Bux

So how does one apply 'relevant' 'French' technique to the antipasti. Make a terrine? I will assume this has been said without eating the salumi at Craft Bar or perhaps without reading Steingarten's recent article in the US edition of Vogue magazine on Italian salumi. All of that could easily be served at French restaurant of any class. Michel Guerard had no trouble serving slices of andouille as an amuse bouche.

It could be, and probably is, true, but it's a complete answer. Italy really doesn't lack culinary relevance except to those who define relevance as something else. The topic question is not so much a question as an indictment of the "have you stopped beating your wife" sort.

We just get into definitions of what haute cuisine might be and differences in opinion about both maggots and what's too long. I disagree that people who don't like Stravinsky's music will admit it's art. I suspect that's more true today than it was when Stravinsky was at the height of his creativity however. For that reason alone, it's unreasonable to compare contemporary criticism of Gagnaire with how Stravinsky is regarded today. Food can be nourishing or not. It can be rotten, spoiled and riddled with disease carrying bacteria, but whether it tastes good is subject to the discriminating taste of the eater.

From the way it's described on the web site, I wonder if the chicken in bread crust is only served on Sunday. I will be just as happy, maybe more so, if they have the langoustines. Mostly I am hoping we will find some game on the menus by then. I will ask about the chicken in bread crust if it's not on the menu, but if you are determined to have it you should probably request it in advance. I have not spent much time in the Loire in many years. I am particularly looking forward to revisiting Chenonceau which I have thought is the most beautiful building in the world.

We have plans to be there in a couple of weeks. The Hotel du Lion-d'Or in Romorantin was listed in the original Guide Michelin of 1900. The web site is quite informative. One hears so much about a few chefs and so little about so many others who deliver excellent food at the two star and below category. In many ways, everything is so much more relaxed and my memories of two star meals are quite wonderful.

People who do not enjoy Stravinsky's music, tend not to think of it as great art. Horrible tasting food is not good food, but we may not all agree on what's horrible tasting. Do you like olives, natto, durian? I'm if I kept on going I'd find something you don't like but someone else treasures. You can serve rotten, moldy food with maggots on it. Moreover, there are those who will enjoy it. Some people like their game to be hung until it is un, rotten. Many of us here enjoy some very moldy cheeses and in parts of Spain there are connoisseurs of a certain cheese that is considered best when the rind is infested with wormy maggots. Of course the rind and maggots are eaten. Pleasure in food, is far more relative than one might suspect

The duck hotdog posts crossed my last post. I mentioned sausage, but we already have chicken and turkey hotdogs and we have duck ham and pastrami. That's ecumenical if not abstract.

One takes what yups one can. Perhaps abstract food wouldn't represent food. At least as you know it It also represents dinner. Spoken like a man who's never had duck sausage or better yet gallantine. Come to think of it, Duck Soup was a work of art. Only if you liked the taste of caviar better than that of duck. It would however taste more expensive perhaps regardless of your taste. If you turned it into pajamas, you might have something you could call abstract food, but only if you didn't like the taste of pajamas.

lxt, you have, or rather Stravinsky has, made an important point which is very much at the core of my relationship with food at a restaurant such as Gagniare's. I may be critical and I have every right to enjoy each morsel that I put in my mouth, but I am willing to allow a fair amount of leeway in support of the art. I am eager to read about people's meals in Gagnaire and most eager to hear personal reactions to the food. I don't really care if people like it or think I will like it unless they know my mind fairly well. I am always reminded of a relative of mine, who told us he walked out after seeing Truffot's Jules and Jim telling all who would listen to save their money and not see the film. It was with some pride that said he managed to discourage at least one would be viewer away. Not for a moment, do I doubt he disliked the film and regretted the time spent in the theater. I am sure he could intelligently explain why the film annoyed him. I am also sure that by the standards with which most people entered a movie theater in the sixties in New York, the film was not entertaining. Nevertheless, his attitude was forever etched in my mind as synonymous with "Philistine." Whether or not one gets a certain cuisine, or even if one gets it and doesn't appreciate it or gets it and dislikes it, there are foods and chefs that one may respect. Where the negative comments are totally dismissive, I tend to find them offensive. Where the comments are constructively critical, I find them interesting and useful. I find this, from Steve Plotnicki to be contstructive: "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. " I find it constructive because he offers explanations of some detail and because he raises issues about that which didn't please him. His questions will likely be on my mind when I dine at Gagnaire. Whether or not I like my meal, these comments will help me enjoy the evening or at least make it interesting. His question, what if Gagnaire's level of abstraction is beyone what he can tolerate and beyond what most diners in general can tolerate, is interesting. A sub question might be about whether he can tolerate more or less creativity in a certain direction that the general eater. The more important question framed as is there such a thing as food that is the equivelent of abstract art, might better be asked as how many people need to get a chef's food and find it enjoyable to eat, in order for that cuisine to be valid. On a person level the answer should be "one." Can we answer on a public level and if so, can that answer be more than one at the minimum?

