Arpege: dinner and lunch; 2002-2004

[ajay]

But (assuming dollar for euro parity or a weak dollar) Ducasse is more expensive than troisgros--especially since all taxes and gratuties are inlcuded in the price.

And in my view there is no comparison between the cuisine offered at Troigros and ADNY.

ps Ducasse is also more expensive than Gagnaire

[yvonne johnson]

 So, Plotnicki's contention that the best is the most expensive doesn't apply to Ducasse's dishes in New York?

You are putting words in my mouth. What I say is that the "best quality" items usually end up being the highest priced. The best tomato usually costs the most money and the worst tomato the cheapest. But the best meal doesn't always cost the most money because there are too many other factors involved.

Am I putting words in your mouth?

"It's easy.

Better quality = Higher Cost

I'm trying to think of a single thing in our lives that it isn't true for. All you are giving me is the example where more people do it and they dilute the result because they don't know. That's my argument. I'm the one who says that people who rate USC as high as Jean-Georges do so because they just can't tell the difference. Has it occured to you that more people go to USC and love it because the quality isn't as good it's cheaper?" (Steve P., 7/14/02, Fine Dining vs Cheap Eats thread)

[tommy]

Nah. I was just caught off guard by being wrong. It's the first time it's ever happened.

for a smug bastard you handled it quite well.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Yvonne - Could you be more idiotic? Here is what I said in this thread;

You are putting words in my mouth. What I say is that the "best quality" items usually end up being the highest priced.

And here is what I said in the post you quoted from

Better quality = Higher Cost

Do you see any difference?

It gets even more ridiculous because you then take my next sentence and put it in bold and try and make the word "everything" mean something other then what it is describing which is *quality as it relates to price.*

Do everyone on the board a favor and stop bothering me. You interupt countless threads by trying to turn the topic of conversation into being about me. I don't know why you do that but you must have some perverse need to try and get me. It's bothersome and foolish, and you are a grown person with a PHD you should have better things to do with your time.

[robert brown]

I am sorry I was away (in DC having a terrific meal) and missed all the fireworks. It is enthralling reading. As always when I miss out on a great discussion I regret not having had the opportunity to put everything in neat, succinct perspective. Only if the debate picks up again will I set everything straight. I can see, however, that the postings have evolved into short, personal comments that typically mark the death of an e-Gullet discussion. Tough luck.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I was wondering where you were. Please chime in with your opinion as it is sorely needed. And I'd hate to see that the hecklers have the power to derail the threads. Fine dining needs you.

[lxt]

As I recall, the issue was whether the views of professionals in the trade are more determinitive as to true value than the views of consumers.  I don't believe that the ultimate success of Matisse and Prokofiev or other artists and composers is determined by the views of their fellow professionals.  I don't even know that their fellow professionals particularly supported them.  Even if they did, it wouldn't matter.  It was the consuming public, perhaps with the leadership of certain critics and art historians, who are part of the public and not the trade, that passed judgment.  Of course, artists and composers have an advantage, in that their work has persistence and doesn't disappear down someones mouth to be gone forever.  In the latter case, its aesthetic value is rather irrelevant if its not appreciated on the spot.

But “critics and art historians” do not represent the masses; they are the core among the professionals whose job is to introduce the best, based on their opinion, to the general public. The public renders the verdict on longevity only, but its decision will not diminish the actual artistic value of the created work.

The general public couldn’t care less about Van Gogh and would’ve never known his works had a group of critics not realized his talent and promoted his art to the rest of us after his death. In fact, during his life he was able to sell only 1 painting for 400 francs just 4 months before his death. Where was the general public for 10 years of his creative life?

Though critics and historians are part of the trade along with artists and dealers, their roles are certainly different. Since I brought up Van Gogh as an example, what comes to mind is that at some period of time Van Gogh attempted to become an art dealer. He was excellent in recognizing what constitutes a valuable piece of artwork. However, due to the fact that he wasn’t a salesman (no offense to anyone), if a customer became interested in purchasing a poorly done painting, Van Gogh would provide a long discourse as to why it was a piece of junk. And that is what the role of a professional critic should be: to educate and to form the taste of the general public.

