Bux

Were the fries as good as the burger, or are the fries consitently great? They were terrific the one time I was at Blue Smoke. The fries more than anything else might draw me back. I've had fried as good elsewhere, but I've not had better.

When I was at les Bookinistes, it was a Sunday and that played a part in my choosing it. The current (2002) Michelin shows it as being closed on Sundays. French labor laws have made it increasingly difficult for restaurants not to close two days a week. I also wonder if new restaurants are more likely to be open on Sundays as a way of getting people to try them.

I think I've expressed the before on eGullet. I've only eaten at the Beard house but once and am not an expert, but I don't see how one could expect to eat better there than at the chef's own restaurant.

Totally. Only one pizza has fatback on it. There are quite a few others, perhaps on both sides of the menu that have high cholesterol items including cheese, but lardo was only an example of the unusual toppings. Mario, stop lurking and post a menu already.

With my own, somewhat limited, international travel experience, combined with what I've learned by living with a travel agent all these years, I know that standards of hospitality and responsibility vary tremendously from country to country even between adjacent countries. Sometimes these differences are clearly the sort that make one country a more pleasant place in which to travel. In some cases it's just a matter of getting used to local customs and mores. I've found France to offer some of the best hospitality at all levels and in many ways. Oddly enough many Americans find France an unfriendly place. I've not found it so either in the hospitality industry nor in the streets.

Pan, you remind me that few of us get to Paris as often as we'd like to. I know a few of fresh_a's suggestions from first hand experience. Chez Michel should run about $30 for a three course meal without beverage, and I seem to recall that even included a rustic amuse bouche. It's hard to imagine someone arriving by cab here, but much harder yet to imagine a guest at a five star hotel walking in this neighborhood, although I can't say it seemed either dangerous or unfriendly. This is the kind of restaurant that's really hard to replicate in New York and those places that come closest don't come close to offering this kind of meal for that price. We ate in Balzar on a Sunday evening a few years ago--where else can one eat on Sunday, but a brasserie--and it was full of Americans. So, the blame for that rests with concierges, does it. Has anything else changed about les bouquinists? I don't remember so many Americans there, but I recall a staff eager to speak English--almost too eager for my taste. I prefer to struggle with my French. I found the waiter very patient with two young female Japanese tourists whose familiarity with French dining patterns was very limited and whose English was not nearly as good as the waiter's. My asumption is that most visitors to France want to eat French food. I wonder how often they ask for advice on foreign restaurants and how often they are receptive to that advice when offered.

Does anyone else see Stone's image or do we all see the "Sorry ..." message? Presumably all of us are trying to access the image from outside of imageStation.com.

Seeing as how there isn't an obvious cheese to accompany duck confit, why quesadilla or why duck confit? Maybe I'm just not being turned on by any of the suggested cheeses.

I've had meals that made me want to cry. That may not be what Prof. Korsmeyer has in mind. Much as I champion the avoidance of hierarchies in art, I feel that art that attempts to tug on my emotions is at the cheaper end on some scale of things. I am far more stirred by Bach than Wagner and the paintings of wide eyed children that pass for art depress me in a way that is not the artist's intent. I've been moved by a great meal and great art can be an intellectual experience rather than an emotional one. I'm just not interested in what's up that tree no matter how loudly one barks there. Are we ready for the culinary equivalent of John Cage's 4'33"? With art and music, you don't expect to get fed. With cuisine, however, how many gourmets want to go home hungry? Analogies between the arts are difficult to make and surely that's not the only abstract model for cooks to follow. Is there a CD of this work available for me to listen to, if that's the applicable word. I don't see a chef creating a fast as a work of art or dinner menu and surely it's a surprise meal he could only offer once for effect. On the other hand, I could see a chef creating a menu especially suited to ending a day of fasting. If the chef was so talented or his reputation so great, it would not stretch my sense of belief to hear that some truly dedicated connoisseur who had no religious or medical reason to fast, might nonetheless resist the intake of food for the appropriate period of time in order to fully appreciate the menu.

