Arpege: dinner and lunch; 2002-2004

[Bux]

Bux -- I'm not sure the reason you advance is a persuasive one. Take me as an example, because I can't speak for anybody else. I've eaten at ADNY several times, but that doesn't mean I like the food. People are curious about a "new" restaurant like ADNY (-- perhaps this is an aspect of thinking they might "miss the experience"). That they are curious does not mean they end up liking Ducasse's food or that they made the reservation because they already liked his food. That a diner does not want to miss an experience does not mean he will value it once experienced, or that he respects the restaurants at which he would experience a meal.

Well, I'm not persuading you.

Let me try again in light of your response. I think the arguments being presented against Ducasse are quite personal, yet they are being presented as if they are very subjective. I'm sure Plotnicki will disagree on this, that's SOP on this issue. Most of the people who read this board are English speaking and the center of gravity is probably on this side of the Atlantic. At any rate, the members are likey to have few opportunities to try Parisian restaurants and for those are who both willing and able to spend considerable sums of money on a meal, decisions will have to be made about where to eat on a visit to Paris of limited duration. There are reasons why Ducasse would not be many people's first choice just as there are reasons Gagnaire would not be other people's first choice. The same could probably be said for Arpege and other restaurants. I want to see that casual readers of this board get a fair idea of AD/PA and of the various opinions from those who have dined there from the posts.

Should you say you don't like the direction Ducasse's cuisine takes, I'd probably have no response. Should you say you don't think he's an innovative chef, I'd contest the point to offer a balance. However you said "everybody has conceded Ducasse does not meaningfully innovate," and that is just not true and needs to be corrected, not balanced, if only to allow the reader to make some decision on what's actually been said and not on what's been represented as having been said.

[lxt]

Another aspect of the thread that I find interesting is a kind of appeal to authority: that food professionals, be they chefs or critics, somehow know best; and if there is an overwhelming consensus among them, all the better. The first phenomenon one should be aware of is that living practitioners are the least reliable source of recommendations, which is why the truths and the insights they do have usually come out in memoirs and posthumous letters and diaries (often with a many-year embargo), and, of course, they rarely write the definitive histories of whatever art form or profession they represent. As Steve P. wrote above, “What chefs think has nothing to do with what the paying public thinks”. While I would take under consideration in certain circumstances a chef’s recommendation, how forthright and objective is a chef going to be when talking of the restaurants of his colleagues? Furthermore, and maybe even more significant, many chefs are incapable of discussing gastronomy or the experience of a restaurant visit at the same level of insight or open-mindedness as the best culinary writers and the people who post on this site. Without getting into a diatribe about restaurant critics, I think one of the hallmarks of learning how to eat is the ability to dispense eventually with an over-reliance on restaurant critics. (“Restaurant recommenders” is a more suitable name for the profession). In the purview of criticism of restaurants in France, it doesn’t matter how many visits to three-star restaurants Patricia Wells has made. After more than 20 years of doing so, she still cannot write in any evocative or amusing way (as witnessed above by her “description” of Ducasse’s cuisine that gives no tangible indication of what it really is. Compare it to the successful and enlightened one that follows). Of course, we all know the conflicts of interests, the closed clubbiness of the food writing profession, and the lack of “gourmandness” in the soul of most of them. To my mind, the best and most accurate restaurant opinions come from the dedicated, devoted and unencumbered amateur (“amateur” in the classic sense of being a lover).

It is hard to imagine that one’s ability to appreciate preparation technique as well as rely on sensual experience may divert or somehow diminish the validity of his appraisal. Unless your statement suggests that “practitioners” are intentionally devious in their competitiveness or protectionism so as to conceal their actual judgment, the effect of their ability to recognize complexity, simplicity, or improvisation should rather be intensified.

Even assuming that chefs are not willing to share their actual judgments with the public, it doesn’t lessen their ability to comprehend on a higher level than an “unencumbered amateur” can. It is easy to correlate this example with other spheres of human activity. Considering that people have technical knowledge in their area of expertise, independently of what business requirements suggest in respect to obeying public wishes rather than relying on their own expert judgment, I don’t think I’d find anyone who could confirm that the knowledge of the amateur in his area is more profound than his own. Otherwise, I think we should dismantle the whole educational system as it proves to be useless.