Marcus, on a different and unrelated subject, the point you made of “gone forever” and irrelevant if “not appreciated on the spot” was a very hot topic some times ago and was thoroughly discussed previously. From what I can recollect, some of us were even “injured” during this hot discussion (ouch). I include a link for your amusement. Consummate Passion

[lxt]

Claiming that an author's (or other kind of "creator"'s) peers are best placed to evaluate a work is not the intentional fallacy.  That's what lxt said.

That’s our Wilfrid – defender of truth, justice, and the American way.

[Steve Plotnicki]

The public renders the verdict on longevity only, but its decision will not diminish the actual artistic value of the created work.

There is no verdict to render. As I keep saying (ahem,) works of art need to meet an objective standard. What changes, as in your example of Van Gogh, is that there was no standard to hold it to because it was new and unusual for its time. That professionals couldn't formulate the standard is a fluke of history. It just means the right person wasn't born yet.

[marcus]

lxt -- you are slippery. You are redifining the term professional outside of the context it was used in this discussion. When Steve Klc referred to professionals, he was referring specifically to practitioners, people in the trade. Critics are not in the trade, they stand outside of it and using the term professional to include them under the same umbrellla, is misleading and a play on words. The important distinction is the one between the seller and buyer. The critic/reviewer is on the side of the buyer and views a product or a work of art from the buyer's (or publics) perspective.

[Fat Guy]

Yvonne - Could you be more idiotic?

That's a bit much. Let's go back to the real argument, which was just about to be elevated by Mr. Brown's late arrival. He's the only one who can save you now!

[Fat Guy]

The critic/reviewer is on the side of the buyer and views a product or a work of art from the buyer's (or publics) perspective.

That's true of consumer advocates and other low-level critics who review stuff for epinions.com and such, but serious critics are on the side of the craft itself. They are educators and liaisons, but their only master should be excellence. They are of course consumers too -- everybody is -- but consumer protection is only incidental to what they do. Part of the problem with restaurant criticism is that it mostly occurs at the lowest level. Very few food critics are actively pushing the craft forward through relentless advocacy of and education about the best. Most of them are hung up on how many points or stars to give to the latest carbon-copy steakhouse or brasserie.

[robert brown]

I feel this enormous pressure, an overriding obligation, tremendous tension, and here I nodded off during the 9th inning of the Angels-New York game due to lack of sleep last night from a noisy air conditioner at the Latham Hotel in Georgetown. I beg for your forebearance and patience until tomorrow.

[lxt]

The public renders the verdict on longevity only, but its decision will not diminish the actual artistic value of the created work.

There is no verdict to render. As I keep saying (ahem,) works of art need to meet an objective standard. What changes, as in your example of Van Gogh, is that there was no standard to hold it to because it was new and unusual for its time. That professionals couldn't formulate the standard is a fluke of history. It just means the right person wasn't born yet.

Steve, you are missing the point again. I am not arguing against standards. In fact, I have no reasons to disagree with your statement. The point made, however, was that until the standards were formed within the artistic society by the professionals and critics so that the public could be educated in this respect, Van Gogh’s works were not recognized. The whole idea is that “the good and the best” is introduced to us most of the time by the critics. Of course, it is our decision whether to accept their opinion, but the public as an entity most of the time is one step behind and rarely notices or promotes trends not previously introduced by the critics.

[Fat Guy]

LXT, I'd say that in some fields the critics aren't all that much of a force, but in any event I do agree that in every field I can think of there is an elite of tastemakers that makes the top level decisions about what will get out to the larger audience, and the larger audience usually responds because the tastemakers are representative of their tastes and potential tastes. Like in the music business -- correct me if I'm wrong, Plotnicki -- people like club DJs and party promoters have a lot more say over what reaches the public than do the critics who write for music magazines. But when the tastemakers fail their audience, as through the pursuit of ulterior motives, the audience sometimes catches on and the tastemakers get fired or have to fall in line. Once again I'm reminded of the relationship between the critics and Ducasse.