The first and obvious thing is that you lose the flavor when you heat the oil and that's what makes the difference between olive oils worth the money you pay for the more expensive ones. Fran McCullough seems to support Matt's contention that one shouldn't use EVOO for frying, although elsewhere in her book she says it's good for salads and cooking. The tempratures reached may have something to do with when you cook with it. Apparently most oils develop those dangerous (carcinagenic) trans fats when they are heated. Light olive oils are likely to have trans fats as most are processed to that degree. EVOOs are not treated with heat, but it you are going to heat it sufficiently, you are going to create the same trans fats that are developed in the processing, so there's no virtue in starting with an EVOO. Olive oil is high in antioxidents and that apparently offsets the trans fats at least to some extent. Truthfully, as critical as all this may be to my mortality, it's not the sort of stuff I enjoy reading and consequently much of the information leaves my brain shortly after the page is flipped. I'm not going to be the one to boil this book down to it's essence for you. The subject of fats and oils is very complex and there are often trade offs. There are no easy rules, except perhaps that the hydrogenated fats should be avoided at all costs at all times.

There are many complex desserts that are full of ideas but crap anyway, and I'm not sure why I've bothered to say that obvious thing here. It would be rare for me to order a fresh fruit for dessert at a fine restaurant, but I don't think it's wrong to think of it as a legitimate dessert anyplace. I'd also be reluctant to order raw oysters at a three star restaurant although that's how I prefer my oysters. When it comes to what I want in a fine restaurant, it usually includes the talents of the chef and his kitchen which I feel I'm not getting with a raw oyster or a raw peach. Then again sometimes I've had too much savory food and all I can think of is a simple sorbet or piece of fruit. No matter what I like, I think it's legitimate for a fine restaurant to serve fresh fruit as a dessert choice and apparently so does Passard. I vividly remember seeing the waiter carefully peel and prepare a fresh pineapple for another table. My eyes were riveted on the spectacle of his removing all the eyes in one continuous carving. I wondered who the hell would order fresh pineapple when they could have had one of the more original and interesting desserts, but I was pleased to watch the show at another table. Of course Arpege had only two stars then and may no longer serve raw pineapple. Perhaps that's the second thing a restaurant does when it gets a third star. Maybe all bottles of wine under 50 bucks go off the list and then they 86 the raw fruit. I think they could already smell the third star that night. The sommelier was pushing 25 dollar wines as if they had to go.

We had what we thought was a very good meal there. It was about 15 years ago. I'd meant to go back, but there are too many places and I've had so little time in Paris. My initial visit was prompted by an article in the NY Times Magazine with some recipes. Can't remember exactly who wrote the article, but it may have been Craig Claiborne. It was that long ago. There's not much buzz about the place these days and my tastes may well have changed or devloped since then, but I have a reasonably fond memory of the evening we spent there. That memory includes food that was very rich and old fashioned in some ways, although inventive in others. If my memory serves at all, it was a September of the summer when more than ten francs exchanged for the dollar on a good day (for the US visitor) and it seemed reasonable to eat in excess.

Great art may, or may not be a matter of opinion, but it's certainly more about idea than technique. The technique may have to be good enough to carry forth the idea, but it's a means more than an end. Great food however, just needs to taste great. Bux- You're beginning to sound like Jim Leff with his deliciousness is deliciousness mantra. Yes, great food has to taste great but, at least for me, I wouldn't say JUST has to taste great. But, yes, I certainly would agree that great art is more about idea than technique. As a matter of fact, seeing someone other than me write that here makes me mist up with pleasure. I'll take your word for what Leff says. I don't have enough long term experience reading what he says ro know his habits. On the other hand, I find Plotnicki's writings on food worth coming back to read each time. My reference to delicious in this case is more inreference to a past discussion with Steve about whether Adria's food is delicious in the way that Robuchon's food is. A painting must rise above being good looking and being well made, for me to think of it as art. For food to be art to me, it must also rise above just being great food--that is tasting great and being well made out of good ingredients--and repesent some intellectual level of challenge. My suspicion here is that my use of "great" is misleading. It's like when I order a beaujolais and the waiter asks how it is and I say "fine." Both of us understand that I'm not talking about a fine wine.

Do they not sometimes use a miniature santon as the fève (bean)? I realize that whatever is used form a tiny baby Jesus to a image of Mickey Mouse, it replaces the fève and becomes the fève.

