Arpege: dinner and lunch; 2002-2004

[Louisa Chu]

Gentlemen, I may not write like a girl, but I am. It's Louisa.

I understand - as well as anyone can - how Michelin awards stars, but I was asking about the food, not whether or not L'Arpege - the restaurant, the experience - merited their stars.

I understand - again, as well as anyone can - the difference between eating and dining, but my question is an attempt to further explore that difference - regardless of Michelin. And specifically as it applies to Passard as he is one of the most challenging fine dining chefs around.

Would one consider his signature egg as an inspired creation were it not served within the same setting nor by the same service? And forget about Michelin!

You can't compare the dining experience with viewing Rodin and Picasso. It's interactive, viewing Rodin is not.

You're kidding, right? Rodin haunts me for what he provokes from within me. But for another viewer, he may do nothing. All that guy might see is a life-like sculpture.

For me, some food is just food - Michelin starred or not. Other food transports me - Michelin starred or not.

I don't know about Passard. I haven't been to L'Arpege yet. Perhaps mine will remain a rhetorical question for now.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Would one consider his signature egg as an inspired creation were it not served within the same setting nor by the same service

Louisa - But you're asking the sort of hypothetical question that is unanswerable. If you served that egg at the corner luncheonette, it would not make the same impact as it does when it is served at a three star restaurant.

All food needs context to maximize its impact. You wouldn't like you eat a hamburger in a restaurant with a gilded ceiling. And I don't think that eating kosher delicatessen in a place that looks like Gramercy Tavern would be much fun either. So I'm not really understanding your question.

And viewing sculpture is not interactive (at least with Rodin.) It might be profound and moving, but you don't physically touch it, nor put it inside your body. Food is different.

[Bux]

Marcus - That's a tough question to answer. How do I parse intelect from sensusal pleasure when they are so well integrated? It's not as if Passard offers senusality apart from the cerebral component. I think the biggest leap with Passard's cuisine is that the elements of heavy saucing and meat are non-existent. One has to learn how to enjoy the meal without them being there. I have a friend in Paris who owns a wine shop. He eats at Passard all of the time. But given the choice between L'Ambroisie and Arpege he will choose Pacaud  because he likes to eat meat. Let's just say that I don't have that problem. And I found my meal enjoyable enough that I didn't miss the meat or the heavy saucing at all.

Was it delicious? I'm asking that in relation to a thread on Adria and El Bulli, but without sarcasm. Arpege may offer, but doesn't focus on the great meat, game, etc. dishes with intense reductions of sauces and meat jus that many diners, gastronomes included, especially revel in, but I sense it is still delicious food, although there may be a falling off in the number of people who will find it delicious. There's a danger that we begin to speak of an audience of more refined taste and that it will smack of snobbism or elitism, but that's irrelevant. There does seem to be a sense of intellectualism about the deliciousness of all this. Is there a component of delicious that can be enhanced by the intellectual aspects of the food. Can you (editorial "you"--can one) salivate over the intellectual aspects of a meal as well as the primal feeding aspects?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Some of the dishes are intensely delicious. What makes the meal different is no carbs. There aren't any grains at all. You would think that a meal without meat would cheat and use potatoes for bulk. But he's managed a way to make you feel satisfied without the bulk. I have to add that when you leave there you feel full, but not the bloated type of full that you can feel after downing a rack of lamb and a large portion of creamy mashed potatoes.

[Michael Laiskonis]

marcus posted on Sep 28 2002, 05:47 PM

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading between the lines, the one question that I would ask is did you enjoy eating Passard's cooking as much as you respected it?

Steve Plotnicki posted on Sep 28 2002, 09:57 PM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a tough question to answer. How do I parse intelect from sensusal pleasure when they are so well integrated? It's not as if Passard offers senusality apart from the cerebral component.

My question would be, is it possible to fully enjoy and savor the cuisine of Passard (or Gagnaire, or Bras, or Adria) if you don't already come to the table with an understanding of his intentions?

Patrice- Yes I haven't gotten to writing that novel that would be reviews of recent meals in Paris, as well as New York. My apologies! Something tells me that Mr. Plotnicki might have something to say about Gagnaire... If so, I will allow him to have the first word!

I'm still trying to understand loufood's question about food and setting. To echo the others' comments, surely the setting maximizes the effect of Passard's food. Where else would you propose? Would a Cote Rotie taste better in Reidel as opposed to a plastic cup? Foie gras on Bernardaud or a paper plate? Of course. But surely there is middle ground somewhere. Would a disciple of Passard be able to produce the same style in a modest bistrot setting? Likely, yes, if the kitchen was of similar caliber. Ultimately, the ability to be "transported" by food comes from within the person eating it.

