Arpege: dinner and lunch; 2002-2004

[Jonathan Day]

...it's helpful everybody has conceded Ducasse does not meaningfully innovate...

Have they in fact agreed with this point of view? Earlier in the thread, Steve Shaw wrote that

Ducasse's use of jus, the rotisserie with the Ducasse spit, slow cooking in water baths with the cryovac and temperature probes, turbot, wheat berries, the merging of French and Italian techniques, and many others are definitive. He has rethought the organization of the kitchen, he has adopted and popularized new equipment, and he has developed management procedures that have allowed him to operate multiple multi-starred establishments and others of similar quality worldwide.

Is this "innovation" of a different order or nature that the innovations of a Passard or a Gagnaire? I am not in any way defending Ducasse, only seeking to understand what is meant by "innovation" in the discussion.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Lxt - I didn't say he would tell them to take their own feelings into consideration, I said he would tell them to *play with feeling.* There is a difference between a flat performance and someone playing with feeling. Maybe you never heard Vladimir Horowitz play piano but he played with a tremendous amount of feeling and passion. That is quite different then the technical skill he possessed and displayed. It's the difference between playing it right and playing it well. The analogy I was making was that Ducasse doesn't cook (either he nor his surrogates) with passion.

it's hard to say that music would have been the same without Bach figuring it all out and writing it all down.

Okay I will amend my statement to say "recognizing what was going to be important and writing it all down"

You are becoming almost as pedantic as some of our British brothers

AHR - As I tried to explain to Lxt above, soul is the way one *performs* their art or craft. It is something that gets to the essence of why something is what it is. Katz's pastrami has soul, 2nd Avenue Deli's does not. And Schmulka Bernstein's pastrami had even more soul then Katz's, as did Pastrami King back in the old days. Those versions got to the heart of what pastrami was all about. Certainly you must see that in food and ingredients all of the time. Places with soulful marinara sauces and places that just go through the motions and it tastes perfectly fine but unexciting. That's the point I was making about Ducasse. The emphasis isn't on a thrilling performance. As Fat Guy said, the emphasis is on perfection which I find a bit cold. Especially when we are talking about food.

JD - I think when Cabrales means innovative she isn't referring to inventing a different way to poach scallops. She is talking about making new and original dishes. Or ways to serve a meal. What you described is an innovation that diners wouldn't notice unless the change accounted for their proclaiming it was delicious to an extent that they never experienced before. Ducasse's innovations have less direct meaning to diners. An example of a dish having direct meaning would be Senderen's Canard Apicius. A new and different taste and approach to serving a roast duck. And after one procliams delight at eating the dish, it then has an entire history to learn about, and then the chef can get credit for making the dish contemporary.

Aside from those remarks, I would like to get this thread back on track to my point. I am not disputing Ducasse's abilities as a chef. Nor do I think how he will be perceived in the future is of much importance to my point either. And whether you are willing to accept the proffer of perfection as an aesthetic (esthetic?) or not, none of that speaks to my point about him. And a comparison with Passard or any other chef isn't relevent to the point either. Here is the very simple thing I am pointing out about him. For someone who the professionals in the food industry have annointed as king, I have not been served any food in his establishments that would evidence his worthiness. Now of course that could be the result of two occassions where they weren't working at their best for some reason or another. But my experience is corroborated over and over again by people who eat there and who don't like it. In fact as I said earlier, a vast majority of people I speak to who eat at Ducasse come away with a thumb's down review.