And what is the difference between the “dedicated, devoted and unencumbered amateur” and a professional critic? In this regard, a critic, on one hand, is simply the “audience” where the only difference between him and the amateur is that he should be more attentive to details as his job requires in-depth investigation. And the good critic, in my opinion, is “he who relates the adventures of his soul among masterpieces.“ (Anatole France) I am not sure whether anyone would agree that the critic is exposed to the diversity of the restaurant experience on a lesser level than a “devoted amateur” and therefore that his opinion is less valuable in this regard. Stating that you prefer opinions other than critics’ suggests that you are dissatisfied with some corruption or incompetence that exists in the food writing profession and, as a result, still refer to other critics (“unencumbered amateurs”) who don’t have a direct interest in being compensated for their reviewing efforts. It has nothing to do with “appeal to authority” and everything to do with respect and interest toward a more knowledgeable counterpart, whether to a professional or experienced enough amateur critic.

"I am bound by my own definition of criticism: a disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world" - Matthew Arnold

[Steve Plotnicki]

Let's get the proffers right so there is no misunderstanding;

1. Alain Ducasse's restaurants do not deliver on his promise that you are going to eat food prepared by "the world's best chef." Nor do they live up to the promise that what they will serve you is in search of "perfection." That implies that you are going to get at least a near perfect meal.

2. Until he does live up to that promise, I don't see where he has the moral authority to be the one to codify nouvelle cuisine for our generation of diners and the generation that preceeded us. If his authority comes from his understanding of cooking, and his keen eye in order to amass important recipes and to organize them, then he has some entitlement. But if his authority stems from recipes he has created when the totality of the recipes acts as a roadmap for nouvelle cuisine, then I think he is a phony because I don't see where any of his dishes have contributed to the lexicon.

3. The only reason he is so intent on proffering reason number 1 and number 2 is to soften the blow when the hard questions are asked. It is a diversion so it can be pointed to in order to deflect the tough question of where are the masterpieces? It implies the answer of, who needs masterpieces, look at this body of work. Which is exactly the way Fat Guy used it.

So I guess if Ducasse didn't make the claims he made about himself, didn't act like he is the foremost authority on codifying cuisine, and actually cooked a meal once in a while where a majority of the people in my minion thrust their thumbs up instead of down, I would react differently to him. But part of his not doing those things makes him the poster child for internationalized cuisine, that doesn't feature locally grown ingredients, and tastes like it could come from and be cooked at anywhere in the world. And that's a hell of a lot to criticize him about. He didn't make cuisine better. He made it worse. Just like any other chain of restaurants.

[marcus]

Even assuming that chefs are not willing to share their actual judgments with the public, it doesn’t lessen their ability to comprehend on a higher level than an “unencumbered amateur” can.  It is easy to correlate this example with other spheres of human activity.  Considering that people have technical knowledge in their area of expertise, independently of what business requirements suggest in respect to obeying public wishes rather than relying on their own expert judgment, I don’t think I’d find anyone who could confirm that the knowledge of the amateur in his area is more profound than his own.  Otherwise, I think we should dismantle the whole educational system as it proves to be useless.

There is an approach here that is so cerebral that it seems to be set apart from the real world. I personally agree completely with Robert Brown's analysis, but let me make one attempt at further clarification. The issue is not technical expertise, of course the professional has far more than the amateur, the issue is not willingness to communicate to the public, in fact most professionals are more than willing to communicate, nor do we need to dismantle our educational system. The real issue results from the fundamental divide that exists between the producer and the consumer. They play different roles and operate on different axes. Steve Plotnicki also expressed this well on one of his many many posts on this thread, so I'm going to leave it here, rather than further contribute to the process of going around in circles.

