Arpege: dinner and lunch; 2002-2004

[schaem]

The "you" can be the you you want it to be. yoo hoo. And sorry my flawed spelling has impinged my argument. And obviously I didn't mean "you" Cabrales or "you" Steve P. because no one could possibly have eaten out more than "you". My point was that a lot of chefs who lack good technique hide behind innovation. I don't know if a meal at ADNY is perfect, I do know that time spent in the kitchen can be valuable to a young cook do to the experience and talent of many of the cooks there, the quality of product, etc.

I've seen diners blown away by innovative chefs who couldn't hold more conservative chefs apron springs. I'm not saying "you" are those diners, and I'm not saying that "your" favorites are those chefs. I'm saying that a lot of young cooks and a lot of "foodies" are more impressed by "crazy" menu ideas than by solid technique.

[schaem]

Sorry. I wrote "do" instead of "due" and I may have left out an apostrophe or two. Hope that doesn't completely discredit my argument.

[cabrales]

schaem -- As previously mentioned, if ideas that are wonderful when properly executed, and executed as intended by their creator, are being perverted and mangled by others, who is to blame other than the "copiers" and perhaps a dining public that should be more informed? Many poor restaurants survive (and, indeed, some thrive) for reasons that I no longer seek to explain to myself.

Let's step back a bit. When younger chefs are inspired by the innovators who taught them and with whom such younger chefs worked, great results can unfold. Consider Pascal Barbot at L'Astrance. He worked in the kitchen of an innovator and took appropriate elements of technique and excellence with him to incorporate into his own dishes. So, if the younger chefs of whom you speak are talented enough in taking the ideas of innovators and developing them, and/or coming up with new ideas of their own, the new chefs become innovators too. Can it be helped that not every chef is talented (with all do respect to chefs) with respect to cooking? Can it be helped that some of those who are less talented perceive themselves to be more talented than they in fact are? Can it be blamed on the innovative chefs that some of those who are less talented and who have an accurate assessment of themselves decide to cloak weaknesses in the guise of the ideas of innovative chefs? Can it be helped if a chef, who is starting out and generally wants to develop his own cuisine, is initially looking to the ingredients utilized by innovative chefs in an effort to "find his own way"? I don't know why particular copiers copy, but the failures of weak copiers must not be held against those whose artistry prompted such efforts.

[robert brown]

Steve, after you go to Hiramatsu, let me know about your meal there. I am sure you would have a better grasp of it than Patricia Wells. JD, thanks for jumping in with the periodic cogent, definitive post that this thread needs from time to time.

I am not sure everyone understands that "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy that people invoke when they cite a so-called authoritative source as being "the last word"; i.e. Patricia Wells wrote that L'Astrance is a great restaurant; therefore L'Astrance is a great restaurant.

Here's one for the group. If no one recreates a chef's signature, can that dish ever be considered a classic? Also, given that competent chefs today seem to have an aversion to being perceived as serving a dish someone else has made, can we legimately expect to see fewer classic dishes in the future?

Since the last meal I had at Ducasse Monaco (aka Le Restaurant Louis XV) was an abomination, what does it mean that Ducasse strives for perfection? (By the way, the meal was when people were wondering how Ducasse was going to keep up standards because he had recently open another grand restaurant in Paris in Robuchon's former space.. Remember the talk about the helicopter that would go back and forth because the two restaurants had different days of the week when each was closed? How long does it take a helicopter to go from Monaco to New York?) On the other hand, less than a year before that meal, I had a sensational dinner at Le Louis XV (and I did not appreciate and enjoy L'Arpege to the fullest until I had the second meal the day after I had had my first since the early 1980s). I guess the motto is to keep an open mind and, if possible, try, try again.

[cabrales]

I've seen diners blown away by innovative chefs who couldn't hold more conservative chefs [spelling] apron springs.  I'm not saying "you" are those diners, and I'm not saying that "your" favorites are those chefs.  I'm saying that a lot of young cooks and a lot of "foodies" are more impressed by "crazy" menu ideas than by solid technique.

schaem -- I'd like to further note that it is not the fault of more innovative chefs in France if, hypothetically as you appear to be suggesting, diners (in the US, if your earlier post is taken into account) are more impressed with less talented, copying chefs than they ideally should be. It's just too bad for any diners in question, in terms of their potential subjective enjoyment, if they are impressed by mediocre food. But then, to the extent the diners consider the food they sample to be good, who is to say that their subjective preferences aren't valid?

