"New Paradigm" Restaurants

[Fat Guy]

I give Frank Bruni credit for a few things. First, he has an incredible body of knowledge due to his relentless and well-funded dining schedule. So he's able to pull together information in a way that perhaps nobody else in the city can. That essay is a real tour-de-force and he gets a lot of things right. Second, of the major critics, he comes closest to understanding the connections among the restaurants that several of us have been calling "new paradigm." I'm not sure any other major critic is even in the ballpark. So that's an accomplishment.

But at best what he has come up with is a near miss. I'd call it the old-paradigm understanding of the new paradigm. Indeed, in describing Ssam Bar, Bruni uses the word "paradigm" but in a pedestrian sense:

Its menu rejects the appetizer-entree paradigm for an order-as-you-go patchwork of small and medium-size dishes.

Again and again throughout the piece, he comes close but reaches unremarkable conclusions. And then the discussion devolves into nonsensical New York Times-esque overreaching, such as:

But I suspect it also taps into wider cultural dynamics, into the anxieties of a country, overextended abroad and self-doubting at home, that has lost some of its appetite for grand plans and grand gestures, that would prefer to play things safe.

That sort of inane comment makes one wonder if Frank Bruni actually lives in New York City.

[Sneakeater]

I came back to this thread to see what people would make of today's Bruni piece. I think Fat Guy has that nailed.

A few comments on the last several months' discussion:

1. I don't see why restaurants that serve only dessert get excluded from New Paradigm. I thought R4D was a paradigmatic New Paradigm place.

2. In terms of describing the NP menu mix, I think "basic" is a better word than "rustic". It isn't so much that NP menus mix country and city: it's that they mix elaborate with simple. The reason many of us think Bouley Upstairs is a NP place, for example, is that you can just get a hamburger or a bowl of pasta if you want -- while your tablemate gets an elaborate halibut preparation.

3. Dave the Cook is right that we proponents of the "New Paradigm" have done a bad job of defining it (I've argued previously that the definition will become clearer as more restaurants are identified as "NP" and we can see what ties them together). I think that an important feature that Fat Guy has emphasized, but that gets left out of the stated definitions, is the broad range of choices of types of meal you can have: as Fat Guy says, you can have a dish or a four-course dinner. Sure, regulars could always walk into a place like Le Cirque and order nothing more than a cup of chicken consomme -- but the New Paradigm extends that range of choice, at the upper reaches of technical accomplishment, to all.

4. What the NP isn't, I think, is tweaked rustic food. The reason I don't think Resto is NP is because there's nothing particularly haute on the menu: it's all tweaked rustic dishes. (That's not an insult: I like Resto [and remain mystified why so many others here don't].) Also endemic to NP places, I think, is culinary border-crossing, which Resto doesn't do. It seems to me that a large part of the NP is surprise at seeing various different things together on the same menu. (It's interesting, because most of us react very badly to restaurants that try to do too much. Part of what's "new" about the New Paradigm is that they can do all this border-crossing and mixing of different types of dishes while maintaining a strong auteurial focus. Indeed, I never thought about it this way, but a good parallel is early Godard, whose movies were a mishmash of all kinds of high and low features, all held together by the director's vision.)

Edited December 26, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

good points all.

(and I agree that Bruni's last paragraph is nonsensical and probably reflective of the general NYT ethos)...

but I do think that "tweaked rustic", "haute barnyard", whimsicality or playfulness are part of it. all of these places are doing that at some level. maybe it's not an essential part of the NP...but it's still a trademark.

[Sneakeater]

All I meant is that it can't be NOTHING BUT "tweaked rustic".

That's something else.

Edited December 26, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Fat Guy]

Right, it's not that new-paradigm restaurants can't offer "tweaked rustic" or any other category of food. It's that the paradigm rejects such categories altogether. This rejection of categories is one of the things that makes it impossible to define the new paradigm using old-paradigm terminology. In this regard, Ssam Bar strikes the new-paradigm bullseye because it's so at peace with category-free food. Restaurants like p*ong are farther from the bullseye because they are, as Bruni likes to say, "fussy." And restaurants like Back Forty don't count at all, because they're exclusively "tweaked rustic." Interesting that Bruni doesn't mention Back Forty, though, because it's so on target to his thesis. Maybe there's one restaurant I've dined at that Bruni hasn't!

[Nathan]

agreed

[Sneakeater]

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the real essence of the "New Paradigm" is its mix of haute and not. And it doesn't particularly matter what the "not" is.