A coincidence here. I had a Rustic duck pie at Michel Guerard. It was rich with foie gras and accompanied by sauteed cabbage.

A most reasonable position. Let me ask a simple question and it's sincerely one that is not personal. When one loves a chef's food, it can be assumed he understands it as well, as least on a subconscious level. I mean a chef cooks for your ultimate gastronomic pleasure not for you to pass a written test on his food. When one doesn't love the food, at what point does one just give up and say "I don't understand what he's doing" and is there a difference between that and saying "I understand what he's doing and he's wrong?" Is if possible to write off a chef, or an artist, from one's personal perspective and still leave room for the possibility that the chef, or artist, has made a valid point in someone else's mind and gullet?

That may well be true. I am more than happy to be taken care of in a restaurant. Perhaps it's my nature and perhaps it's a matter of respect for the chef. Maybe it's a combination or that one of those things has affected my attitude towards the other. Submissive has a negative connotation in our society, so I prefer to think of this as a relaxed and appreciative attitude, rather than a submissive one. In any event Cabrales' reaction to Gagnaire's response to her desire to add dishes to the tasting menu is a good example. I have no problem understanding his view of the meal as an entity and the request to change the flow is, in this light, no different to him than the request for a change in garnish is to another chef. There are plenty of diners who are outraged when they can't mix and match garnishes from the menu and plenty of chefs who are willing to please their wishes. On a related issue, can anyone ever be sure they get it all? I mean how would one be sure? Let's call that self assurance confidence for purposes of the this issue. Would that same kind of confidence be related to the need to maintain the ability to make decisions? I always ask myself "what am I thinking?" when I like food that is not particularly delicious. Of course when others dislike food I find delicious, I assume they didn't get it. Chacun a son Goût, as the French say. Can anyone be mistaken in their taste? Sorry, I forgot that's already been answered. I do appreciate Plotnicki's point that he's not ready to make a conclusive determination about Gagnaire's cuisine after only two visits. I figure I've got a 50-50 chance of being thrilled by my next meal at Gagniare and am hoping I will be at least $500 wiser (in terms of food, or course). In my opinion, Fat Guy's reference to what P. Wells has said is less an "appeal to authority" than it is an attempt to present her views for our enlightenment, but of course we get more attention using a noted authority's views than some random guy who posts on the net. There's a difference between saying she likes the food and her explanation why. That review, however is over two years old and doesn't pretend to represent changes in the cuisine between the two meals eaten by Steve P.

I am so much of a minimalist in my general thinking and philosophy, but I can't agree that the sum may not be more than the individual parts. I have no need to taste the individual ingredients, it the overall taste of the dish is agreeable. Indeed, this sounds like a sublime subtlety. A heavy hand with argon oil is the exact opposite in my mind.

That Gagnaire is so creative, outlandish even, is the reason I have trepidation in recommending him to others. Having enjoyed my previous meal there so much one would assume I have no trepidtaion in returning. Such would not be the case with, or without your report. Plotnicki mentions "fork in the road" and one must always risk the chance that a chef like Gagnaire takes a wrong fork once in a while. I mentioned that I though he did with each and every dessert I had with my meal.

I appreciate your post on Gagnaire. I have to ask one question. I don't recall your take on tasting menus in general, but did you consider the tasting menu at Gagnaire? I"ve found when faced with a chef I know can be outrageously creative, it may be hard to compose a meal as the listings may not properly convey the sense of the dishes. At such times I am very likely to take the tasting menu. On the other hand I am prone to taking the tasting menu at great restaurants in France, though it's not a hard and fast rule.

I don't object so much to where you find Michelin less than most helpful, even in France I use other guides to temper my dependance on Michelin. In Italy, although my experience is limited there, I found it even more useful to have an Italian guide for reference although my comfort with Michelin's style made it useful too. I just object to speaking of a "Michelin restaurant" as if it implied a "Michelin starred restaurant."

Good point when clearly stated, but have the Germans really incorporated French cuisine into their own food and palate. The British have, if only to fill a vacuum, but I'm not so sure about the Spanish either except at haute cuisine levels. Perhaps more locals eat at haute cuisine restaurants in Catalonia and the Basque area than in Italy. I'm not sure. I've seen a lot of tourists in those restaurants, but my knolwedge of Itally and its restaurants is rather weak.

You 've got to learn how to use smilies, or stop eating out with Plotnicki.