Second point is that aside from Fat Guy, I don't know of any fans that he has that are loyal and fervent supporters the way people support some other chefs. Using Passard as an example, I meet people from time to time who do not go to Paris without taking a meal at Passard. Robuchon was the same way. In fact I have a friend who used to eat at Robuchon everyday when he was in Paris. He ate at the restaurant something like 40+ times. Maybe Ducasse has fervent supporters like that but I have never met them. And to be honest about it, there isn't a buzz about him among the dining cognscenti. And if anything there is a negative buzz. The most typical comment I hear is that people walk away feeling there is an "emperor's new clothes" aspect about the guy and his establishments. And to be consitent with Fat Guy's observation that he has his stars because he is a great chef, not vice-versa, the negative vibe that exists around Ducasse is strictly a product of his not delivering the proffer he makes about his establishments and himself on people's plates. Because if people were having fabulous meals at his establishments, that is what you would hear on the foodie street. There is no conspiracy amongst foodies against Ducasse.

Finally I want to address the point of codification and the era that Ducasse is living in. History used to rely on codifcation. By that I mean that Bach, like Shakespere, and even Louis Armstrong, lived in a time where very little was recorded (I mean written down) properly. If you were fastidious in writing down the various harmonic combinations that occured out of the music of your period, there is very little existent today to challenge your authority. That isn't the case today. There is much in print about food and recipes, and so much prose about how those recipes were executed in restaurants that I can't imagine that Ducasse will get credit for what he didn't invent in the way that Bach and the others might have been able to get credit for it. That's why I'm sort of outraged to hear that Ducasse is going to get credit *just because he wrote it down.* My threshold for the entitlement to be the codifier(and claim invention) in the times we live in is inventing it. And so far aside from a few cooking techniques that might have improved the craft, I don't see his entitlement. Nobody here has offered a single reason for why he is entitled other then his quest for perfection.

And this is where I see the main dispute with Ducasse laying. And I think it is also where his negative publicity arises from. It is the inference he wants us to draw fom his being prolific, from his quest for perfection, his operating starred establishments in mulitple locations, he believes, and his supporters do as well, that the formula adds up to our having to acknowledge that he is the most important chef of our time. But then there are guys like me who say, wait a second, wait a second, I don't care how many starred establishments you operate. And I don't care how prolific a writer you are. And I don't care how many chefs have bought your books and are reading them into the wee hours of the morning. I'm stuck on how come my meal, and the meals eaten by the majority of people I meet, weren't delicious to the point where we think you are deserving of any of this? A fancy way of saying the proof is in the pudding.

The second point as it relates to the difference between the time period is we can now record the quality of the performance. Nobody knows how Bach performed his compositions. He might have offered quite mediocre performances that were inferior to lesser composers (or codifiers I should say,) but who had the ability to give stirring performances. But there is so much written about food these days. Just look at this site. 200 years from now it is possible that someone will have access to these words and they might be able to use them to mount a campaign against Ducasse's worthiness. There is hardly a historical example for that. But there is also a sub-issue about performance that goes to the heart of my argument. The only issue that interests me is what is on my plate. That K-Paul's redfish will go down in history is only a secondary issue in the dining experience.

The viewpoint of the diner is blind to every argument about historical merit. The issue raised here is about happiness and profundity when dining. And that always brings us back to originality, creativity, and passion combined with good execution. Something that a wide contingency of people feel is necessary to make a great meal, and something that contingent of people feel is lacking from their experience at Ducasse. And to be clear, not the theoretical Ducasse, the one on paper with all the accomplshments. I'm talking about the actual Ducasse that they serve you when you go to his restaurants. Because if when analyzing his merits you do so on the basis of raising anything else other then what is on your plate and how it makes you feel, you are allowing your knowledge of how a restaurant works and how the food is put together to interfere with the narrative. And I will take this a step further and say that the reason people throw up this particular defense of Ducasse is that he really doesn't have a strong narrative (thank you Robert.) In fact despite my asking repeatedly, the only answer I get in that regard is "perfectionism." And I wonder if that really qualifies in the first place when perfect execution is only one of many important aspects of a meal.

[Fat Guy]

The viewpoint of the diner is blind to every argument about historical merit.