Moreover -- and this is why I think R4D was nearly "bullseye" NP even though nothing on its menu was particularly simple -- the "not" doesn't necessarily have to relate solely to food. You could have a place that serves almost exclusively elaborate "haute" food, but it could still be NP if you do it in an assertedly informal setting (NB: not "semi-formal", like, say, Hearth -- but informal), at prices that, per meal, are relatively gentle (i.e., R4D wasn't particularly cheap per serving, if you look at it as "just dessert" -- but if you look at it as going to a "haute" restaurant, what you would spend to eat there en toto wasn't much [and, reversing the dining-out mantra of my father-in-law's generation, you could have "savories at home"]).

[Nathan]

speaking of Bruni's take, in post 93 on this thread I wrote:

"today you have a larger number of young chefs trained at a four-star level than ever before (at least in the U.S., Italy, the UK and Spain). combined with a wider assortment of high-quality ingredients available than ever before. furthermore, you have a general zeitgeist amenable to cross-cultural influences. (in a word, a lot of it's just globalization.) combined with higher startup costs for a true fine-dining restaurant than ever before (and a dearth of front of the house staff).

these guys weren't going to just stick to bistro food. "

[Sneakeater]

Finally, I have to say, with respect to oakapple's point that Hearth and Landmarc were once foodboard darlings and now Ssam Bar is just the next one, that I for one have always been on record as not having seen what the big deal was about Hearth and Landmarc, which I always saw as boring, overrated comfort food joints. But, as is obvious, despite my initial skepticism, I'm genuinely excited about Ssam Bar.

I'm not saying that, if I like it, it's NP. I'm just saying that some of us detect a difference between Ssam Bar and those prior board darlings.

(Anyway, I've always argued that NP-candidate Bouley Upstairs wasn't enough of a board darling.)

Edited December 26, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Fat Guy]

NP data point: I thought Frank Bruni captured something in today's review of Terroir and Gottino.

Terroir and Gottino exemplify a wine-bar evolution so thorough that nomenclature can’t keep up. And they reflect the increasing degree to which distinguished cooking pops up in the unconventional, informal settings that many food lovers often prefer.

[Nathan]

this is on point:

http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/travel/06journeys.html

are we really talking about bistronomias?

[Fat Guy]

Definitely on point, but what an awful word.

[docsconz]

Definitely on point, but what an awful word.

←

It works better in Spanish or French. The concept was a major focus of the most recent Madrid Fusión. As I mentioned way upstream, this is not really new, however, it certainly has gained momentum and become a global phenomenon. New York was actually relatively late on the scene. I can only see this becoming more entrenched as the economy sputters.

[Sneakeater]

Today's Feedbag quotes a Ruth Reichl interview in today's Huffington Post in which, in praising David Chang, Reichl gives a pretty good definition of the New Paradigm:

"There’s David Chang who is a genius in the way he combines flavors. The thing that interests me most about him is his respect for his audience. Among all the other chefs that I’ve met, he understands that even people who don’t have a lot of money and who want to eat casually will take risks. And he’s serving really risky food. Who else would put whipped tofu, sea urchins and tapioca in one dish? It’s the kind of thing you might expect in a fancy restaurant but in a place that doesn’t take reservations, where you’re sitting at a counter, where it’s noisy, where ordinary people can afford to go? Putting those type of dishes on the menu is sort of saying, ‘I trust this audience and that they trust me.’"

[docsconz]

Today's Feedbag quotes a Ruth Reichl interview in today's Huffington Post in which, in praising David Chang, Reichl gives a pretty good definition of the New Paradigm:

"There’s David Chang who is a genius in the way he combines flavors. The thing that interests me most about him is his respect for his audience. Among all the other chefs that I’ve met, he understands that even people who don’t have a lot of money and who want to eat casually will take risks. And he’s serving really risky food. Who else would put whipped tofu, sea urchins and tapioca in one dish? It’s the kind of thing you might expect in a fancy restaurant but in a place that doesn’t take reservations, where you’re sitting at a counter, where it’s noisy, where ordinary people can afford to go? Putting those type of dishes on the menu is sort of saying, ‘I trust this audience and that they trust me.’"

←

The problem is the Momos aren't really cheap - they just lack the trappings.

[Sneakeater]

Not cheap. But cheaper than, say, Corton, for example.

[docsconz]

Not cheap.  But cheaper than, say, Corton, for example.

←

Cheaper perhaps, but is it a better value?

[Sneakeater]

Apples and oranges. I'd say it is. But I'd also say I don't really think in those terms, at that level of accomplishment. I love them both, and would recommend either.

