Bux

Maybe the good one was a sports writer. I've read some interesting articles by a food writer who was a sports writer. Either you know your stuff or you don't. How you learned is immaterial. I think it helps to know how to cook and it helps to understand how a restaurant works to offer great criticism, but it may not be essential as you're talking to people who want to know about the dining experience, not learn how to cook or operate a restaurant. I could see how inconsistent reviews could drive a restaurant crazy, but life is inconsistent and there's a safety factor in having multiple critics with different points of view. At least a restaurant is not tempted to aim at pleasing a single all too powerful critic's taste. A winemaker in France spoke about a new tendency among winemakers to "Parkerize" their wine. His own wine scored well by Parker and his bank was happy. Maybe with multiple reviewers the public will begin to understand that there's a lot of subjectivity in all this.

Graham, you give a rather middling review to your May 98 meal at the Auberge du Vieux Puits in Fontjoncouse. I see it's now got two Michelin stars. Have you had any experience there since 1998? Any update on Les Feuillants in Ceret? I know you were in the Languedoc just recently. Any discoveries? I suppose I'm really asking about the Roussillon as much as anything, but really anything between Beziers and the Spanish border is of interest.

lxt, I don't want to "drive restaurant prices down so more people can enjoy the experience." I know too many people who work in restaurants for a living. I'm glad at least that you recognize the contribution of luck. Plotnicki might have us believe lottery winners are also part of the distribution of money to those who merit it. At any rate I refuse to limit my criticism of the capitalist system as we practice it, just because I can't suggest a better alternative just as I will criticize what's wrong with democracy without suggesting that totalitarianism is better. I'm just upset that Plotnicki says my values are without merit because no one's buying them.

I think so, but not in NY or SF, just in America.

I think money is distributed by supply and demand rather than any system of fairness. Intellectual education is not as highly demanded as the ability to toss a big ball through a hoop. Major college professors get less than some atheletes. It's certainly fair that people get to spend their money as they see fit. If wealth can buy lawyers and even judges, it would be unfair not to let it buy the best meals. If nothing else it would be unfair to the chefs. Some people really enjoy their work. Others don't. That seems inherently less fair than any inequitable distribution of capital. I have no claim to know what's fair and always assume life is unfair.

A little update on El Bulli for 2002. It's the 20th anniversay of El Bulli. According to the information on their fax letter head, they are editing three volumes of recipes in celebration of the past 20 years. Their degustacion menu this year will be featuring a retrospective of dishes intended to plese the palate and memory.

You have a point, as I suspect there are those on the site who love food and have not tasted Petrus. Foie gras seems pretty common these days and I can't be as sure about it as I can about Petrus. I once sat at a dinner table with someone who "always" had Petrus, but that turned out to be an editiorial "always" much to my sadness.

db has an area between the two main dining rooms, that they call the "bar," but it's not a bar. There's long bar height table (or maybe two) with stools on all sides. As far as I know it's reserved for those without reservations, particularly singles. As the stools are arranged on both sides of the "bar," (high table) it is more like a communual table than a bar. Wilfrid, do you know if seating policy has changed here? Will they take reservations at the "bar." How do you feel about communal tables in general and in particular with seating singles only at a communal table in a restaurant with other tables. By the way, I may be misrepresenting db's policies or intentions. These are my assumptions and I'll be happy if Wilfrid can correct them if they're wrong.

And how many have failed? It's usually easy enough to explain why the wealthy among us deserve their wealth, it's often less easy to explain why others deserve so much less. Should I accept the fact that money is distributed by merit, I still wouldn't understand why the rich should have access to the best restaurants any more than I accept that they should have access to the best universities.