The typical diner is entirely susceptible to letting externalities interfere with enjoyment of the meal -- or enhance enjoyment of the meal. This is exactly why, when I asked you who is dining at Ducasse's restaurants (because they are after all harder to reserve at and more expensive than Passard's, and therefore the market has already decided who is the better chef), you said: "People who don't really know about haute cuisine and people who have heard about his greatness from publications. It's the same crowd who goes to see Wynton Marsalis because they heard that 'jazz is good.'"

No, you don't believe the diner is blind to externalities such as arguments about historical merit -- you only think it's true of you. What you have done is you have conveniently defined yourself and those who agree with you as a special category of diner. Other types of diners, you would have us believe, are hoodwinked by arguments about historical merit ("heard about his greatness from publications"), by service, by opulence, and by other externalities. But you and an elite of diners with pure and unbiased taste -- who happen to be all the people you know -- have a special ability to discern truth from falsehood, atmospherics from substance, and in Mr. Brown's words to shorten the aesthetic distance. Do you have any idea how ridiculous this claim sounds?

Then you compound the hyperbole of everybody-I-know-hates-Ducasse with the-people-I-know-have-the-best-taste and you top it off with nobody-likes-Ducasse and the outright falsehood of nobody-has-given-any-examples.

Surely you realize the nonsensical nature of a statement like the one that "anything else other then what is on your plate and how it makes you feel" is irrelevant to the analysis of a dish. As usual, in the ultra-focused pursuit of whatever argument is in the front of your mind at the moment, you have forgotten everything else you have said in hundreds of posts elsewhere about wine, food, and all aspects of connoisseurship: It doesn't come to us as pure instinct when we are born. It has to be learned, studied, absorbed, and appreciated. If you run through the act of tasting a particular wine, surely you will realize that you do not for one second believe your context-free view of enjoyment that you have crafted just because it serves your argumentative purposes here.

Both you and Mr. Brown have made the claim that a certain kind of person -- a certain experienced diner with a high level of taste -- prefers Passard to Ducasse. And while I have no doubt that you both move in circles where there is a certain buzz about Ducasse, I respectfully submit that neither of you is an unfailingly accurate cultural barometer. Because there are very well traveled people like Buxbaum who think you're wrong. But no matter how many people post on this thread and on this site about the great meals they had at Ducasse, you ignore it or dismiss it as irrelevant.

Now of course you say that the only reason anybody likes Ducasse is because of his perfectionism, and that perfectionism doesn't do it for you and is indeed an invalid approach. And you also say that he fails to deliver on his promise of perfectionism. But before we get to those points (again), let's dispense with all this nonsense about how anybody who knows anything dislikes Ducasse. You can keep repeating it in the hopes that it will somehow become true, but it has been demonstrated abundantly that you're wrong. Because you have a mentality of wanting to be with the herd within the elite, you constantly feel compelled to make reference to a consensus that supports you. But when you're going up against Ducasse, that dog won't hunt.

As to this whole soulfulness concept, although I agree that food can and should convey and inspire emotional responses I think you go way too far with this line of thinking in many respects. This is definitely an instance where I think some exposure to what professional cooks know would clarify your thinking. As you've displayed on other threads, you don't have a good feel for what goes on in a restaurant kitchen. If you did, you would easily realize that much of what you view as soulfulness in food is something you are projecting on to the food and not something that comes from someone cooking with heart. And when it comes to projecting soulfulness, the externalities, preconceptions, biases, and self-fulfilling prophecies come into play big time.

[Tonyfinch]

You are becoming almost as pedantic as some of our British brothers 

Jesus,pots and kettles or WHAT? Ten pages of this and he calls US pedantic!

Actually I've never eaten at the places you're talking about but it's quite an interesting converation.

Sorry for the interruption. Do carry on.

[Fat Guy]

Plots and kettles, I think you mean.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - Overlown, overblown, overblown. Let's look at what I really said. First I agree with this statement of yours;

What you have done is you have conveniently defined yourself and those who agree with you as a special category of diner.