[Fat Guy]

Plotnicki, in response to your points, 1) I think Ducasse delivers closer to a perfect dining experience than any other chef whose food I've had the pleasure to eat, and though he has never served me a perfect meal he has delivered multiple perfect dishes and elements of "restauration" in every meal. I find his meals the most balanced and least flawed from beginning to end, though if you ignored desserts I might say that honor belongs to Gagnaire. 2) The professional consensus seems to be that Ducasse has the moral authority to codify cuisine. You don't hear other chefs saying, "I should be the one, not Ducasse," or "Who is this guy to codify cuisine?" As codification is targeted at the industry and not the public, this is an area in which industry judgment is I think dispositive. In addition I don't see it as a question of moral authority or as a moral issue at all. It is one of expertise, which based on my experience of his cuisine and what I understand to be the consensus of professionals he possesses. 3) What is your evidence that Ducasse makes these claims about himself? Show me a quote where he has said or implied that he is great. You keep repeating that Ducasse claims to be the world's best chef, but I don't believe he has claimed anything of the sort. He earned the reputation. He didn't claim it. And why would it make any difference if he did? If I decided one day to say, "Hey everybody, I'm the world's best chef," nobody would believe me. But for some mysterious (to you) reason, they believe it about Ducasse. But Ducasse does not say that about himself; other people -- a wide cross-section -- say that about him. Like me, for example.

[Bux]

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.

[Fat Guy]

Well, it didn't have a number so I wasn't smart enough to respond to it. But I do think it's silly to claim that Ducasse doesn't use local ingredients. His restaurants' styles are quite clearly tailored to the best of what is available in their regions. Though he won't hesitate to use an import when he thinks it is the best (as with truffles or caviar), he has a strong preference for the best of what is available locally. As I mentioned before, in the United States he was the ingredients leader the day he opened and everybody has been scrambling to catch up ever since.

[lxt]

marcus said:

"lxt -- I can decode what you're saying, but it ultimately comes across as gobbledygook."

“lxt -- you are slippery.”

“There is an approach here that is so cerebral that it seems to be set apart from the real world.”

If the justification of your point of view is going to be based on “I personally agree completely with..” accompanied by gratuitous personal insults, I’d appreciate your restraining your manners to strictly supporting your arguments.

And please do let me know if the above was too complicated or cerebral and requires additional simplification or decoding.

marcus said:

"I personally agree completely with Robert Brown's analysis, but let me make one attempt at further clarification. The issue is not technical expertise, of course the professional has far more than the amateur, the issue is not willingness to communicate to the public, in fact most professionals are more than willing to communicate..."

I fail to see how this relates to the points Robert made, and I challenged, undermining the competency of professionals in the statement: “many chefs are incapable of discussing gastronomy or the experience of a restaurant visit at the same level of insight or open-mindedness as the best culinary writers” and his subsequent disparagement of “culinary writers.” And it certainly has little to do with my view on “appeal to authority.”

Your point, Plotnicki's point really, that the needs of the trade and the consumer don't always coincide, is legitimate, though obscured by the rest of the gobbledygook.

And here I thought that eGullet was both a cause and a place for cerebration.

[Sandra Levine]

And here I thought that eGullet was both a cause and a place for cerebration.

That and a place for tedious, circular, arguments.

(edit disclosure: added smiley)

[marcus]

I don't personally view egullet as a place for cerebration, but as a place for the celebration of food, which is largely a sensual not a cerebral activity.

[LaNiña]

I don't personally view egullet as a place for cerebration, but as a place for the celebration of food, which is largely a sensual not a cerebral activity.

marcus, for some it is clearly both. And how fortunate that egullet has room for all kinds...

[Steve Plotnicki]

That and a place for tedious, circular, arguments.

As well as a haven for people who point them out .

[Fat Guy]

[Sandra Levine]

As well as a haven for people who point them out .

Yes, indeed.

eGullet:

[schaem]

Well I guess that about wraps it up. What should we argue about next?

[Fat Guy]

I'm thinking that I'll pick a fight on the Italy board. See you there.

[Tonyfinch]

Just a coda: Were those "tedious cicular arguments" perfectly or imperfectly circular?

[lizziee]

Lunch at Arpege

We had dined at Arpege many years ago during an August visit. My general feeling about fine dining in Paris in August is that it is not the best situation to begin with as most of Paris "est ferme." That time we did not like anything about Arpege and vowed to avoid it on future visits--we had for about 7 years. But so many e-gullet members have raved about Arpege that we gave in to the "challenge."

After being greeted at the door with a very warm "Welcome to Arpege," we were seated at a table towards the front. The room is stark, minimalist and very contemporary. It is paneled in blond wood with Lalique figures in vertical plaques around the room. Leather and chrome armchairs, a split violin sculpture, wavy glass translucent glass on the windows, a bunch of tied twig branches on each table give the entire scene a distinctive, unique, pleasing look.

