Bux

Of course that leads to the uselessness of language to communicate.

No. A chef is someone who works in a professional kitchen in which he/she manages the kitchen staff, over which he/she has some creative control and for which he/she is primarily responsibility for the quality and qualities of the output. But what is the difference that makes a difference? Why care about who calls themselves a chef? What would be the ill effects? The distinction here is that whoever chooses to call themselves a chef, may call themselves a chef, but that calling yourself a chef doesn't make you a chef. Neither Duke Ellington not Duke Snyder were dukes. Doctor J was not a doctor. So if the local TV channel wants to dress some idiot up in a white hat and jacket, have him give cooking tips for the sponsor's products and call him chef, they can and we may refer to him by his TV name, but he's not a chef. The title is unprotected by law, but the job description remains. It is a waste if time to get offended every time someone misuses the word, because of the way it is used in popular terms, but that doesn't mean it loses it's professional meaning. On the other hand it's not a protected term and we're all free to use it as we may if we can't agree on a common meaning.

One comment. Many people are afraid to speak up about a small deficiency in food or service. Those who do, serve us all. How is a restaurant to know when they are serving food that is not hot enough, or warm enough, unless they are told by the diner. Sometimes the difference between what you expect and get is not enough to interrupt your meal and you don't send it back. Even then, a polite word to your server at some point in the evening does everyone one a favor -- assuming that comment gets carried back to the kitchen. Those restaurants that do not encourage their staff to solicit complaints and take them back to the kitchen are not helping themselves.

why do you keep suggesting that iron chef has nothing to do with "real cooking"? is it all just smoke and mirrors? are these not talented chefs created dishes that actually taste good? or are the guests on the "panel" forcing down crap just for the "theatre"? I don't keep suggesting that Iron Chef has nothing to do with real cooking. What I said was that I didn't think it had much to do with real "restaurant" cooking. There are two distinctions I made. One was that it was more about entertainment than about cooking, in my opinion. The more important distinction was that it was not about what goes on in a restaurant where a real chef works as a leader of the team. Restaurant cooking is not spur of the minute creation for the most part. Very little of a chef's fame rests on creating dishes under the strictures of a competitive Iron Chef show. A restaurant chef works with a team he's selected and trained. Iron Chef is an interesting and entertaining show, but it is a very artificial kitchen in terms of where a restaurant chef does his business. We're off topic, but Iron Chef has more to do with cooking than it does with being a chef. Although the effect is to confuse creative cooking with being a chef, all of the contestants are chefs however.

I haven't eaten at WD-50 yet. It's high on my list of places to go, but that list always seems to grow faster than I can get to the places already on the list. Nothing Grimes has said will make me go sooner or put off my visit any longer -- nor do I ever expect his reviews to have that effect on me. The Times is however, always referred to as out paper of record, and as Robert notes, the Times reviews -- and it doesn't matter who is writing for the Times -- are the ones that count most to the financial health of a restaurant. They are, to some extent, the local equivalent of the Michelin stars. They draw business and they influence the broad base of diners to the extent that many will not only go, but withhold their criticism if they disagree with the "experts." Members of eGullet are hardly a cross section of the dining public. We love to knock the three and four star restaurants that we feel do not deserve their glory and we love to praise the underrated ones. There are a number of voices in this forum more capable of moving me to eat in any restaurant a dozen times faster than William Grimes'. I often refer to the "wrong people in the right restaurant" and that's frequently what a good review brings to a restaurant. Grimes writes for the masses and I think he understands that much even if he doesn't understand food or love eating in restaurants. I believe he sees himself as a consumer reporter or advocate and as such, responsible for "protecting" the dining public. While I haven't been to WD-50, I sense it's a restaurant that demands a discerning clientele -- or if it doesn't demand one, it deserves one. I think Grimes aimed to direct the right diners towards WD-50 and I cite his advise to Dufresne about ignoring his critics as evidence. I think Grimes is cold and heartless and totally without any respect, admiration or empathy for chefs, but it's an unfair world in general. In the meantime I note the WD-50 shares a two star rating with one of my favorite serious restaurants in NYC -- Blue Hill.