Mr. Brown, the floor is yours.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Most of them are hung up on how many points or stars to give to the latest carbon-copy steakhouse or brasserie.

Or how many lollipops are on the dessert trolly (sorry Steve Klc I couldn't resist.)

Yvonne - Could you be more idiotic?

That's a bit much. Let's go back to the real argument, which was just about to be elevated by Mr. Brown's late arrival. He's the only one who can save you now!

Not really. She has a personal gripe with me. And she thinks the right thing to do is to interupt inteligent conversation (ahem) with snide comments that are directed at me. Her husband too. They can either stop or we can raise it to a fever pitch. Their choice.

As to my being saved, gee I threw out a bunch of points this afternoon that you still haven't responded to. Like telling us all what is the aesthetic that Ducasse offers. And I drove all the way back from the Hamptons and I expected a response. Imagine my disappointment when I didn't find it on the board. Thank god I haven't held my breath.

Lxt - The public is always involved. It's just when you are dealing with "high art" it's a very small segment of the public. In fact many artists (like painters) have private clients who buy paintings directly and the entire process has nothing to do with critics. The critics often only see the works after they are privately owned and someone stages an exhibition. And it's the same for music too. Composers don't perform their music privately for critics, the critics attend concerts. And no matter how much the critics hate something, if the public loves it, it will be performed again. The only time critics have weight that is disproprtionate is when they "discover" a Van Gogh who has been overlooked. But I think that's the exception, not the rule. But it's the story that everyone remembers because it serves to sensationalize art

Fat Guy - Your last post is so interesting that I gave it its own section. Written criticism in the music biz has limited impact. Unless we are dealing with a four star review in Rolling Stone. The Warner Music Group used to do these surveys on what sold music, and 90% of the respondents made their decisions based on radio play. Club DJ's are really just an extension of radio play. In fact in many ways they have replaced radio play.

But I'm not sure that when Lxt speaks of criticism she is talking about influence in the same way. I think she means criticism as in schools of thought as to what passes for great art. Like the neo-classicist school in jazz these days (Marsalis.) That is based on a core of criticism that revolves around Wynton. But that is wholly different from a review in People Magazine. But I expect that years from now, providing the music lasts, people will look at the record reviews from the original issues of Rolling Stone as the pinnacle of rock music criticism.

[Fat Guy]

Fat Guy - Your last post is so interesting that I gave it its own section.

I'm honored.

In terms of Ducasse's aesthetic, I think Patricia Wells said it best:

"In short, a study in the luxury of simplicity, the simplicity of luxury. Ducasse's cuisine is one of dignity, diligence and perseverance, a cuisine of the senses, and of someone who is propelled into the kitchen by the sheer force of gourmandise."

A lesser commentator -- me -- has put it this way:

"Ducasse's way with the food is based on a tremendous facility with culinary history, ingredients, and equipment, while his recipes, juxtaposing flavor, texture, and temperature, and reflecting his rather cerebral understanding of what makes a successful meal, remind one in their intricacy of a Bach fugue. This may, indeed, be what prompted Gael Greene to complain that Ducasse's approach is "too intellectual, too contrived," and that his food "has no emotion." But, just as when it is applied to the music of Bach, the complaint lacks all substance."

Now it's your turn. What point of view do you think Passard is communicating? That things taste good when they're cooked slowly on the stovetop in salted butter? Big deal. Or are you going to cast your lot with his publicity stunt about vegetables? And if Ducasse has no unique point of view, show me what non-Ducasse restaurant you can go to and get the same food.