I hope I've come down on both sides of this issue from time to time. It's really contradictory for a critic to be both impassioned and impartial, yet the appearance of impartiality is not the red herring it should be only because of the power major newspapers have given to sole reviewers. In NYC, four stars from the NY Times is about as close as any restaurant can get to three Michelin stars. Those stars may not afford the same level of respect or be as bankable as the Michelin stars, but they are the NY standard. No matter how far removed the reviewer is from contact with any particular restaurant or chef, he or she, is still dependant on some sense of taste, but we pretend that the reviews are unbiased by a more controllable standard as it it's also a controlling standard. When's the last time an art or music critic lost respect for championing a particular artist, not for championing a bad or untalented artist, but just for being a champion. Do we lose respect for the critics voice because he's been to the artist's studio or because he quotes the artist's own words in an article? I don't think so. The media has created a very artificial and all too powerful a role for "the restaurant reviewer." One of the things that makes Eric Asimov so popular and successful in his twenty-five dollar reviews is that these reviews don't rate restaurants and, for the most part, they don't knock restaurants. He searches out restaurants that meet his basic criteria and he tells you how he thinks you can get the most out of them. My strong feeling is that if the NY Times had four restaurant reviewers and they all competed for attention on a rotating basis, you'd get better reviews and above all, more useful information to the public. They'd each go after the restaurants they loved and explain those restaurants to the public and there might not be any stars. If the public craved stars, may the team could vote on a rating after the restaurant has been in business for at least a year or longer.

I think they do. Probably so. That has struck me as less true if you're talking about knowledge of food and dining as opposed to knowledge of the craft of writing.

I doubt it although I should also note I've never been there. It's a three star restaurant with a 19/20 from GaultMillau, how can anyone not be at least curious about eating there. Time and money might be the only things that would cause one not to act on the curiosity. In my case it's a combination of both things. I can afford to eat in restaurants in that price range, but both limited time in Paris and limited budget have prevented me from pursuing all of the three stars in Paris. Taillevent hasn't made it to the top of the list I suspect, because I'm most interested in chef driven restaurants whether they are conservative or avant garde in their approach to food. I'd also admit to being more curious about restaurants that are changing the way we look at food and dining and Taillevent seems devoted to preserving a way of dining. If I were rich though, I'd feel a duty to contribute to that cause. It's an honorable one. Tell us where else you've eaten in Paris (or the world) and why you've liked or disliked particular restaurants and you might get some opinions on why you'd enjoy Tallevent or be better off reserving elsewhere.

Damien, I'm pleased you enjoyed Blue Hill. I loved it the first time I ate there. I think the food has always been superb, but it continues to improve. While the ambience and service don't compete with Daniel or that class of restaurant, I think the service and overall quality of the dining experience have also been improving steadily since Blue Hill opened. My personal preference is Daniel, but as I've noted, it's possible that my preference is based on my personal history with the restaurant, although that in turn, is based on my earlier preference. Mao, yes, the food is pretty seasonal, but I would guess that's because seasonal foods generally offer the best flavors for the price. rather because of some imposed limitation. Yes also, there is a bar and I've seen singles and couples eating at the bar from time to time. When you ask if one person can have the tasting menu, do you mean alone at the bar or at a table while others are having fewer courses? I don't see a problem with the former, but the latter might well not be allowed. Call the restaurant.

We're getting so far afield here that I hate to respond, but "propaganda" might replace "enlightenment" in some people's minds. I'd further point out that the church was able to be a patron of the arts for precisely the same reason as dukes, princes and kings were--they had the funds.

Correct, it's the work of an individual, but it's entered our children's literature as a classic. My guess is that its copyright is no longer in effect as I believe I've seen so many editions in varying shapes, sizes and translations, that I have no problem separating how it's used from who wrote it.