Maybe, but when I stayed up until midnight at the age of nine just to watch my favorite wrestler, no one could convince me it wasn't real. On the other hand when I watched Iron Chef, no one could convince me this had much to do with real restaurant cooking. It's all relative. The guy developing sauces for Quiznos is not likely to be heading a professional kitchen brigade, so he's not likely to fall under my definition of chef, but even if he was, there's a difference between being chef of a three star Michelin restaurant and being chef of a lesser known one. That however, doesn't make one a better person than the other. There are any number of qualifications one can make in life. An ambulence chaser and a guy who's arguing a case in the Supreme Court are both lawyers. One may be an unethical jerk and the other a distinguised legal scholar. They are both lawyers. As I've noted, an ex-chef who's retired or teaching, is still Chef, just like a retired president is still President.

Others have said it was not ordinary food. John should not be offended if I said he's not a fan of haute cuisine. I think he's expressed that pretty much to me when we dined together in London. I do appreciate John's crticism, but as Marcus said he learned more about John than about the restaurant. No restaurant is perfect for every diner, not even for every connoisseur. I value John's opinion and comments and was very glad to have his review here, but I also know we disagree about the value of certain kinds of food and restaurants.

I've yet to build great regard for Grimes' tastes in food or art, and I'm at a loss to understand the analogies to music groups, but I thought that was a nice review. My immediate reaction was that I'd bet he hated to assign a number of stars to this review, but I could be wrong about that and perhaps that was the easy part for him. Well I'm sure it was a disappointment to the kitchen, but I've seen top chefs and cooks live through worse. Has there been a restaurant without tablecloths that has gotten three stars. I suppose Nobu qualifies. Any others?

Alas, we're back at the point where we ascribe value judgments to the title chef that are not part of the job description. One may be required to command the respect of his kitchen crew to take the title of chef, but one needn't command the respect of a TV audience. I too was appalled by the kitchen table as pedestal, but it has occurred to me that Flay might have thought he was on a TV stage and not in a kitchen. In fact I'm quite inclined to think a real chef might not have felt that was a real kitchen. Is there someone here who thinks Iron Chef is a cooking show more than an entertainment show. I guess none of you grew up watching professional wrestling as a kid. I see no one's questioned the magnetism aspect here.

I think diners are inside the world of food. At least I'd like to think this one is. I mean I assume there's really no point in cooking unless there's some hope the guy who's eating your food appreciates it. Well no point unless you're making really big money. Chef Fowke already covered the reality that there are entirely different kinds of places and although they may all be called restaurants, different behaviors are appropriate. When I am in the kind of place I determine is a chef driven restaurant and asked how I'd like my steak, or lamb or pigeon cooked, I will tell the waiter that I imagine the chef knows how he thinks the dish should best be prepared, but I'll also note that I usually like my meat very rare. More so in France than in the US, I am apt not to comment at all unless asked.

Cy, it seems you enjoyed Jean-Luc Figueras more than I did, which is not to say that I didn't appreciate or enjoy it, just that it was not that high on my pantheon. Nevertheless, we found it interesting and satisfying from start to finish and enough so to want to return. I hope you will serve us up a review to whet my appetite and lend me some additional insight into the food. I guess I'm saying we found a one star meal in one star restaurant in a city with good food, but if there's a three star meal to be had there, I want to find it next time.