[Sneakeater]

To me, the main point is something like this:

Even putting aside the fact that they don't do walk-in bar service, Corton isn't the kind of place I'd regularly walk to after work for an impromtu dinner. Ssam Bar, I do that all the time. The fact that that level of quality and invention is available to me on the fly, at prices that, while they aren't cheap, I can still spend on an unplanned everyday sort of basis . . . well, I won't be hyperbolic and say it's life-changing -- but it very nearly has been.

[paulraphael]

It's not just the lack of trappings ... there's something about the Momos that leads me to spend double what I expect. The dishes are reasonable priced. Maybe the trouble is that I can't get enough of them.

At any rate, now that they have three restaurants, I think it would be great if there was a more serious price difference between the lower two. Noodle bar and saam bar seem really close together in terms of menu and price. I'd love it if they could make noodle bar more cut rate.

[iHEARTalbany]

I normally relegate my role on eg to cognizant observer, but I thought this particularly poignant topic was worth chiming in on. The 'food' world, more now than ever before, has a hand in the day to day affairs of the average american. In a freaky sign of the times, people are searching for emotional hibernation, to soften the blow from the stark realities around, and the preferred medium has become food. You could write a whole thesis about the reasoning behind this, but I'll sum it up like this (as someone who would probably fall into this category); "I need to eat, I want to have fun, I can't spend tons of money: can I satisfy these three things?"

I know it sounds a little oversimplified, but its an untapped opportunity for this industry; a genre of restaurant that empathizes with the guests, and ultimately, keeps the business of the guests who are still eating out. Ive researched and thought at great length about the challenges and opportunities of restaurants that don't catagorically identify themselves with one specific region or cuisine, but still display enough culinary ambition and consciousness not to dispatch them to the pile of "fusion" restaurants of yesteryear's.

The success of Ssam bar has implications that should invigorate even the most cynical of restaurant folk right now. For me it means this, people still appreciate the very core virtues of gastronomy: flavor, technique/craftsmanship, presentation and thought. It also highlights what people can do away with: lux stemware/plateware/silverware, formality (reservations/tablecloths/sportscoats), etc. People want an experience conceptualized with the same vigor and enthusiasm as they would at one of these meccas of gastronomy, but they want music in the background, they want portions that are going to satiate in addition to titillate, and they want to move on (but hopefully be back more often).

Another element not to go unnoticed in all of this is the evolution and maturation of the open kitchen, from its primal beginnings as a factor of limited options to its reverence now as the hub and heart of the restaurant. More and more, people want to be part of the experience in going out. Sounds trite and cliche, huh? When you talk to the reps from Molteini and Bonnet, they talk about how a great majority of their new installations are for open kitchens and are being built not only to be the guilded iron workhorses, but to also be the central stages of these kitchens. Its not enough for the thing to crank out almost wok-like btus on its french tops, the enamel tone must match appropriately with the fitting finish and the tile work around the kitchen. I was aghast a few months ago when in town for the starchefs convention, and eating at momofuku ssam bar when a couple of non-industry folks went up to check out the combitherm oven and marvel at its awesome powers. Since when did my neighborhood hipsters know as much about polyscience's immersion circulators as me?

So what does this all mean? The very idea of what makes a good restaurant is being re-thought and re imagined by both the patrons and the proprietors. Its an interesting trade of compromises back and forth, and its an opportunity for both newcomers (Chang - Momofuku) and seasoned vets(Keller-adhoc) alike to stake a claim in what has the potential of being a symbiotic relationship for both the people behind these restaurants and the communities in which they service. Whether they set out to or not, they are redefining dining out, and they have only captured a very small portion of the interested population. I hope, both for myself and for those capable of doing something like this, that the idea of being gastronomically ambitious and still fiscally conscious catches, and further evolves and becomes more interesting. It too early in its infancy to start rubber-stamping out ssam bar clones, when clearly the possibilities grow by the minute!

Greg K-C

[Fat Guy]

In his year-end roundup of the 10 best new restaurants of 2008 Frank Bruni of the New York Times chose Momofuku Ko as number 1 and called it "a paradigm-busting experiment that, like so much of what Mr. Chang has done, heeds and adjusts for what a new generation of discerning diners cares most about — and what fuss and frippery they can do without." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/dining/3...html?ref=dining

[Sneakeater]

Holy fuck! They say "New Paradigm"! On TV! And define it just the way it was defined here!

FG should get royalties.

Link