Well I don't see what is so controversial about doing that. I am defining a school of thought that a certain group of people apply. I am sure at the time of their bursting on the scene, their were schools of thought that were in favor of abstract artists and schools that were against them. In fact there are still schools that are against them. Even more so for conceptual art. I've just thrown my lot in with a certain school of thought, which is totally comprised of people's visceral and cerebral reaction when dining. And that I happen to think we are of the right opinion, isn't a function of popularity or preferrence. It's my analysis that we have prioritized the dining experience in the way that history will llikely record it. And that in this example, history will sort out the difference between Ducasse's contributions and his self-promotion.

And of course I/we could be wrong. But when I walk around Moma or an equivelent, among other things, and I shudder to use this as an example because what I know about fine art can go on the head of a pin, I see boldness, daring, flair and passion. Yes pure technique has its place on its walls. But mostly I see artists who make statements about themselves, and even more importantly, tell us something about ourselves. It's the difference between viewing a painting that has three women bending over and The Gleaners. I am sure The Gleaners were not the first painting that had women bending down. But it was the one that captured the essence of why they were doing it, and had the right application of technique at the same time. And most importantly, it said something about the way the world was organized that needed correction. Those are the types of things that last forever. From artists who notice something and who take a chance that they can express it properly.

And of course I/we can be wrong taking an even wider perspective into account. Maybe the school I belong to sees things in the short term. And Ducasse's creations are long term and permanent additions to the art of cooking. But as I have said, I haven't seen you or anyone else make that case through example, other then he has written a body of work that has him positioned for that crown. And my school of thought says that his body of work will never be a replacement for his lack of masterpieces. And unless he has his Mona Lisa, his Guernica, his Day in the Life or his Death of a Salesman etc., he will never be remembered in the way you are describing.

[cabrales]

Both you and Mr. Brown have made the claim that a certain kind of person -- a certain experienced diner with a high level of taste -- prefers Passard to Ducasse. And while I have no doubt that you both move in circles where there is a certain buzz about Ducasse, I respectfully submit that neither of you is an unfailingly accurate cultural barometer.

I believe in that as well. There is a certain kind of diner -- not *all* experienced diners with a high level of taste but a *certain* special kind (with the possibility that there are other special kinds who prefer other cuisiners, I suppose) -- would see with singular clarity the difference between Passard and Ducasse over two or more meals at each. Note seeing the difference between them, in my mind, does not necessarily require preferring one or the other; that depends on the diner's subjective preferences. For example, if one really liked eating beef or lamb, one might prefer Ducasse because he includes such products in his cooking.

[Bux]

Both you and Mr. Brown have made the claim that a certain kind of person -- a certain experienced diner with a high level of taste -- prefers Passard to Ducasse. And while I have no doubt that you both move in circles where there is a certain buzz about Ducasse, I respectfully submit that neither of you is an unfailingly accurate cultural barometer. Because there are very well traveled people like Buxbaum who think you're wrong. But no matter how many people post on this thread and on this site about the great meals they had at Ducasse, you ignore it or dismiss it as irrelevant.

Hmm, I've never said that I prefer Ducasse to Passard. I really don't have enough experience with either to say I definitely prefer one to the other, but I didn't think this was about popularity. There are many reasons why I might prefer Passard and why I might have a greater curiosity about his cooking. Comparisons of my meals are not very fair as they were had years apart and, I suppose, show the two chefs at different points in their careers. I suspect I had also evolved as a diner. Anyway, dinner at AD/PA was certainly the more demanding one in terms of my attention and depth of involvement. I will defend Passard with some passion although I have to admit my interest has been partially piqued by his deft handling of the media and the never quite true rumors that have been spread by the media about his "totally" vegetarian menu. He appears to be far better at using the public press than Ducasse and yet not been charged with "hype." Nevertheless, and this is not to say that I didn't clean my plate and enjoy my food to the last bite at Arpege, I understood my plates within the first few bites. At Ducasse my amazement lasted well into each course and the souful ragout of vegetation that surrounded my medallions of game, kept on surprising me down to the last bite. I don't think I've ever been more surprised at each bite even in a restaurant dedicated to a cuisine quite foreign to me and I know I've never been more surprised in a positively ecstatic way by a dish--especially by a chef who "everybody has conceded ... does not meaningfully innovate." In truth it's far less innovative to put vanilla and lobster in a dish and say "you've never had this before," than it is to put fruits and vegetables on a plate and have the diner say "I've never had anything like this before."