During the day (we had dined at night on our less than satisfactory August visit seven years ago) you are much more aware of the architectural details of the restaurant.

With our champagne we were presented a small mixed green salad in a small tart shell--very tasty.

2nd amuse--a clear fish consommé seasoned with verbena with two ravioli stuffed with peas and carrots --just a hint of sweetness.

The Menu

Our plan was to eat lightly by ordering a la carte, but all of Chef Passard's specialties were on the very high priced (300 euro) tasting menu so we figured we might as well do it right.

1st course--his signature dish - egg presented in the shell with a light cream mousse and a touch of maple syrup. We had this dish previously and remembered that the yolk was runny. When mixed with the mousse it took on a very creamy texture. This time the yolk was more like a custard so it did not dissolve with the mousse. You ended up eating chunks of yolk with the mousse. We don't know if this was intentional or not, but the taste was wonderful and not overly sweet--the maple syrup was just enough.

As our server cleared our dishes, he asked if we "enjoyed our breakfast?" This humorous touch exemplifies the service at Arpege--friendly, willing and fun--this is not a food temple.

At the table next to us were 3 business men--two seemed to speak fluent French, but the third was an American who did not. Their server translated the entire menu for him very graciously and answered his questions very patiently. Another example of the fine service at Arpege.

2nd course--2 scoops of mousse--one avocado and one flavored with caviar were served in an over-sized martini glass along with a generous spoonful of oscetra caviar at the bottom of the glass. My husband was a very happy camper! The server mentioned that there were bits of pistachio in the mixture, but I did not detect them.

3rd course--Gazpacho with mustard ice cream. The gazpacho had been pureed. There were no chunks of tomato, but the flavor was intense. The mustard ice cream was scooped from a silver canister just like the sorbets and ice creams at Rochet in Crissier, Switzerland a week or so ago. The mustard ice cream contrasted beautifully with the acidic tomato.

This was not the silliness or stupidity of the dishes we experienced at Astrance or Veryat--it added a distinctive element and it made sense to add a cold silky element (it melts very quickly to blend into the soup.) The key is that the flavors worked.

4th course--1/2 lobster served in its shell in a vanilla sauce with black trumpet mushrooms. The vanilla added just a bit of sweet without being cloying or overwhelming. The roe and tamale (I am originally a Bostonian and I love these inner parts) added to the sauce as an extra enrichment.

5th course--sautéed sole served in a long, thin, 1/2 thick strip with a pureed nicoise olive quenelle, a whole roasted garlic clove and 2 roasted cherry tomatoes. My husband's was presented skin side up. Mine was "flipped" so it was inside up - an interesting touch. It did not mean anything to the flavor--just an indication of the chef's commitment to presentation of his food. The fish was simple, clean and delicious. All elements worked.

6th course--a chicken dish that Steve P had mentioned was not his favorite. We were going to tell them to "skip it", but the server prevailed on us to at least try it. The chicken had been roasted in a salt crust for 2 hours, taken out of the oven but continued cooking in the salt. The breast meat was overcooked, stringy and bland.

This dish just did not come off. We used the Georges Blanc wonderful Bresse chicken for comparison--Arpege did not measure up on this one.

Along with the chicken, we were presented roasted vegetables that tasted like those traditional veggies in a pot--not very interesting.

7th course--cheese.

8th course--Passard's famous tomato dessert. It was prepared as if you were making crepe suzettes--the server creates a caramelized, bubbling sauce at table side. The tomato was stuffed with finely diced apples, pears, pineapple, pistachios, cinnamon, cloves and orange zest. It was cooked in the sauce and presented with a scoop of vanilla ice cream. I had this dish before, but this time I found it much more satisfying.

Wine:

Miloud, the sommelier, was excellent. As another example of the "small world of food and wine," we learned that he had worked at the Ritz-Carlton in San Francisco. He knew our friends there. He later went to Atlanta to help open a French restaurant with a former Ritz chef. He and his wife have moved back to Paris with thoughts of starting a family. He, like a lot of the top sommeliers, is young--only 27, but very professional and personable.

Miloud recommended a Sancerre which he tasted and pronounced "corked." He then apologized because he did not have another bottle of that wine in the cooler. He explained that they have very limited capacity for temperature controlled bottles because the restaurant space is so small. But, he said, he had another Sancerre from the exact same area, just made by a second wine maker---he guaranteed we would like it.