[robert brown]

In the mid-1970s at the Haeberlin brothers three-star restaurant in Alsace. L'Auberge de L'Ill, half of the clientele ate in a windowless room with communal tables and were served by women in black aprons and white blouses. The other half dined at their own tables in a gussied-up dining room with a view of the river. We ate in the former. I don't think we would have had a different feeling (indifferent) about the cuisine regardless of where we sat. Before Bernard Loiseau completely renovated La Cote d'Or in Saulieu several years after it had been the home of the legendary Alexandre Dumaine, it was a typical, rather dark, wood-paneled restaurant. Of course the three-star Paris restaurants, Maxim's La Tour d'Argent, Lasserre,etc. were opulent Empire/Art Nouveau palace-like dining establishments. But history is full of great meals taken in with simple surroundings, accoutrements, and service. Restaurants in many cities that serve lousy food have much more "luxe" interiors than L'Arpege and service that is more bustling, (if not intrusive). In fact, whenever I have a bad meal in a "fancy joint" I feel more ripped off than if I had had it in surroundings that were more humble and where I likely would have paid less. I can say that Passard's dishes could not possibly taste any better to me than they do, so it doesn't matter if I had them at a State dinner in a dining room at Versailles. As for my taking them in more humble surroundings, go eat fresh white truffles of Alba on a house-made pasta in a trattoria somewhere in Piemonte.

[Steve Plotnicki]

The answer to Mplc's question (which also responds to Robert B.'s post) is that what is important are your expectations. If you know you are eating at a 3 star establishment, if you arrive and you eat in a simple room you are still calibrated a certain way. That is wholly different from arriving in a barn wearing jeans and a t-shirt expecting a farmhouse meal. And then you find the staff is all dressed in white tails serving everything in silver. Delicious food is delicious food, but expectations are also expectations. And no matter how delicious food can be, surroundings that are perfect can only serve to enhance your experience.

[Bux]

What makes the meal different is no carbs. There aren't any grains at all. You would think that a meal without meat would cheat and use potatoes for bulk. But he's managed a way to make you feel satisfied without the bulk. I have to add that when you leave there you feel full, but not the bloated type of full that you can feel after downing a rack of lamb and a large portion of creamy mashed potatoes.

I have noticed a trend towards the elimination of potatoes, rice, starches of all kinds in some restaurants. Carbs perhaps in a fruit or root vegetable, but no cereal or potato. Offhand, I can't remember a starch in a Blue Hill meal until dessert.

[Steve Plotnicki]

It's an interesting point. You realize that in order to make an interesting meal without any grains or carbs you have to cook those green and root vegetables perfectly. And you have to extract sauce from them in a natural way so as not to make the dishes heavy. Since I have never eaten there, how much if any did Loisseau's style of saucing influence this type of cuisine?

[Bux]

marcus posted on Sep 28 2002, 05:47 PM

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading between the lines, the one question that I would ask is did you enjoy eating Passard's cooking as much as you respected it?

Steve Plotnicki posted on Sep 28 2002, 09:57 PM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a tough question to answer. How do I parse intelect from sensusal pleasure when they are so well integrated? It's not as if Passard offers senusality apart from the cerebral component.

My question would be, is it possible to fully enjoy and savor the cuisine of Passard (or Gagnaire, or Bras, or Adria) if you don't already come to the table with an understanding of his intentions?

I suupose the questions with tough answers are the interesting ones. I think you can learn an awful lot quickly as you eat, especially if the meal is long enough, at any of those chef's tables. The question I have to ask myself is how much of a lack of understanding can one have. I feel as if a arrived at each of those tables with an incomplete understanding of the chef's intentions and even after a meal or two, I'm still learning by reading what others say, but I will admit that I didn't arrive straight from a diet of Applebee's and Olive Garden meals, nor did I chose the restaurants in question by driving by and thinking the place looked good from the outside. Having eaten in what I feel are the reprequisite restaurants over the years and having read at least something about the chef's along the way, I was not exactly unprepared. I think there are levels that are immediately appreciated and others that unfold as you begin to understand. As in any art or craft, the more you know the history, the greater you can "fully" appreciate the innovation and development, but this might even be said for those who are not great innovators.