In terms of the taxonomy of restaurantgoers you presented, let me introduce an additional category: People who admire any restaurant that is one of the best of its kind. That's the category I'm in, and probably many others on this site. I like cutting edge food, if it's good. I also like conservative perfectionism. I like luxury. I like pretty much any of the legitimate categories of restaurant. I'll quote something a reporter from Style Weekly wrote about me (I know it's hard to believe anybody would want to write about me, but read it anyway):

"He believes in assessing restaurants on what they aspire to do, whether it be, for example, taking a minimalist approach that puts the best and freshest ingredients in the spotlight, or to the contrary, offering more creative, challenging dishes. "I want to get in the mind of the chef and find out what it's about," he says. Rare is the restaurant, he says, that is objectionable on first principles, although he cites a recently opened New York restaurant specializing in "Scandinavian-Asian fusion" as so forced and artificial as to be questionable from the get-go."

And to put it in terms of your taxonomy, I think you've got it inverted: You're dividing the world up into different types of diners. But the world should really be divided up into different kinds of restaurants. Because the schools of thought emanate from the restaurants not from the customers. The customers can pick and choose, and their support is essential to the success of a restaurant, but they create nothing. And I think you're probably more open minded than the particular hole you've dug yourself into here would make it seem, which is why you can enjoy a meal at Taillevent.

Now will you cough up what you wrote about Gagnaire you stubborn bastard? I'll be back when we've heard from Mr. Brown.

[lxt]

The critic/reviewer is on the side of the buyer and views a product or a work of art from the buyer's (or publics) perspective.

If the outcome of a critic’s review has the effect of promoting a product, then implicitly it would become a part of the trade. I can’t make a clear distinction of where exactly this category belongs besides just to reiterate the point Fat Guy made that the critic/reviewer should be “on the side of the craft itself.”

[Bux]

when it comes to Steve Klc and Bux on the one hand versus Cabrales and Plotnicki on the other I know with whose taste and judgment I'm going to side most every time. And it's not because they have mass market tastes or are stupid. If anything it's because they know more about food than you guys do.

Although you should bear in mind that I find Passard more interesting right now. Then again I've had but one dinner in Arpege, and that was quite some time ago. More recently I've eaten in AD/NY and AD/PA. All in all, the length of time since my Arpege meal contributes as much to my interest in dining at Arpege. Taking that into account, my one visit to Gagnaire was made after my dinner at Arpege, but before either meal at a Ducasse. Gagnaire will be my next three star meal in Paris. Gagnaire has served my most interesting, exciting and successful meal in Paris to date. That doesn't make him the best chef or even the best of those three. I may have hit him on a good day, or more specifically at a good point in his creativity. I will return with great anticipation and more than some trepidation, if only because of the prices I've heard.

Ducasse is also more expensive than Gagnaire

That's reassuring.

I may know a bit about food, but it's based on inexperience at three star restaurants (and I don't know what I don't like). Nevertheless, I can't imagine further experience with the food of any of the these three chefs would lead me to dislike it so much as to compare it to mass produced work clothes while holding the other(s) as haute couturiers. Even when a designer licenses his name to a mass marketer, he rarely runs the risk of it tainting his haute couture line. Whatever one thinks of Spoon, or of the publicity garnered by Ducasse, it's not the subject of the food he serves at AD/NY and not relative to a discussion of the food served at AD/NY.

[Bux]

but it's patently absurd to dismiss his food because you haven't tasted it. I certainly wouldn't dismiss that kind of creativity that allows the diner to revisit food as it he's never tasted it before.

I associate a low probablility with having a dinner at PA that is as enjoyable as one at L'Arpege, or PG, say 20%

This means that at a cost of at least $750 for dinner, probably more, an enjoyable meal at PA is going to cost me around $3750 (not counting opportunity cost, partial travel costs, the emotional cost of a bad meal, etc.). The reason why I may eventually end up dining at ADNY is that the opportunity cost is much lower.

So while dismissing (or not dismissing) his food after tasting it makes better philosophical and culinary sense, economics have to be factored in.

I was referring to Plotnicki's dismissal of the cepes in olive oil that are pictured in a recent Alain Ducasse mailing aong with the comment A simple and delicate delight: Cepes perfumed with olive oil. I did not mean to imply that Steve had never eaten any of Ducasse's food, or that anyone else had to.