2000 Sancerre Monts Damnes Cotat--he was right--perfect Sancerre, great with the early dishes--we switched to our second white wine with the Lobster dish.

98 Corton Charlemagne, Louis Latour. This wine is one of our favorites. It drank very well, although not as full bodied as the 90. A good choice--not crazy expensive either.

Service--

The staff is unpretentious, friendly, and very helpful. At one point, my husband observed how excellent we found everything--the server said, "Be comfortable. It is your 'house!'"

One thing that surprised me, given the quality of the food and service, was that the room had 4 empty tables at lunch. I don't know if this was a function of the price or the economy or what.

[Lesley C]

Again Lizziee thank you for that report.

As I read through these wonderful reviews of fine meals and experiences (even the lousy ones sound interesting), I’m reminded of an article in The Times (London) a few years back stating that today one could eat better in England than in France. What a load of bull. Could you experience such a wide array of amazing food in England? Bet not.

Reports such as yours prove France still rules the gourmet world.

[Michael Laiskonis]

At the table next to us were 3 business men--two seemed to speak fluent French, but the third was an American who did not.  Their server translated the entire menu for him very graciously and answered his questions very patiently.  Another example of the fine service at Arpege.

On my last vist, I was seated next to a table of four Japanese women, and Laurent ( the Maitre d') was able to translate nearly all of the menu into Japanese. I was indeed impressed. Despite a few missteps in timing and such, I've always found the service warmer and friendlier than the other three stars I've visited. I feel it is even better now that I've realized I received a couple of extra courses (solo or repeat diner?) when I ordered the identical menu!

[Steve Plotnicki]

As an addendum, I had dinner at Arpege this past Tuesday night. Since I was eating with two Arpege virgins, I agreed to have many of the same dishes I had on the tasting menu 6 weeks ago. I am happy to report they were every bit as good this time. But I thought I'd post about the new dishes I had. One was a 2.2 kilo turbot that they were parading around the room to various tables which was roasted for two hours in a salt crust. They served each of us a nice slice of the meat and then a thin but meaty slice of what appeared to be the tail. It was served with the house signature "Sauce de Vin Jaune" which was thick and mellow. The meat of the fish being very moist as well. They also served us a roasted sea bass that came with a mild horseradish puree, and some roasted vegetables including a soft as butter yet firm, sweet roasted beet. And each of us received a plate of four large, firm and perfectly roasted sea scallops that were in a light Thai curry sauce.

[cabrales]

Below are links to pictures of the mega-luscious Brittany lobster with yellow wine signature dish:

http://www.pascal-jolivet.com/metsvins/index_ang.htm

(scroll down; note the way the lobster is cut, lengthwise)

http://www.alain-passard.com/FR/recettes/homard.htm

[Orik]

just a quick note as the French keyboard layout is killing me

From the perspective of someone who used to dine at Arpege very often before Passard made his veggie declaration, dinner there was a mixed experience (although food-wise everything was very good to excellent), certainly not one that made me want to go back there any time soon. Things that were disturbing (in no particular order):

- Prices went up 50% (for the same dishes - one note on this - the lobster in yellow wine used to be served with truffle shavings, this is no longer the case)

- Arpege used to have a very good cheese cart - this time we were served under-ripe cheeses of shameful quality from a limited selection.

- Except for the tomato soup with mustard ice cream, none of the dishes showed a particularly successful treatment of vegetables

- A previously featured dish of cream of truffles with parmesan was replaced with a dish of onion gratin with parmesan. While you could claim that an onion is more of a vegetable than a truffle, a second soup offered was a cream of mushroom, so I tend to think there are other reasons for this change.

In short, you get a lot less for a lot more and there is nothing very interesting (to me) about the new offerings there.

[Allura]

Below are links to pictures of the mega-luscious Brittany lobster with yellow wine signature dish:

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Vin Jaune" is yellow wine. It comes from a few places in France which are are in the region between Burgundy, Alsace and the Swiss border. Here's a link to explain it;

Vin Jaune

Orik - Sorry to hear about your meal. Since on my 3 visits in the last year the veggies were so stellar, maybe they were suffering from seasonality. But nobody can take issue with your griping about prices.