It might be interesting to explore the various aspects that can be appreciated on different levels. On a thead about Adria, I mentioned earlier meeting a group of hikers on an "upscale outdoorsy" tour who were dining at a large table at El Bulli. After coffee members of our table of six engaged some of the other group. What was interesting was how much they enjoyed the experience of lunch and yet, none of these people had any interest in the Michelin guide and its star system. They were not foodies, just enthusiastic and at least moderately well to do and physically fit travlelers. Of course they loved the lunch, but I can't swear they appreciated it--not can I swear I didn't miss anything.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I find that some of the threads we have going on have some overlap to them. Let me see if I can consolidate some of the concets in this thread.

Dining is a learned skill. It sounds strange since everybody eats three meals a day and clearly you can call that dining. But when we talk about dining we are talking about a particular ritual that has a loose, but clear set of rules. And we talk about how to partake in that ritual, and what aspect the various people who play their roles in the ritual have. It starts with the people who answer the phone to take your reservation, and it continues through to the people who greet and seat you, take your order, cook the food, pour the wine etc. So I would say that the prerequisite for enjoying the type of meal we are describing is knowing how to do it. Of course that doesn't mean that if they dropped you into El Bulli from outer space, that you wouldn't find the meal delicious. Or that the ambiance

might make you feel a certain way. But I doubt that the person I have described in the first part of the example will have the same exact experience as the person from outer space.

This issue has come up in the snobbery thread. Aesthetics are just a form of communication. And each of us gets a different meaning from an aesthetic based on our prior experiences with similar aesthetics. So if we take Loufood's original question about Arpege and the setting when evaluating the egg, the answer is that a person who has less experience eating in those types of places won't associate the flavor and the texture with a three star restaurant. But you and I probably would. To me there are certain things that raise red flags for me. High fat content is one of them. A certain flavor to a sauce made from crustaceans are another. Silky textures are another one.

[Beachfan]

my false start at L’Affriole for lunch the next day.

I may have missed your l'Affriole comments, but as it has been one of my favorite places for a casual meal, I'm interested in hearing more on the "false start".

[rich]

The recipe for Passard's Mustard Ice Cream is on page 148 of Patricia Wells Paris Cookbook

Bless you! Gotta check that out

The egg recipe that Steve describes (Arpege Eggs with Maple Syrup) and the mustard ice cream with the gazpacho can be viewed at the link below.

recipes

[lxt]

My question would be, is it possible to fully enjoy and savor the cuisine of Passard (or Gagnaire, or Bras, or Adria) if you don't already come to the table with an understanding of his intentions?

There are two aspects to this question: 1) Whether a certain prerequisite knowledge of the chef’s concept‘s complexity may affect one’s appreciation of the cuisine; and 2) whether our aesthetic response to the food is in any way affected by the “ritual” of serving it, or ““would you enjoy the food itself as much without the same setting and service?” (loufood)

1. Knowledge not only changes one’s overall perception, but allows him to distinguish nuances otherwise hidden in the external form. Someone with no professional musical background will still be able to derive satisfaction from a performance, but his perception will be based on the passive, intuitive, automatic and declarative, whereas someone with a previous background in the musical world will concentrate on the active, explicit, conscious, and procedural. Having a set of knowledge in music would allow one to enjoy different domains like sound patterns, symbolic representations, performance contexts, and musical phrasing that are not quite apparent to the regular listener, but would result in increased expectations. Therefore, the question of who would get greater satisfaction is more often than not is answered as a “group of hikers.” However, if you are a professional and do get lucky in that the performance is superb, the ecstasy of enjoyment is heavenly. The knowledgeable are too likely to be disappointed by an ordinary performance, but better equipped to appreciate the sublime.

2. Aesthetic response is much more than a simple gustatory experience, and taste operates in multiple dimensions that aside from the mouth and nose include eyes, ears and even skin according to certain research on the subject. Voltaire, for example, compared the taste for beauty with the ability of the tongue and palate to “discern food.” Therefore, enjoying “the food itself as much without the same setting and service” doesn’t hold the same overall sensory experience and wouldn’t provide the same satisfaction no matter how good the food is, which is confirmed by a known chef’s aphorism: “a dish well presented is already half eaten.”

[Wilfrid]

Slowly catching up on your French trip, Steve, and this was an intriguing thread. Reading through it, I ended up feeling that I personally was not missing much in not having dined at L'Arpege. I think I understand, from your description, what Passard is trying to do, and it sounds like he does it well. But I haven't nearly tired of the wonderful things kitchens can do with meat, especially game and offal, and with profoundly flavored sauces.

The series of light, creamy dishes which introduced the menu bothered me a lot. I tried to express a similar reservation about some of Blue Hill's dishes in the Q&A with Dan and Michael. I am happy to eat a dish of "ethereal" smoothness, delicacy and tenderness, but I am not sure a succession of them appeals. Whatever happened to crunch and snap and chewiness (although I see your duck had some chew to it)? Whatever happened to bones? I don't want to drink dinner through a straw, and I sometimes wonder if chef's aren't unnecessarily restricting their palettes (not palates) by catering to their customers' perceived preference for pureed mousse of filet of something soft?