We got out from AD/PA for exactly 499 euros on the credit card and I'd guess about 100 FF left in cash last November. That covered dinner for two. We both enjoyed the meal. The only other costs I could ascribe to the meal were a taxi one way and a metro the other. It would have been very unreasonable to consider any other expenses as part of the cost of that meal. We were in Paris for a number of reasons. Once one makes the decision to travel to Paris at any point, the opportunity cost of eating in any particular restaurant is only the cost of dinner.

I have dined in less than half the three star restaurants in Paris and may never eat in all of them. I have eaten in most, but not all of the three stars in the provinces, but once again, I wonder if I will ever get to eat in all of them. I don't consider not choosing a restaurant quite the same thing as dismissing it. Economics will play a role in my not eating at a restaurant in which I have an interest and curiosity. An inability to consume multiple three star meals back to back will also play a part. PMs are running higly favorable and supportive in regard to my modesty.

[Michael Laiskonis]

Bux, in his ever thoughtful way, has opened the door and boosted my confidence instead of biting my tongue as the discussion has twisted and turned beyond my range...

Two or three years ago, I embarked on a sort of vacances gastronomiques, that included three meals in three days: Gagnaire the first day, Ducasse (at Hotel du Parc) the second, followed by Arpège. I can honestly say that I enjoyed all three, while, perhaps, not equally, at the least for recognizing what made each chef different from the others. I arrived at each chef's table with a general understanding (to the best of my abilities) of his intentions and they all satisfied on that level. As a young cook, I feel I learned something from each meal. True, maybe the frequency of visits to one or two over the other show my underlying preferences, but those preferences are based as much on economics as any other factor (I had something to say on that point, either in the Taillevent or Haeberlin thread, I can't remember now which, and now the context has shifted. It was something to the effect that I surely have worried about paying the 'phone bill' after such meals, but such experiences are essential with regard to my passion for eating and the refining of my cooking). If anything, the discussions here have led me toward new territory and restaurants to visit when I next have the opportunity.

I agree with Bux' assertion that the chefs in question occupy the same tiny segment of the broader culinary curve; if there is cause for argument within this tiny segment, all I can say is, Vive la difference!

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux - I also commend you for your modesty as well. But while your attempt to use the Cepes in Olive Oil as something that might be worth plunking the $160 for dinner at Ducasse, I can't imagine it, especially after having eaten there. If I want Cepes with olive oil I can go eat at Il Mullino (a place I hate) for $60.

Fat Guy - Passard's aesthetic is minimalism. He has reduced (a good word for cooking no?) the concept of haute cuisine into two components. First, he has developed cooking techniques that are non-invasive. Everything is gently and slowly cooked to maximize flavor. He is sweating the flavor out of the food. Not only is the taste intensified, it makes his food have a certain texture (obviously one you don't like.) The vegetables are all satiny and have a crunch to softness factor that I've never seen at any other restaurant. The second aspect of his cuisine is to limit the number of principal flavors in a dish. The dishes themselves are simply composed. Look at the lobster with turnip. Thin slices of claw meat are topped by a sweet and sour sauce. The turnips are sliced so thin so as to hardly impose a taste. They are just there for crunch.

But while the above might make for a bunch of interesting, or even great dishes, what makes it genius is how he has composed the meal. Intense yet subtly balanced food allows him to build a crescendo of texture. And the fact that he has texture built into the menu allows him a backdrop for how he introduces and varies acidity. Of course there is the addiitional component here of the food being cerebral. I've just described the sensual aspect of the food. I haven't even gotten into why it's interesting on a cerebral level. I will leave that for Mr. Brown to disseminate. But I will say that the point of the meal starting with an egg and ending with a chicken wasn't lost on me.