Returning to NY examples, I cannot subjectively understand why Cello had to close, when many restaurants that I consider to be very flawed are still around. (I appreciate the fish focus, and am not suggesting anything regarding Le Bernardin, which I like)

[Fat Guy]

I believe that when Ducasse set out in business he had great aspirations of building an empire. And I believe that he concluded that the only way he could do that successfully while operating his restaurants at a level sufficient to garner the necessary praise and Michelin stars was to strip his cuisine of any boldness so as to make it managabale for his surrogate chefs.

Here's something anybody who has spent time in a Ducasse kitchen can tell you: From a technical standpoint, his dishes are the most demanding, his cooks are the most skilled, and there is nothing under the culinary sun that is beyond the abilities of the brigade. Moreover, what makes cooking a "bold" Passard dish any more difficult than cooking a "non-bold" Ducasse dish? What is more "manageable" about Ducasse's recipes than Passard's? The answer is nothing. Boldness is not a barrier to reproduction of restaurants. The cuisine at Nobu is bolder, in my opinion, than the cuisine at any Michelin-starred restaurant. The cuisine of Jean-Georges Vongerichten is also quite bold. Ducasse is serving exactly the food he wants to serve at his restaurants; he is not sitting around on his plane saying "I wish I could present bolder dishes but my surrogate chefs can't handle it." I don't think this latest theory of yours is going to pan out.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Robert B. - I'm flattered that you think I have more talent then Ms. Wells. Can you phone my agent?

I think a chef's dish can be considered a classic if nobody ever copies it. How many people make the Troisgros salmon with sorrel? I never see it on menus anywhere, although there might have been a point in time when it was widely copied. But that doesn't mean it isn't a classic dish. The key is how well the dish is know in the circles of people who eat at this level. The Academy so to speak.

I'm pretty big on the concept that fame is a function of an artist's greatest moments. Few artists (including chefs) have everlasting fame without there being a single thing to point to that evidences their technique and how they applied it. Blackened redfish and Cajun popcorn did more for Paul Prudhome's reputation then 25 other dishes put together. Long after Emeril is forgotten because he has gone the way of the Galloping Gourmet, people will still talk about Prudhome's signature dishes.

Fat Guy - I don't think Nobu's cuisine is bolder then a three star restaurant, it's just original and it breaks from tradition. Bold in the sense of innnovtive yes. But not as in being difficuly to execute. But on the other hand, there is no correlation between being difficult to execute and being interesting either.

[cabrales]

Here's something anybody who has spent time in a Ducasse kitchen can tell you: From a technical standpoint, his dishes are **the most demanding,** his cooks are **the most skilled,** and there is nothing under the culinary sun that is beyond the abilities of the brigade.

Steven -- With all respect to cuisiniers who have spent time in Ducasse's kitchens, I'd like to ask whether, as a hypothetical not specific to schaem, participation in one kitchen **without having worked in other applicable kitchenS** is likely to engender "warm and fuzzy" feelings towards the kitchen one has worked at, or the unknown ones? Isn't there some missing information with respect to your statement that Ducasse's dishes are **the most technically demanding** and his cooks **the most skilled**? To make such a statement, wouldn't one also have to know the technical difficulties of innovators' dishes and the skill level of their assisting chefs?

And speaking of reliance on the "authority" of others, it must be less than comforting to do so without knowing, with all respect to any stagiaire at ADNY, how long a period of time he spent at ADNY and what his role there was. For example, would it matter to you if one were a beginning commis (to be clear, a role that add a great deal of value, but a different role than, say, chef de partie for a station) or a chef de partie? Would it matter to you if one's first kitchen were ADNY, or if one had been stagiaire in some innovators' kitchens in France? I am not saying A is better than B in these examples, to be clear, just that A or B might be relevant.

[Fat Guy]

Schaem, thank you very much for your posts with which I entirely agree. One of the things that makes eGullet so powerful as a tool of communication is that people like you -- professional cooks who know what happens on the line, in the culinary schools, and in the minds of real working restaurant employees -- present their perspectives alongside the experienced consumers, the critics, and everyone else. It's a dialog in the best sense of the word and I appreciate that you've taken the time to contribute and I hope you contribute more.

I think that the phenomenon you've described from the cook's point of view -- the easy seduction of innovation versus the fear of the long road to mastering what has come before -- has very strong parallels in consumer behavior as well. Sadly, there are many in the audience who are thinking along exactly the same lines as so many young cooks: If it's not innovative, it's not good. Perfect execution of a classic is soulless. Incremental improvement is worthless. Creativity is the only path to true communication. If you don't create original dishes that will be publicized, copied, and associated with your name you're not relevant. It is a general weakness on the part of the American dining public; not just on the part of young American cooks. And I fear the French are picking it up too.