Pan, John, Even I know that my "interpretation" of the lesson in The Emperor's New Clothes is not the intended one, but I think there's some dark truth in what I say. By the way, I'm more inclined to believe the adults said they saw what they didn't see, less out of fear they would lose their heads than that they would be seen as less worthy by their fellow men. Weren't they all told by the tailors that only the pure in heart, or some bullshit like that, could see the clothes? And this is precisely what some critics of "new" art and innovative cooking use to accuse the creative artist or chef (assuming the latter can't be the former as well) of pulling the wool over everyone's eyes (invisible wool?). The critics often claim that the fans just follow the avant garde partyline. To them Warhol, Koons, Adria, Gagnaire and the like are all producing the emperor's new clothes, but the same criticism was felt by the impressionists and some food loving diners still believe haute cuisine is nothing but an excuse to put less on the plate in order to cut the restaurant's costs. There will always be those who "get it," and those who don't, but over a half century of successes by the avant garde over time has led to a backlash and the lesson many potential critics have learned is that it's hard to recognize the next avant garde. Thus we may see a rush to jump on a band wagon. The eagerness of some to proclaim the "new," in turn forces the doubters to be even more adamant. What's really needed is a greater audience willing to say "that's interesting" and fewer people telling us what's good or bad. To get back to this thread on Craft, what we had was Plotnicki telling us Carft is very interesting along with what he found troubling. To his credit, if I can remember that far back in the thread, he clearly separated his subjective opinions from his objective accounts. Robert Brown, I'm all for art historians and curators who can be as creative as artists and as often barking up the wrong tree, but it should be understood that if their collective energy and opinion was "correct," there would not be the revisionism there is in art history. They serve best when they teach us how to see and not what to find. While on this line of thinking, I'm also interested in why those who have no problem separating fine art from popular art and folk art have such a problem with seeing haute cuisine as fine cooking to be judged by a different set of standards than folk cooking. I'd go on, but it's mother's day and I have to get ready to leave for a popular performance where there is little room for creativity and much attention is paid to the craft of the perfomer over the course of nine innings.

Even among thieves, I understand some honor is expected.

If you have to ask, then I was not clear. Unquestionably there are abuses and Abuses. In the case of unpaid apprenticeships, some people may see that as an abusive system. In the case where one individual seeks to take advantage of another individual by breaking his word and not fulfilling his part in an agreement, the abuse is unethical and should be seen as unfair and unreasonable by all people. Should you tell me in advance that I may work for you for free for three months, I am free to accept of reject that offer. Should you tell me that I will be paid for my work and then refuse to pay me, that is neither appropriate, nor acceptable.

Don't blame wiingding, I brought that up. Of course that's a different story. You weren't as clear on the nature of the abuses earlier. As for the position of unpaid stagaire, in any other industry it would probably be seen as abusive. On the other hand, one person I know who spent six months working in a top kitchen without pay, felt it was justified as it cost less than going to cooking school and was more instructive. It's not uncommon for an American restaurant to pay a three star restaurant in France to allow one of its employees to work without pay for a stage. Being a stagaire without salary may be considered a good deal in those terms. It's probably harder to get to work for free in the kitchen at El Bulli than it is to get a reservation in the dining room.

This reminds me of The Emperor's New Clothes a childhood story with which western society attempts to pass on some of its collective wisdom to the next generation. Our society, although generally hypocritical, is keen on believing innocence is a true judge.

There are many recipes for dishes à la boulanger in France. These are dishes that cook for a long time in the oven. Traditionally, they'd have been taken to the bread bakery and placed in the oven between bread bakings or after the bread was baked and spend all day there before being picked up at dinner time.

It's not all that common, but closed circuit TV is used by a few restaurants to ensure smooth service in the dining room. It may never replace a good waitstaff, but it can help the kitchen know when to fire dishes. The first time we noticed cameras in the dining room was in a nice inn in France. I thought it was all part of a burglar slam system. Now I know better. These days, cameras are far less noticeable. Some diners resent the idea of cameras in the dining room, but in a way, they're a sign that they care about the timing of a meal.

The traditional French apprentice system is fraught with abuse. True one could never quite get away with it here to the extent that haute cuisine in France has depended on free stagaires working overtime and it's not what it was in France. I will admit though that even at it's worst, it seems more professional than the outright exploitation you describe, so we're not comparing apples with apples in my example.

I don't care to either support or argue with your predictions about the long run, but I wholeheartedly agree that the existence of ideas for their own sake is healthy even if only a few turn out to be seen as brilliant in the long run. At least I agree, if you're saying what I'm saying. One difference might be that I wouln't feel so foolish for embracing an idea I think is poop a few years later. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. There's value in taking risks.

Cooking as high art has never hurt my pursuit of good eating. There's plenty of bad architecture, but I've never seen bad architecture more easily accepted as fine art than good architecture. There's something that strikes me as not only anti-elitist in this line of thinking, but anti-intellectual, as if thinking too much about any pursuit will invariably ruin it. It strikes me that "good" and "bad" are often very subjective anyway and any discussion that starts by separating art or food into good and bad is never going to rise above being about taste.