Plotnicki, when you say "that Ducasse doesn't cook (either he nor his surrogates) with passion," I'm reminded of another guy who used to argue that my favorite chefs didn't cook with love like the lady on the corner in Queens who sold her whatever-it-was that she sold from her cart. He also surrounded and insulatd himself with those who shared his taste.

Fortunately my p.m. is running heavily in favor of Ducasse, or I would have to believe I also ran with a group incabable of appreciating a certain level of finesse and creativity.

[Fat Guy]

Forgive me, Bux, for my ambiguous use of the language. I didn't mean to say you prefer Ducasse to Passard; I simply meant that you reject the notion that experienced diners like you must necessarily prefer Passard to Ducasse.

[Steve Plotnicki]

He appears to be far better at using the public press than Ducasse and yet not been charged with "hype."

Well that's because when people eat the food it delivers what he promised them. You have to remember that I started out as a disbeliever. Someone who didn't eat there from it's inception until last February because I didn't believe what I thought was hype. In fact I don't think I would have been inspired to go at all had he not offered the proffer that he was abandoning meat and going all(really mostly) vegetables. The notion that a three star chef could pull off a meal that was limited to veggies had an allure for me. But he actually delivered what he said he was going to deliver and that it is why his supporters are so virulent. How rarely that occurs in any field let alone fine dining. And the core of critcism against Ducasse stems from this very issue. He did not deliver what he promised. This is why Passard has had more success with the press then Ducasse has had. Passard had a small goal. I can dispense with meat and keep your interest. Ducasse's proffer, I am going to open up the best restaurant in NYC, is a proffer that is doomed for failure unless you deliver on 1000% of your promise. Any significant variation from that standard and you are going to get killed by both the press and the public.

As for the arepa lady, yes she cooks with soul. So do many people. Then there are many who cook without soul. Just like there are people who paint with soul, sing with soul and act with soul. Then there are a bunch of stiffs who don't. Fortunately I am happy I have the ability to recognize it. That there are a bunch of people who have the same ability, and that I am friendly with them doesn't prove anything. Like I said earlier, just talk to people who dine at both places. Yes Arpege has its legions of fans, and it has people who knock it too. Just like Fat Guy. But show me the overwhelming public support through offered opinion for Ducasse? So far what has been offered is it is harder to get a reservation.

So I picked up the phone so I could see if it is difficult to get a reservation at Ducasse. This is what I found. At ADPA, they were fully booked for dinner for the month of October but I could get a table for Nov 5. Less then 30 days out. Then at Monte Carlo I aksed for a table the weekend of Oct 325/26 andf they offered me one for the 25th. The 26th was fully booked. And then I called ADNY and I was able to get a table for dinner this Thursday evening at 8:00. Does anyone call that in demand? You want to see a restaurant in demand, try to get into the French Laundry. Or try to get into El Bulli.

[Fat Guy]

Plotnicki, call Arpege (which of course you didn't do) and ask for a table for dinner -- they'll offer you several dates in the next two weeks. I felt bad wasting the reservationist's time, and of course it's totally unscientific, but I was just offered lunch pretty much anyday and dinner next Monday, table for four. 011 33 1 47 05 09 06 if you're interested. So in the market where Ducasse and Passard compete, Ducasse is the far more difficult reservation. And of course when you take Ducasse's three restaurants together and factor in the number of combined seats the demand for those seats is clearly higher, the supply is also greater -- and yet the price is higher. And now that you've proven nothing, can we get back to the argument?