I'm glad Jim responded to this. I did a double take myself. The excerpt Glynn posted seemed in conflict with his point. While the level in canola oil due to deoderizing (sp?) is not stated, the article clearly says "Trans fats of a particularly problematic type are also formed during the process of deoderising canola oil." I join Jim in not accepting any of this as gospel, I suspect it's all worth considering in light of how effective the various oil and fat industries have been in getting many of us to believe their propaganda as gospel. For those interested in a point of view that re-examines how we tend to look at fats and oils, there's Fran McCullough's recently published The Good Fat Cookbook. I haven't looked at the recipes and have only read bits and pieces. Ms. McCullough acknowledges Dr. Enig as a "heroine in her courageous work to bring us the truth about trans fats and other unhealthy oils." [disclosure: A close family member of mine also gets an acknowledgment in the regard to the publishing of this book] My understanding is that most canola oil is highly processed and as a result not nearly as healthy as it's producers have led us to believe. [see above.] Arguments based on a single factor are always persuasive if they can lock your attention on that sole issue. It's an effective sound bite, but not the big picture. But EVOO has minute pieces of the olive still in it and they burn very easily. The beauty of EVOO is that it was never heated. Once its heated its no longer EVOO really. Why would you put it in the pan at all? While I understand EVOO is far less processed than most other oils on the market and that includes regular and "pure" olive oil, there's no reason an EVOO cannot be filtered. Among the very special EVOOs that come from small producers, some are filtered and some are not. The Carli EVOO is not much more expensive than supermarket olive oils and I suspect fairly highly filtered. I don't recall any sediment. It's a very commercial product, but the worst thing that's done to it before it hits my mouth is my heating it. As for health claims, all I can say is that I join Dixon in being most suspicious of oils that undergo a lot of processing. I like butter, goose fat and EVOO, but a little bit of hydrogenated fat in pie crust makes it flakier. Lard may be just as good.

Great art may, or may not be a matter of opinion, but it's certainly more about idea than technique. The technique may have to be good enough to carry forth the idea, but it's a means more than an end. Great food however, just needs to taste great.

I'm not much of a fan of steak houses and I am a fan of Daniel Boulud, but it seems to me that the db burger (which I've had) is decadent in the sense that it's over refined and indulgent. I've not had, nor am I tempted to try more of the best meat money can buy than a grown man can or would care to eat at sitting, poorly cooked on a bun. It seems decadent in the sense of moral decline and an expression of vulgarity. Unlike db's well crafted burger the Homestead gimmick seems designed for publicity and conspicuous consumption.

That's too sarcastic for my taste. The difference between sunsets, landscapes, etc. and painting is that the former occur in nature and the latter is man made. I think it was Gertrude Stein who, when questioned as to what she found fascinating about art and artists, exclaimed to her friend that some people treasure an oyster's pearls while she prefers the works of men. That's a rather freely recalled from memory and she might have said something quite different, but your post brought this to mind. People make Art. People make food. It does't follow that food is art of course. Earlier in this thread I said Perhaps I find hierarchies of this sort more absurd than distasteful. Assuming I could place painting, sculpture, music and the many arts in their proper places, I'd then be faced with a hierarchy of artists and works within each art form. If oil painting were placed higher than pencil drawing, would a Rembrandt drawing be inferior to an oil painting for sale on the sidewalks around Washington Square? I am suspicious of the intentions of those who would make these distinctions and of their need to do so. As others have pointed out, art is about ideas and creativity. It is often, if not always, about the way we see or perceive things and about how we relate to the world and generally on an abstract level. We rarely see art in museums. We see culture; at least to the extent that what we see is not painting and sculpture that changes our perceptions, but the works that have formed our culture's perceptions. The making of something very well has very little, if anything to do with it's being art. As much as it's easier to respect an artist who is also a craftsman, many of our twentieth century cultural icons are already in severe need of restoration and perhaps doomed to a short life and a well made pair of shoes in not necessarily art. The question that is begged, I suppose, by my post is whether food can be abstract. Can a renaissance painting created precisely to tell a story be abstract? What we're talking about are the concepts that arise in the mind of the creator of the painting, the music and the food. If the chef can change our perceptions in a way that goes beyond "gee, this tastes delicious," I think there's an art involved, but I'd be loathe to tell you it where it's value lies in relation to a sonata or a good novel.

Was it Jing Fong that had the scandal? I seem to remember another place that was picketed for a long time. Then again that place was on the Bowery, but also up an escalator, if I'm not mistaken. Jing Fong is on Elizabeth Street.

