being saved, gee I threw out a bunch of points this afternoon that you still haven't responded to. Like telling us all what is the aesthetic that Ducasse offers. And I drove all the way back from the Hamptons and I expected a response. Imagine my disappointment when I didn't find it on the board. Thank god I haven't held my breath. Lxt - The public is always involved. It's just when you are dealing with "high art" it's a very small segment of the public. In fact many artists (like painters) have private clients who buy paintings directly and the entire process has nothing to do with critics. The critics often only see the works after they are privately owned and someone stages an exhibition. And it's the same for music too. Composers don't perform their music privately for critics, the critics attend concerts. And no matter how much the critics hate something, if the public loves it, it will be performed again. The only time critics have weight that is disproprtionate is when they "discover" a Van Gogh who has been overlooked. But I think that's the exception, not the rule. But it's the story that everyone remembers because it serves to sensationalize art Fat Guy - Your last post is so interesting that I gave it its own section. Written criticism in the music biz has limited impact. Unless we are dealing with a four star review in Rolling Stone. The Warner Music Group used to do these surveys on what sold music, and 90% of the respondents made their decisions based on radio play. Club DJ's are really just an extension of radio play. In fact in many ways they have replaced radio play. But I'm not sure that when Lxt speaks of criticism she is talking about influence in the same way. I think she means criticism as in schools of thought as to what passes for great art. Like the neo-classicist school in jazz these days (Marsalis.) That is based on a core of criticism that revolves around Wynton. But that is wholly different from a review in People Magazine. But I expect that years from now, providing the music lasts, people will look at the record reviews from the original issues of Rolling Stone as the pinnacle of rock music criticism.

There is no verdict to render. As I keep saying (ahem,) works of art need to meet an objective standard. What changes, as in your example of Van Gogh, is that there was no standard to hold it to because it was new and unusual for its time. That professionals couldn't formulate the standard is a fluke of history. It just means the right person wasn't born yet.

I was wondering where you were. Please chime in with your opinion as it is sorely needed. And I'd hate to see that the hecklers have the power to derail the threads. Fine dining needs you.

Yvonne - Could you be more idiotic? Here is what I said in this thread; And here is what I said in the post you quoted from Do you see any difference? It gets even more ridiculous because you then take my next sentence and put it in bold and try and make the word "everything" mean something other then what it is describing which is *quality as it relates to price.* Do everyone on the board a favor and stop bothering me. You interupt countless threads by trying to turn the topic of conversation into being about me. I don't know why you do that but you must have some perverse need to try and get me. It's bothersome and foolish, and you are a grown person with a PHD you should have better things to do with your time.

Fat Guy - The reason your logo isn't worth trademarking is because it isn't really distinct. And it doesn't really have an association with your trade name. Now if you had the right illustration of someone who looked hungry, i.e., that it made people think you were expert in food, it probably would be worth it. Just because you don't register your mark doesn't mean that you don't have any protection. Everyone has common law protection. I would bet that if another food reviewer came out called Fat Guy, you could stop him. He would have to change his name to "The Other Fat Guy." Even that probably wouldn't work and you could stop him as being confusing. But as I said, not if he was using the name for a diet program. Trademarks are a funny thing. They really operate on common sense. Take the car Lexus. I could make Lexus computer programmers or a restaurant called Lexus but nothing to do with cars. But I doubt I could call my business Kleenex or Coca Cola regardless of what I did. Those names are too distinct. It would be confusing to everyone if Rotor Rooter changed them name to Coca Cola Plumbing .

You are putting words in my mouth. What I say is that the "best quality" items usually end up being the highest priced. The best tomato usually costs the most money and the worst tomato the cheapest. But the best meal doesn't always cost the most money because there are too many other factors involved. As can be evidenced right here because Ducasse is the most expensive but clearly not the best meal. Even though he probably buys the most expensive, and best tomatoes .

Lxt - I am not using aesthetic that way. I am using it to describe something cerebral. Yes they can be combined. Like having expensive fabrics in your home is a certain aesthetic that pertains to luxury. But I'm using aesthetics in a way that describes a cerebral component that is above and beyond simply being luxurious. And I wouldn't expect you to reach a conclusion about Ducasse's food just based on my opinion of it. But I have my suspicions about whether you would like it or not based on what I know about you.

Fat Guy - In my best lawyerly retort, I didn't offer Cabrales and Robert B. as proof that I'm right. I offered their experience in response to your statement that Bux and Steve Klc have more experience then we have as diners. As a fact you asserted, I'm not sure that your statement is true. In fact I think your statement is not true. But what I will say about Robert and Cabrales is that we approach this issue from the same perspective and we usually agree on these things more often then we disagree. But I offered that fact two posts ago and you haven't responded to it. Some nonesense about waiting for my Gagnaire review.

I would think that the problem you have is what I mentioned. The common use of the phrase fat guy. But a way around it is to construct a Fat Guy logo and trademark it. The logo will be distinct and unique. Then if you use the two together, it will put someone who wants to use the name in an awkward position because the public will know it's missing. But even without it, I think that you should be able to get a mark for the exclusive purpose of doing restaurant reviews. I can understand how that wouldn't allow you to stop someone from calling their farm "Fat Guy Farms." But what is wrong with narrow protection?