Now I don't find any of what I just described at Ducasse other then he is also interested in cooking methods that maximize the flavor of the food. But on that level I find Passard extremely successful and Ducasse less so (from my own dining experience.) That is probably more about how their establishments are organized. Passard is in the kitchen and Ducasse is a brand name with a test kitchen. But I will put that point to the side. Take Ducasse's Cepes in Olive Oil promotion. What's the point of that dish? That many Italians immigrated to America and bourgoise Jews happen to like Northern Italian food? Never have I seen a menu at Ducasse that spoke to me. Occassionaly he offers a theme menu like the asparagus and morel menu that caused me to dine there. His all seafood menu was something I was interested in as well but for $250 a throw I passed. But if my $160 asparagus and morel menu was more interesting, better thought out and executed with the degree of precision that Ducasse promises, I probably would have gone back for the seafood. But here we are, 2 1/2 years later and I haven't been back.

But I think the icing on the cake of this repartee is the passage you quoted from Patricia Wells which says;

In short, a study in the luxury of simplicity, the simplicity of luxury. Ducasse's cuisine is one of dignity, diligence and perseverance, a cuisine of the senses, and of someone who is propelled into the kitchen by the sheer force of gourmandise

Well if you read through this thread, you will find that I describe the various arguments made about Ducasse (from your side of the argument) as describing luxury. And while luxury is an aesthetic in and of itself, I also go onto say that I am using aesthetic to mean something cerebral, not just ephemeral.

Finally there is the issue of my liking Taillevent, where the meal is about being pampered and not about cutting edge cuisine. You want to know why I like Taillevent but do not like Ducasse (and saying I don't like Ducasse is not really correct. It's a good place, I just don't see the point of it all.) That point goes to the issue of why I go out to eat, and what it is I am interested in accomplishing at a meal of this type. Taillevent works because the proffer they make about the experince you are going to have and what they deliver are in synch. They don't promise cutting edge food, yet they have a few signature dishes on their menu that every gourmand knows and which are so good, that your pal Ms. Wells included them in her various books. The Watercress Soup (which MartyL waxed about on the Taillevent thread) the lobster sausage and the chocolate cake with the pistachio sauce. Not only that, the food is very well priced, and they have the best priced wine list, relative to their location, in the entire world of haute cuisine. We drank two Premier Cru Burgundies, one from 1989 and one from 1995 and our entire bill was less then 900 euros for four people. What a contrast with ADNY where I needed to get into the $700 a bottle range before I could find anything interesting. And that was from the original list from when they first opened. Those wines have been picked over and now the cost would be at least double.

Ducasse, as far as I'm concerned, does not deliver the proffer he offers about his establishment. To me his proffer says, eat food prepared by the world's most famous chef in the most opulent environment and with the most professional service in the world, i.e., come to the world's best restaurant. But that proffer comes with the implied statement that *we will serve you the best food you ever had and together with all the other formalities and frills we impose on the meal it will be the best meal of your life.* And to my way of thinking they fail to deliver that promise. Because the world's greatest meal needs to go much further then what Patricia Wells said about the experience. It needs to say that the food is creative, unique and original as well. If in your self-promotion and self-aggrandisement you are going to imply that is what you are about, you have the obligation to deliver "the best" on every level. Especially at those prices.

[Steve Klc]

I apologize for dropping in and then disappearing--I open a restaurant on Monday for mock-service and am still training staff. This discussion isn't beyond your range Michael. And Steve P, if Lizziee weighed in I wonder if she'd support you as much as you think. She has demonstrated to me a deep ability to appreciate the achievement of very diverse chefs and the restaurant experiences they create--and not get caught in a bind of subjectivity, rational or otherwise.

And Michael, you've done a great job bringing this back to something I wrote a few pages ago concerning the cynical, jaded diner needing to be moved--that "needing to be challenged" is hard for me to take sometimes, as both diner and chef. Recognize the differences, celebrate the differences and revel in the excellence of supreme achievement within any genre or style of restauration. Though I would say you and I (and Patrice in Montreal) as pastry chefs do desserts that lean toward the modern and "challenging," that we all revere Ferran Adria and hold him in high esteem, I'm not sure any of us as chefs feel "challenging" is inherently or necessarily better. And we're modernists in our own work! As a diner, I definitely go both ways in my appreciation.

Food isn't necessarily boring if it is not challenging; modern cooking isn't better because it is perceived as daring, subvertive or juxtaposes flavor combinations or textures.