Again, thanks and please stick around. And keep thinking the right things. Maybe sometime you'll post some thoughts about your stage at Ducasse, on its own thread. I'd probably have some things to say on that.

[cabrales]

Here's something anybody who has spent time in a Ducasse kitchen can tell you

Steven -- You speak as though you hadn't spent time in a Ducasse kitchen as well in connection with your piece on the kitchen equipment at Ducasse (Note I do not believe that time spent in a particular chef's kitchen necessarily impinges upon a person's perception of such chef's cuisine.) Why rely on the authority of somebody else? Why not rely on recent samplings of each chef's cuisine -- the chefs whose cuisine you dislike as well as that of Ducasse --by "you" to support your position?

[Fat Guy]

Cabrales, I'm not sure what you're asking, but if you talk to chefs and cooks who have staged in multiple Michelin three-star restaurants they will all tell you that Ducasse's brigade is the gold standard, and that they execute at the highest level of complexity and excellence. Me, I've never staged at a kitchen in France, so I have no first-hand knowledge. I can say, having been in several kitchens in New York, that what my chef contacts tell me is true in France is emphatically true in New York. But of course the field here is hardly as deep as in France. Nonetheless, Ducasse sets the standard in this market. This is not meant as a broader statement about the quality of Ducasse's cuisine; I'm simply addressing the narrow point that Ducasse presents a certain type of cuisine because of the limitations of his kitchen. For example there's a salad at Ducasse (New York) that I don't think is a particularly interesting dish but that is nonetheless something that takes the garde manger team a tremendously long time to master and takes about 20 minutes of complete concentration from an individual to make because it's an outward spiral arrangement in three dimensions that requires placement and securing of each little piece before the next one can be added. This is particularly tough given that it is a first course. But even if a table of six orders this dish, there's no panic in the kitchen. Because Ducasse's brigade is deep enough that six sets of hands -- all trained on the dish -- can be brought into play. There just aren't many kitchens where that can happen. Again, I'm not saying the dish is good. I'm just making the point that there aren't many practical limitations on what Ducasse can ask of his kitchens.

[Fat Guy]

Oh, wait a second, I have been in Lorain's kitchen. But that's the only one I've been in over there, and it was a total tourist thing -- not even one of my fake journalistic stages.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Moreover, what makes cooking a "bold" Passard dish any more difficult than cooking a "non-bold" Ducasse dish? What is more "manageable" about Ducasse's recipes than Passard's? The answer is nothing. Boldness is not a barrier to reproduction of restaurants.

Actually on rereading this I realized there is another answer. What makes it more manageable is that they don't have the burden of "moving the dinner." Like Schaem said about Gagnaire and Passard, they take chances, they are innovative and bold. There is more to that then taking chances on recipes and combinations. There is applying the artists hand to their work that makes the end product unique. It's the difference between the conductor taking the orchestra through rehearsals and saying to them I want you to play it perfectly and saying to them that perfection is important but what is more important is to play it with feeling.

If you don't create original dishes that will be publicized, copied, and associated with your name you're not relevant.

But if that describes you as a chef you aren't relevent. Why should you be?

You know if I didn't know you guys were talking about Alain Ducasse, one could get the idea that you are talking about a teacher at a cooking school like the CIA.

[Fat Guy]

Cabrales, forgive me, I cross-posted with you. My post above was in response to your older post, not the one immediately preceding it. As to that post, the reason this isn't a question of sampling dishes is that I'm addressing a different point: The complexity of what goes on behind the scenes. You may or may not be able to get that from eating; it's certainly much harder to get from eating if one is not formally trained in cooking (and I am not). And often very complex technique is used to produce deceptively simple dishes. That's why in this instance I'm talking about it from the kitchen perspective only.

[cabrales]

if you talk to chefs and cooks who have staged in multiple Michelin three-star restaurants they will all tell you that Ducasse's brigade is the gold standard, and that they execute at the highest level of complexity and excellence. ...

But even if a table of six orders this dish, there's no panic in the kitchen. Because Ducasse's brigade is deep enough that six sets of hands -- all trained on the dish -- can be brought into play. There just aren't many kitchens where that can happen.