Shut my mouth, well just for a minute. That was an excellent addition to this thread, although "addition" seems to belie it's heavy weight. I think what you say about Adria's domination of Catalonia is also true, although at this point his inspiration is paying off and there are several other chefs with haute cuisine restaurants that are doing quite well. I'm not at all sure the Basque region doesn't deserve even more credit. They have their own stars and rising stars. Nevertheless, both regions have long been known for their interest in food and their restaurants. They are also both adjacent to France and share a culture with the region of France they abut. Today, Spain dominates the food of Catalongne and the Pays Basque. That's interesting, but a subject for another thread in another board.

Robert, do you think that's accurate? As far as I know, a sushi bar serves sushi. On the coast that's going to be predominantly raw fish on sushi rice, but inland it's likely to be omelet, marinated mushrooms, and other vegetables on sushi rice--or at least it was before modern tranportation and refrigeratrion. Sashimi--raw fish in it's primest form--was not something I saw generally eaten in sushi bars. More often it was served as a course in a ryokan dinner or a more formal restaurant. As for rice, it occupies a central place in the hearts and diets of the Japanese. With the exception of shushi and cheap dishes, it is eaten in homes and formal settings alike at the end of the meal along with tea and pickles, from what I've been told and seen. Thus, as in Italy, it may be seen as separate course in a more formal meal. However the Japanese often eat informally and then break all their own formal rules (from a western viewpoint, it can be seen as a dichotomy) and eat sushi or donburi. The latter is a dish of food over rice, much like the cheap workman's meals in Chinatown. There is little to be learned about Japan by visiting most Japanese restaurants in the west because the Japanese can be so adaptable.

And in the eGullet spirit of circular arguments, isn't that because the Italians dropped the ball? Of course that argument is circular. The better question might be "why is Italian food so much more influenced by French cooking than French food is by Italian cooking?" Then you could sit back and watch the fur fly. Of course there's been cross pollenation between the two at all levels over a great length of time. My guess is that no other cuisine has interacted with the French to as great an extent. I don't just mean in Nice as Alsatian cuisine has been influenced by food from across the Rhine and the food in the Roussillon and Basque region has been influenced by cooking from the other side of the Pyrenees. Risotto and ravioli have become French dishes.

Once again you pervert the sense of the Michelin by implying that a "Michelin" restaurant is sort of haute cuisine establishment. Michelin neither owns nor operates restaurants. It lists restaurant and to an extent rates and recommends them to travlelers. There are 14 three star restaurants and about five and a half pages to the listing of all starred restaurants, the preponderance being one star. The list of restaurants offering good food at less than 28 euros in Paris and 21 euros in the provinces, is as long as the list of starred restaurants. Not on the list of good restaurants at bargain prices is another group of restaurants offering a three course meal for lss than 14 euros. Trust me, there is very little "art" in a 14 euro meal. Your reference points are phony. You over generalize. I don't know if you do so out of naivety or contempt for the readers, but there's plenty of chance to learn and little chance of pulling the wool over too many eyes here. Can you really find a common basis that would include the French, British, Spanish and German palates and exclude the Italian palate? I would think it would be easier to exclude the German palate, if you eliminated the british palate. I mean to say that I think the Italian palate is certainly closer to the Spanish one than the German palate is to the French and maybe the Spanish and Italian palates are closer to the French then is the German. Do the British have a palate?

Steve P.: I would read your post in an entirely different light if you preceded those three points by a simple phrase indicating that it was your opinion, or if I thought you were correct in anyone of those points. Nevertheless, if we disagree on those points, agree on those points or ignore those points we have no other choice but to understand that it's not about the food. I believe that was clear when you explained why Ducasse was a target and I suspect this is very relevant to questions Wilfrid raised about the reasons Ducasse, his food and his restaurants are being denigrated. It's not about the food and this may be of interest to those who go to restaurants not to reward chefs for adhering to abstract principles, but to dine well on good food. By the way, you're wrong about all of those things in the last paragraph as well and Fat Guy didn't get to them, but I have to meet my wife to go shopping, so you're off the hook for the evening.

For the record, my daughter is also half Puerto Rican and I'd rather eat than dance. Come to think of it, there were quite a few cooks and very few family. No wonder I had a good time.

I seem to recall that it was by area and cepage/variety. Here's what's been said so far. Plotnicki said he could identify producer, but not necessarily vineyard, if he was familiar with the producer's style. My guess is that may limit the tasting to the better Burgundy and Rhone producers once the country of origin test is completed. I would not expect him to be able to distinguish between two sauvignon blancs from New Zealand, but he might if he had tasted them and they were distinguished. He also didn't claim to be able to identify the year, but I'd guess that if you stuck to the producers he knows, he'd do fairly well on that too. I think that can be tricky although years have styles to some extent. I really don't know what he can taste, but considering his interest and the money he spends on wine, and how well he can describe a meal, it wouldn't surprise me if he did better than he claims.