Barcelona has an incredible attraction for gastronomes right now. I think there's a focus that's been a result of Adria and other chefs in Catalunya as well as a general attention to northern Spain. In fact the focus on San Sebastian may be older than the attention drawn to Catalunya and the Basques have long had a reputation as the best chefs in Spain. The questions in my minds are has there always been this wonderful Catalan cooking and why didn't we hear more about it in the past. I suspect the answers are not as simple as the questions. The easy answer would be that it's always been there, but like the tree that falls in the forest, it didn't make any noise because there were no traveling food lovers to hear about it or talk about it. Now that people are traveling to the region to eat and the area is attracting those sort of Americans and British who travel to eat, those people are discovering the traditional food as well. They're discovering the food because there aren't enough avant garde chefs to fill their dining card and they're discovering it because the creative food is helping develop an appreciation for the local cuisine from which the creative draws. At the same time I suspect the traditional cuisine is traditional in the area, I also suspect it is undergoing changes and refinements that make it more competitive with better French cooking. Spain is more prosperous than it has ever been in the twentieth century. Spain has changed more in the last twenty-five years than the other western European countries I know. This change is not at all restricted to Catalunya or northern Spain and has been discussed in other threads. I'm not sure what has me most excited about the prospect of returning to Barcelona. Certainly there are the restaurants that have been recommended and which I've enjoyed and the ones I've only read about, but which seem so enticing. That's enough to leave me assured that on my next visit, I will not have time to eat in every restaurant that interests me, but the one other thing that attracts me is the feeling I have that I can serendipitously find excellent food at reasonable prices off the beaten path and do it with greater ease than in Paris. I may be misguided as the result of one most fortunate walk in on an uppropitious evening following a general strike in Spain, when few restaurants were open. Pot luck in Paris or New York would not have been so successful.

Camomile tea. Not much of a dinner I suppose, but something that seems effective between meals. I guess I'm only thinking of the patient here.

How often is a review not that much more meaningful when we "know" the reviewer and how better do we get to know a reviewer than by reading his reviews. Nothing in John's review will serve to steer me away from l'Atelier de JR, although it gave me some insight into the place and to how I might want to use it. There was an element of reverse snobbism that I found off putting, but on the whole I enjoyed John's essay as a short story if not as criticism. Bear in mind that John was the first one to post of Robuchon's new venture back in August of last year. Thus this is John's thread. One senses the pent up cynicism from the first notice of the generation gap. If you know John, you know it's the last place in Paris he'd go for a good meal. L'Atelier is the antibistrot.

Assuming the red herring was the product of a red tide, we may be speaking of execution by red herring.

Personally, "when Lazarus rose" would be a better play on the word red.

Notice the secondary definition. I am not trying to assert that everyone who cooks is a chef. I am saying that when one has been culinarily trained they are a chef. You prove my point(s). Note that I have posted that there is an industry definition and a popular one. The industry definition is one who heads a kitchen. The popular definition is meaningless. Anyone who cooks is a chef in popular parlance. EJRothman would like to separate those who have graduated from culinary school from the masses, but Webster doesn't mention training.

Depends on whose kitchen it is. The legitimization of an individual's use of the title of "chef" is based on said title being conferred by their community. So, it all depends on the community. In other words, it's relative. Probably relative to what one considers a kitchen. Spencer would call Mr. Burgerhead a kitchen manager. If Spencer can convince me that BK or McDo has a kitchen, I will call their burgermeister a chef. Why fight at the designation of chef, when the real issue is that a fast food burger place may not be a restaurant and certainly not have a brigade de cuisine, let alone a kitchen. If applying the heat to the meat is what separates the chefs from the boys, what do you call the guy who operates the machinery that sterilizes the tuna in the can?