Steven -- I'm curious as to which chef(s) who has staged at multiple Michelin three-star restaurants would convey that Ducasse's *brigade* (I'm glad you mentioned at least the brigade and not the cuisine) is the "gold standard". And how many of the applicable chefs have staged in the kitchens of applicable innovators in France? I'm not trying to be difficult, but am trying to ask why these observations are being made. My thoughts for now:

(1) If Ducasse is not supervising the production of dishes at many of his establishments, of course he needs a more competent team. Look at how many featured "main assistants" were featured in a recent edition of Thuliers (spelling). Contrast certain innovators who prefer to be in their kitchens, who like to be part of their own brigades.

(2) The size of a kitchen team does not say anything about its capabilities, except to handle time-consuming, repeatable tasks like the salad arrangement you describe. A larger kitchen team is better able to handle contingencies, potentially and very generally, because there is more "slack". So I don't necessarily disagree that Ducasse's brigade might be the "gold standard" for handling unexpected developments requested by diners. But what does that say about Ducasse's *cuisine*, other than one of his dishes requires careful arrangement.

(3) I'd like to draw a distinction between complexity of execution, and complexity in conception. I'm not saying Ducasse has one or the other. Just that there are many different types of complexity. Consider an example of a dress being complex in execution because it needs to be embroidered, but the underlying embriodered design being fundamentally flawed in conception. If what is being embroidered onto the dress is an ugly pattern, beautiful embroidery technique will not save the gown.

[Fat Guy]

Actually on rereading this I realized there is another answer. What makes it more manageable is that they don't have the burden of "moving the dinner." Like Schaem said about Gagnaire and Passard, they take chances, they are innovative and bold. There is more to that then taking chances on recipes and combinations. There is applying the artists hand to their work that makes the end product unique. It's the difference between the conductor taking the orchestra through rehearsals and saying to them I want you to play it perfectly and saying to them that perfection is important but what is more important is to play it with feeling.

I knew you wouldn't go down so easily. I was actually a little worried about you after your previous post, but it's good to see you're back. As for this other definition of boldness that you're talking about, it's not what you were talking about before, is it? Where you are now is on a different point, one about Ducasse not being in the kitchen like Passard equaling an inability to improvise. But improvisation and boldness are two different things. Or maybe you mean them to be the same thing, but perhaps you can clarify what you're trying to say.

[Fat Guy]

But what does that say about Ducasse's *cuisine*

It says that Ducasse's cuisine is not limited by his kitchen, which is all I've been trying to say. The questions about the underlying conception of his cuisine are not related to this point.

As I've said a couple of times now, I'm simply responding to the suggestion that there is some sort of limitation on the competence of Ducasse's brigade that prevents him from presenting "bolder" cuisine. That satement is plainly incorrect.

[Fat Guy]

I'm curious as to which chef(s) who has staged at multiple Michelin three-star restaurants would convey that Ducasse's *brigade* (I'm glad you mentioned at least the brigade and not the cuisine) is the "gold standard". And how many of the applicable chefs have staged in the kitchens of applicable innovators in France?

I'm representing that this is common knowledge in the industry. I do know at least two chefs who have staged at both Ducasse and Arpege -- those being the two most applicable to this thread -- but it would be their choice to reveal themselves, not mine. But this is the sort of thing you can ask any well-informed chef about and you'll likely get the same answer.

[Fat Guy]

If you don't create original dishes that will be publicized, copied, and associated with your name you're not relevant.

But if that describes you as a chef you aren't relevent.

I'm aware that you adhere to a signature-dish theory of culinary greatness -- and of course you know you were the basis for my caricature in that post -- but that's because you define relevance so narrowly. I've presented my take on the signature-dish theory rather extensively, and obviously you remain unconvinced. Perhaps someone else can say it better than I did.

[lxt]

Whether or not you like Bach, and whether or not you find that harmonic possibilities that he codified meaningful or merely a bunch of "mathematica' formulae," it's hard to say that music would have been the same without Bach figuring it all out and writing it all down. But we are 350 years later in time. I don't see what Ducasse is adding of interest other then a refinment of the same techniques that was codified all the other chefs of the 20th century?

Bach insisted that a composer was essentially a craftsman and always considered himself as being just the heir of a craft tradition passed to him by his family from generation to generation. He believed that there was a right way for composing any piece of music even for a “free fantasy.”