I wondered then if diners feel more informed when they appear to be challenged? This went largely unanswered. But it shows up on lots of eGullet threads--and I speculated whether it was the single biggest divide between all of us eGulleteers at the high end. It really isn't about who has eaten at the most three-stars in France--but I see this trap door swinging both ways and infecting all of our discussions to a degree--there is a dining segment prone to swing toward the perceived inventiveness/challenging aspect of certain chefs--and latch on to that--and a segment recoiling from modernity, devaluing it, and in turn latch onto that.

The question I'd ask Steve P is--if I'm just a professional giving the trade view in your eyes--how is it that I can appreciate and celebrate the achievement of Ducasse and Adria as unparalleled? Is that inherently contradictory? Or is that the trade view as well? Shaw has done yeoman's work defending this point so far--the hat that I never wear is off to him.

It is in this trap door that I believe Shaw feels Steve P. may now be stuck.

No PM's are supporting me because I haven't had time to check them. Apologies to all.

[Michael Laiskonis]

And to be fair and to clarify my opinion, I was disappointed by the last meal at Arpège, not because I wasn't challenged by Passard's style of cooking, but rather because of the repetition of dishes over the years.

But I will say that the point of the meal starting with an egg and ending with a chicken wasn't lost on me.

I can't believe I missed that! Intentional you think, or mere coincidence? Surely not always the case...

[Steve Plotnicki]

Steve Klc - Thank you for a measured response that brought the tone of this thread back to the spirit of the original post and the responses it garnered.

I wondered then if diners feel more informed when they appear to be challenged?

Maybe I haven't explained myself clearly. But in the context of that question it might be easier to.

It all depends why you go out to eat. That functions on at least two levels. For people like myself, Cabrales and Robert B. (if I dare speak for them) our three star dining revolves around challenging the chef to move us emotionally, ephemerally and intelectually. Three star meals that are sorely lacking in those components, while they can be very enjoyable, and Ducasse falls into this category for me, very good but uninteresting, are not the reason I decide to plunk down 500 euros for a meal. And it isn't as though I use that standard for food and not for other disciplines. It's why I spend my money to see Sondheim and not Llloyd Weber. Sondheim's characters express themselves at a level of complexity that makes me want to pay $100 for a ticket. Lloyd Weber's music, while perfectly fine and hummable, and well constructed as if they are opera arias, are less interesting because it does not delve as deeply into the character's emotions.

This last point segueways well into your second question (and it also does a good job of framing debates on quality and taste we have around here) which is why Ducasse and Adria are considered the top of their profession? And that's like saying to me, why do you think that Sondheim is better then Lloyd Weber when there is no comparison between their commmercial success or fame among the theater going public? LLoyd Weber wins in this category on every count. More composers are trying to emulate Phantom then Sweemey Todd. How can you take that position?

The answer is it depends on what you are trying to measure. If you are trying to measure who the most successful chef is by how much they influenced current cuisine, then Adria and Ducasse are clearly at the top of their profession. But if you want to measure their work in greater detail, one of the ways of doing it is analyzing the quality of the critical mass that supports them. If you ask people who are interested in being challenged at a meal about Adria, they will all tell you it is the most challenging meal anywhere. But I believe that almost all of them would write off Ducasse in that category. But if you changed or added the component of ephemeral and sensual satisfaction to the meal, Ducasse might do better then Adria because Adria is perceived as more interested in the route to the result then the result itself. But if we add yet another component of who is the world's most complete restauranteur taking everything into account, Ducasse would win hands down over almost everybody else. I think the only person who approaches him on that count is Daniel Boulud.

Like I have been saying, I am speaking for people who are in the category of wanting to be moved by a chef's work. When I ask what Ducasse's aesthetic is, the answer that heightened aesthetics is not a prime aspect of his cuisine is not a good answer as far as I'm concerned. Because heightened aesthetics is why I go out to eat. But it goes downhill even further from there when the person who advertises themselves at the world's most famous chef (and implicitly best) doesn't offer food that is interesting enough to support the proffer.