It's probably illegal, immoral and unethical for someone to work for nothing, that but if that someone can afford to to do it and can find the right person to work under and the right place that will let them do it, that someone will have a great opportunity to jump start a career. Abuse comes in all flavors and the person who may suffer the most from this system is the person who hasn't got the contacts or can't afford to get this opportunity to be "abused."

Lady T, you may escape the analogy police on this one. I see a validity in the comparison and it doesn't even depend on the acceptance of cooking as an art form. Every field of endeavor is shaped by its history. I'd like to clearly split this question into two rather distinct topics as I feel they deserve to be distinct. Has Escoffier had a lasting influence on the way restaurant kitchens operate, the way chefs operate and the way we think about food? Does a young cook have to consciously familiarize himself with Escoffier, his philosophies, his techniques, his writings and his recipes? I think the answer to the first question is a resounding "yes." As I write this, the first posters all seem to agree. The only cooks who could avoid the Escoffier's influences are those who do not engage in formal study of the craft and who do not work in any sort of highly organized restaurant in the western world. The answer to the second question is not so clear. I am sure we will have differences of opinion expressed on this issue. I'm inclined to say it's not an absolute necessity just as it's not an absolute necessity for a contemporary visual artist to be familiar with the art history that came before him. There are naive artists who are self trained and neither aware nor influenced by those who preceded them. Some manage to display talent. There are also artists of varying degrees of talent and acceptance whose interests and influences only go back so far and who's education in art history is rather weak. I don't imply that a great knowledge of what came before you is a barrier although that's a theory held by some. I just mean to say that some people can be successfully creative with just a limited influence as well as limited means. The argument that a young cook can hardly avoid the influences of Escoffier is not something I mean to deny, but I think it can be separated out as I tried to do in my first question and its answer.

We often use Olio Carli EVOO manufactured by the Fratelli Carli in the pan. it's not terribly expensive nor does it have such a distinctive olive oil flavor. On the plate, or in the salad dressing we use a better EVOO, usually from Italy and usually a novello from a smaller producer. We switched to the Carli EVOO on the advice of others who suggested an inexpensive mild EVOO would offer a slightly better flavor than the cheaper grades of olive oil in cooking.

I'm inclined to say that neither El Bulli nor Can Fabes is forgettable, at least not after eating there. They are two different kinds of restaurants and two different kinds of chefs. It's possible that one or the other will hold greater fascination for certain individuals although it's El Bulli that may have the more limited and specialized appeal as Santamaria (at Can Fabes) works within more traditional methods of preparation and within a more traditional palate range. If one has the budget in terms of time and money, and a very deep interest in food at the this level, a visit to both would be rewarding. Another favorite of mine is the two star Can Roca just outside of Girona. When making reservations for dinner in France or Spain, we've found e-mail to be less reliable than telephone or fax. Unless you know a restaurant actually checks their e-mail and relplies regularly I would be reluctant to rely on it. If I used it and did not get a reply within a working day, I'd go the fax route. On the other hand, my wife carried on a two way conversation in Spanish with El Bulli as she worked out our plans last year. Our original dates were unavailable, but they were able to offer an alternate reservation for which we revised our travel schedule. Then again there was some intercession on our behalf and our e-mails did not arrive cold.

Suzanne, you took the words right out of my mouth. When Yvonne asked about breakfast, I was going to say "gelato, I hope." I'm not an authority on the subject but the ice cream/gelato is probably a product somewhere between gelato and ice cream and suffers nothing for that. My first impression is that the gelato is the best stuff in the house. I hope this is not an opening show of indulgence and that they continue to use the first grade ingredients they are now using. The staff was very solicitous, as Suvir said, maybe too much so, if that's possible. Anyway the attention and interest seemed genuine even if the menu really didn't need all that much explaining. I arrived early and was waiting in the bar area where I declined to order a drink but made use of one of the two copies of the NY Times that seemed to be for browsing. I was surprised when the bar waitress showed up with a glass of ice water and put it at my elbow. I found that a telling gesture. I'll be very surprised to hear any stories of a less than gracious and attentive staff. I found the food very good, especially at that price. You can get three courses, assuming you accept pizza as a main course, for less than the price of a burger at db bistro, but it's not a mini Jean Georges or even mini Babbo. It is a place that should find it's way into many people's dining out plans. I'll eagerly return and already have plans to return this weekend.

I am a great procrastinator. I always mark my calendar to confirm two days prior to the reservation, but usually don't get around to actually doing it until the day before the event.