[Fat Guy]

By the way you owe me whatever a two minute call to Paris costs, so bring some nickels next time I see you. And I do admit to being very surprised about the ADP offering of a table for dinner. Monaco and New York I would have predicted, but ADP is a really tough table in my experience. But I guess it's like the warning label on mutual funds.

[Steve Plotnicki]

It wasn't my point. It was yours. I just called Ducasse so I can prove that it isn't a difficult reservation to get at all. How can that be possible when we are talking about "the world's greatest chef," who runs "establishments that strive for perfection," and who will go down in history as being "the most important chef of the 20th century." Anyway I'm happy leaving this point behind. I'm much happier sticking to my masterpiece point.

[Bux]

Sorry Plotnicki, those last posts seems to confirm my points all too well. You refute me than go on to support my contentions. The difficulty of reservation business was the most absurd part and yet you defend it's meaningless as support because it proves nothing. Most of what it proves is that you are not making a point about supporting Passard, but that you need to attack Ducasse. If Ducasse was the worst chef in France, I'd find more benefit in a post that explained what little he had to offer than in one that just tried to put him down. Your weakness is that you don't admit to weaknesses and display a need to defend every casual remark you make, rather than accept the possibility that someone else may see somthing you haven't.

All of my posts are based on the concept that the "world's greatest" anything, chef included, is a fairly dumb idea. I don't argue that Ducasse is any such thing, only that he is a great chef who needs to be considered when people talk about great, creative, innovative, soulful chefs. His popularity or lack thereof, as well as his prices and the difficulty of getting a reservation are of interest, but they don't prove very much all by themselves. What's appalling about the negative arguments is the need they convey to insist a creative person be seen in a negative light. I have from time to time noted I have been disappointed by a multistarred or popular chef and that I have net understood his critical or popular success, but I have no need to go on and on as if my own self esteem depended on attacking that chef. I am pleased that others have found worth in his cooking and usually quick to note that my own displeasure, although great, was based on a particular experience and leave it at that.

I argue for Ducasse for one reason. I don't wish to see people cross him off their list without trying the food. I honestly believe that for people who can afford the five or six hundred dollars it will cost to have a meal at AD/PA, that price will be an insignificant loss when held up to the chance they will miss the experience. Dining out is always a gamble, or like the stock market--Maybe better than the stock market. It's been pointed out that if I bought Budweiser several years back with the money I had in the stock market, there's a good chance the deposit on the empties may be worth more than the stocks. One shouldn't go out to eat with the milk money.

[rich]

One shouldn't go out to eat with the milk money.

And one shouldn't buy milk with the "going out to eat" money.

[Wilfrid]

Bux, you state very well what puzzles me about this thread. I haven't eaten passard's food, but I've eaten Ducasse's. I don't see anywhere that Plotnicki, or anyone else, is saying Ducasse is a lousy chef, or runs poor kitchens, or serves food which is a rip-off. So what is the motivation for the effort expended on denigrating him? As I said pages back, his restaurants surely rise to the level of very good indeed.

I can't help feeling there's something behind all this which I'm missing.

[cabrales]

I argue for Ducasse for one reason. I don't wish to see people cross him off their list without trying the food. I honestly believe that for people who can afford the five or six hundred dollars it will cost to have a meal at AD/PA, that price will be an insignificant loss when held up to the chance they will miss the experience.

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. I go to restaurants I dislike all the time -- for variety, to meet up with friends or other parties, to see if the restaurant has improved or evolved, in response to an increase in rating, etc. I've even been to Gagnaire two times in the last year, and that is a restaurant I really dislike. Even Bocuse, whose food I found very poor on a recent visit, could merit a revisit because I have not sampled his bass in a pastry crust.

[Wilfrid]

But Cabby, do you actively dislike the food at ADNY? Is it really bad food, the way the food at Sammy's Roumanian is bad. Or are you agreeing that it must be one of the top ten restaurants in New York, but indicating that you personally prefer other approaches? That's what I can't quite understand from reading this thread - do some people actually find Ducasse's food unpalatable or badly prepared?