I'm sure Jommy Carter feels much the same way about being president now that he's escaped the heat of the kitchen. The nature of the world is such that few of us have much control over what others call us.

slkinsey, one could be a "chef" without being a good cook, but it's unlikely. It's possible that one could be a great chef and not a great cook, but I think one would have to be a good cook at least to understand the job of chef. I've also found that it can be hard to get excellent performance from many workers unless you can show them exactly what you mean by excellence. So, in a sense, chefdom is something that has to be earned, but of course a graduate cook can have enough money to buy a restaurant and pay a staff of cooks and call himself a chef without earning the respect of his staff. His staff may sneer when he uses the title and he may not have any respect in his field, but still, as you note "that does not change the fact that "chef" is French for "boss" and that the boss of a professional kitchen operation is de facto a chef. Maybe not a very good chef, but a chef nevertheless."

gsquared, Do I miss the distinction that your definition only holds good within the profession? In a world where every suburban housewife refers to her husband and the backyard chef, I see no reason to account for the popular definition of a word that has lost all meaning when used outside the profession. In the example I offer, the term chef is reserved for the person who does the weekend cooking and whose talents may be limited to one dish cooked one way, while the person dispensing the title does all the real cooking. The term "chef" is so misused outside the profession that it has no meaning there at all. Needless to say, all the posts to which I've replied, have been about what to call a cook who has had formal training or is the head of a trained kitchen brigade. The use of "chef" as a term meaning talented cook is particularly unfortunate one in my opinion, but I recognize its existence. I've had barbers and shoemakers that were artists. Stone, the head of the kitchen at Quiznos and Pizzaria Unos and McDonalds is a "Chef" if he manages a team of cooks. He's at least technically a chef assuming you have any respect for his team as cooks. Would the head of the army of some tiny island republic be a general even if his army had seventeen soldiers and no weapons? Actually my arguement in this thread was more about who wasn't a chef -- e.g. a graduate cook -- than about who was, but thanks for the other side of this issue. There may be more qualifications necessary. The base qualification is that one heads, or headed, a kitchen brigade. Once a chef always a chef, like a mayor, governor or president.

Your first two sentences are not universally true and if they were, your third sentence would be untrue. I know of no chef schools. I am aware of culinary schools and cooking schools. A graduate of a cooking school is probably entitled to call himself a cook. At any rate I would not bother to argue with him if he did so. Understand that simply stated, a "chef" is a head cook. He is in charge of kitchen brigade by definition. Now the graduate of a medical college may well be entitled to call himself a doctor, but perhaps not a surgeon. Is there a school of surgery from which one can graduate as a surgeon? I suspect not, but if there was one, the graduate would only be entitled to call himself a surgeon and not a head surgeon. To earn the latter title, he would actually have to be appointed to the head of a team of surgeons at a hospital or other surgical unit. Thus you miss the distinction between chef, which signifies command of others and cook which signifies command of a lore of professional knowledge.

Indeed, or to paraphrase, "at what point did red canaries become blue canaries?" Have we any agreement that winemaking was ever an art, but is no longer?

Interesting points all worthy of discussion. This is an international board, most of us are not French. However many professions have a language all their own. For music, it seems to be Italian. Maybe latin for medicine and some sciences. For cooking, or what we often call "cuisine" in western societies, the lingua franca has been French. Food in English is often French. Note that when we eat a cow or steer, we call it beef. When we eat a pig, we call it pork. Likewise we use terms such as pullet and capon when referring to poultry. I suppose a cook is someone who cooks, just as a chef is someone who does the work of a chief or leader. Is one a cook if he's making raw salad? Perhaps that's why the French use the term "cuisinier" -- cuisine is both the kitchen and the cooking. If it comes from the kitchen raw or cooked, it's made by a "cuisinier." If you're a guide and others follow your lead, you're a chief. If they don't follow your lead, your kitchen is in trouble or your not guiding. The rest, it appears to me is a matter of semantics. Discussions about semantics are just that and not discussions about food. Insistence on using English or American terms where French terms have prevailed may be seen as revolutionary, evolutionary, or obfuscation of the issues involved. A perfectly good argument that what you make in the kitchen shouldn't be served in a "restaurant" if you insist on not calling yourself a "chef" because you're not French.

The price of delivery of a liter of olive oil may seem prohibitive (and depending on where you are in the states, it may be an unreasonable price over the cost of the best locally available oil) but think of it as buying a half day of vacation in France, not the oil.