When Bach heard the beginning of a fugue, he would state what contrapuntal devices it would be possible to apply and which ones the composers should use. In other words, his satisfaction came from producing what was properly expected. He is known not for being inventive or “figuring it all out” but for perfecting the existing technique, for the refinement of something that was already previously “codified” by others. As a matter of fact, Albert Schweitzer mentioned in one of his studies that Bach was the very model of the “objective” artists who “are wholly of their own time, and work only with the forms and the ideas that their time proffers them…and feel no inner compulsion to open out to new paths.” Contrary, he continued, are the “subjective” artists, like Richard Wagner, who are “a law unto themselves, they place themselves in opposition to their epoch and originate new forms for the expression of their ideas.”

It is also interesting to note that during the three decades Bach was composing, musical styles were changing, and by Bach’s late years, his early works already seemed old-fashioned. New composers were denouncing counterpoint and producing popular melodies, simplifying the complex structures that Bach had built. Even before his death his music was becoming unpopular.

As I am striving to interpret the facts and thoughts presented by both sides in this matter, I am looking for the validity of the arguments, and this particular example, Steve, simply doesn’t stand.

[Bux]

As a cook I think it is possible to admire both Ducasse and Passard as great practitioners of their art

I should hope so.

Though I think you're as likely to be appalled by a dish at PG as blown away, not the case at ADNY I suspect.

Most exciting and undoubtedly best meal I've had in Paris was at Gagnaire. The worst thing(s) I've ever been served may have been all of the desserts at that same meal.

to dismiss Ducasse as "merely" striving for perfection is dangerous.

An understatement, although of course I'm not sure about the exact dangers.

There are so many young cooks and chefs in NY (trust me) who aspire to innovation, that I fear any dedication to perfection, discipline, and technique may be lost.  Maybe this is incidental to the conversation, but as someone who spends more time in kitchens than dining rooms, it is important.

Trust me, this is where I see the danger as a diner.

I've read on and see others have taken issue with your post, but they speak when they might listen. What can I say, but that I'm glad you, and not they, are in the kitchen. I take some comfort from seeing the sensitive views on this thead coming from the kitchen.

[lxt]

It's the difference between the conductor taking the orchestra through rehearsals and saying to them I want you to play it perfectly and saying to them that perfection is important but what is more important is to play it with feeling.

Steve, I can assure you that the last words the conductor would address to his orchestra before the performance would not likely be a reminder of the importance of the musicians’ feelings. Moreover, the emotional effect most of the people in the audience experience is a result of the musicians’ many hours of sweat and hard labor of training day after day to achieve that perfect tune or perfect touch, that crescendo or diminuendo, glissando or simple passage. As a matter of fact, a performer considers himself very lucky if he is capable of experiencing an emotional attachment to the performed works on stage even once during his entire concert career.

[ahr]

Steve P.: How important to you is it to live dangerously? When the man in the kitchen is both composer and performer, there’s always the possibility of improvisation -- of a meal different from, and better than, any meal ever served before -- and also the danger of failure. Is this an important component of “soul?” If so, the flawless reproduction of even perfectly conceived dishes could well leave you cold.

[Bux]

What I think has been missing in this thread so far is the observation that innovation at non-Ducasse places (it's helpful everybody has conceded Ducasse does not meaningfully innovate) is **coupled with**, instead of being at the expense of, perfectionism. It takes discipline and dedication to try and develop, and implement, dishes with innovation.

Have I failed to express myself on that aspect of the meal I had at AD/PA. There are degrees of innovation and the wildest innovation almost always seems very tame when the final effect seems so obvious. The "why didn't I think of that" is never as impressively innovative than the "what was he thinking" sort of innovation. I found nothing dull about dinner at AD/PA. I thought Ducasse was pushing the envelope of cuisine as we know it. He pushed gently, but forcefully in corners others had stopped looking for innovation. He's creative in a tougher arena. It's no small skill, but it's a reason why he may be a chef's chef, although I've felt the same about Passard. Then again the chef's here seem to hold both in esteem, and I am not surprised. Ducasse is not my favorite chef. He certainly seems more like Wagner than Bach at least on a superficial a gut reaction. To miss his contribution, talent and innovation is to have a blind spot however.

[Jonathan Day]

It's the difference between the conductor taking the orchestra through rehearsals and saying to them I want you to play it perfectly and saying to them that perfection is important but what is more important is to play it with feeling.

Steve, I can assure you that the last words the conductor would address to his orchestra before the performance would not likely be a reminder of the importance of the musicians’ feelings.

I have heard many conductors asking musicians to "play with more feeling" (or "more schmalz", or any of a variety of locutions) but this is not at all the same thing as asking the players to experience particular feelings or emotions themselvses.