[cabrales]

Wilfrid -- I don't think the food is as well prepared as that at Blue Hill or Le Bernardin, for example, although I don't consider the food at ADNY inappropriately prepared. I don't disagree that ADNY may be one of the ten best restaurants in NY, although that's not subjecting the restaurant to particularly strong competition (relative to restaurants in France in my assessment). I'd like to reiterate I do not consider ADNY's food to be perfect with respect to technique, or even close to that.

Yes, I dislike Ducasse's food because there are alternatives.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux - That post was awful. To say I don't have the right to criticize creative people just because what they do it creative is the biggest "let's protect the people in the business" argument anyone here has put forth. I have every right to complain and to criticize. It's my 600 euros and you should be damn sure that if Ducasse wastes my money I will be the first person to say so on national TV.

Wilfrid - What makes Ducasse a target is that in many ways he holds himself out to be the world's best and most knowledgable chef. And when people go to his restaurants and find the food, and in your own words, only very good, they hold it against him that he didn't deliver on his promise. Let's look at the book he wrote on American ingredients. Where did he have the moral authority to write that book? He didn't. I don't think anybody believed that he was really a student of American gastronomy or ingredients. It looked like a business ploy. He was opening a restaurant in NYC and he needed to have "expert" credentials.

[Wilfrid]

I didn't say "only" very good - I was contending that his restaurants at least rise to the level of "very good". But no matter. Your post, Steve, clarified matters a little, although one might have thought that there are chefs around more worthy of disparagement. Cabby, making a direct comparison between Blue Hill, Le Bernardin and ADNY, it seems to me obvious enough that ADNY does a whole lot more things much better than Blue Hill could be expected to do or Le Bernardin does. But since this is a Passard thread, we'd better take that to the New York board, if we need to!

[cabrales]

Whatever it is that ADNY is doing better than Blue Hill or Le Bernardin does not show up in the subjective deliciousness and other aspects of the dishes presented, in my assessment.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Cabby - I am going to have to agree with Wilfy on this one. While I enjoy the cooking at Blue Hill very much, the scope of what they attempt do there doesn't compare to the scope of ADNY. And there is no comparison as the level of technique applied. What they do there approximates what goes on in a Michelin one star. What goes on at ADNY can only be described as being at the 3 star level, regardless of whether one likes the place or not.

[Wilfrid]

Yeah, what he said.

[Bux]

When I've spoken of Ducasse and his cuisine, I have focused on AD/PA precisely because this is the France board, the title of this thread includes the words "dining in France," and AD/PA seems a more meaningful comparison to Arpege. The sheer luxury of AD/NY which manifests itself in the food as well as the decor and service, discourages a direct comparison with Blue Hill, in my opinion, although I have an exceptionally high opinion of Blue Hill. I am aware that my opinion is probably higher than that of my peers, though not higher than I believe it deserves.

Bux - That post was awful. To say I don't have the right to criticize creative people just because what they do it creative

Actually, I though I was well in line with the parameters of your recent posts, but I didn't say you didn't have the right to criticize creative people. I don't recall suspending anyone's rights, nor do I recall anything close to what you said I said. Could you provide the citation and either prove my memory is even shorter term than my daughter says, or allow us to reach an understanding on what I said. Ducasse is not above criticism and there is much that would be legitimate. There are usually two sides and I've tried not to idolize Ducasse, but to explain why I have respect for him. I do not wish to qualify that respect on a point scale with other chefs, nor rate AD/PA on a scale beyond saying I think it probably belongs in the top group. I would accept your criticism far more easily if it were presented as the opinion it is, rather than as the correct view.

When you respond to Wilfrid by explaining why Ducasse is a target, I think you asnwer the question of the motivation for the effort expended on denigrating him, perfectly. Unfortuantely you'v explained why he's a target, not why he deserves to be denigrated.