I exaggerate to make the point, and would be happy, in all seriousness, to check M. Passard's food to see if I'm right.

[Fat Guy]

The texture problem is a very serious one for me, Wilfrid. I've probably posted this exerpt before, but here's the relevant portion of my take on Arpege:

"I've not been impressed by what I've tried, much of which had the consistency of baby food without any of the explosive flavors that the three-star promise requires. When dining at the typical three-star restaurant, there's a certain authoritativeness that alters the role of the critic: One is no longer looking for signs of overcooking, or for blatant flaws in the recipes. At a true three-star restaurant, the critic is simply there to explain things, if he is even necessary at all. Not so at Arpege, where I find myself slipping into extreme nit picky mode because there are so many nits to pick, so many errors in cooking, so many dishes that are just plain weak. Perhaps I, and many of my most knowledgeable acquaintances, have hit Arpege on bad days. But as one gentleman wrote on the www.patriciawells.com message boards: "There is more wrong at Arpege than an 'off night' can justify." That brilliant chefs such as Olivier Roellinger and, as of the most recent edition of the guide, Jean-Michel Lorain, could be saddled with two stars while Passard's inferior establishment garners three raises questions about Michelin that extend beyond judgment."

[rich]

The texture problem is a very serious one for me, Wilfrid. I've probably posted this exerpt before, but here's the relevant portion of my take on Arpege:

Since I found the recipe for the Eggs Arpege, I decided to make them last night. I agree about the texture problem and my guests thought it a very strange way to begin a meal.

While the dish was quite tasty, most thought it too rich and creamy as a dinner starter. I would make it again, but probably as a brunch choice.

[marcus]

Fat Guy -- I've never eaten at Arpege and based on what I've read it has never gotten near the top of my list, but there are certainly many people and food writers who really love it, and within a broad range of criticism it certainly can be considered a 3 star restaurant. Lorain may not inspire as much negative passion among some as Passard does, but his restaurant was considered by many over a long period of time to be one of the weaker 3 star restaurants, until it was finally downgraded. I am not a fan of Roellinger and to me the Gramercy Tavern is a yawn. The point that I'm making is that although I may disagree with you on a number of places, I'm not challenging the validity or authority of your opinions. I'm surprised that knowing how various are critical opinions, that you are coming on so strongly here, that you offer a quote that chellenges not just the judgment, but the integrity of the Michelin guide.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid - I don't think of haute cuisine as being intensely chewy. In fact I think one of it's goals is to remove coarseness as an aspect of the meal. Yes there are occassional dishes that revolve around chewiness, but I think they are in the vast minority. This is why I always use Robuchon's mashed potatoes as an example. They have transcended into this custard-like substance although they are umistakenly potatoes because you can't completely get rid of the graininess of the potatoes. So "crunch, snap, and chewiness" are normally not integral parts of the cuisine. And if you want to eat that way in France I would head over to a place like Le Petit Marguery. Or you might find certain offerings at the haute cuisine places in game season. But even then, their goal will be to serve game that is as tender as possible.

The difference you are describing is exactly what I always identify as the difference between an English palate and a French palate. If you go read my review of my roast beef dinner at the Dorchester last winter, I describe it in those exact terms. It's the difference between home cooking taken to the nth degree and a cuisine that is based on home cooking but which takes the food into a new dimension. Granted there is some overlap, and everyone is free to prefer one over the other, but if your criticism of haute cuisine is that you don't like it, well it almost becomes a non-starter if you know what I mean. It's like saying you read my review of the opera and you are wondering what happened to music with a backbeat? Well if you want a backbeat, don't go to the opera .

Fat Guy - As a matter of preference I can't argue with your not liking Arpege. But your comment about mistakes in cooking struck me as odd. The cuisine there is reliant on top quality ingredients being cooked to perfection. And indeed in my two meals there everything was cooked perfectly. Spinach cooked not even a second too short or two long. I wonder if we ate at the same place?

Lxt - I'm with you. Experience means you have a reference point. Without a reference point you enjoy it differently. This issue always comes up in blind wine tastings. In the end all it does is it means you memorize flavors and charateristics using a device other then the label. And while not having a label to view might make your senses more acute because in order to codify tastes you have to work harder, you also lose the benefit of what information the label tells you. At some point in time you are going to have to learn that the wine you are tasting that has characteristics of cassis, cedar and smells like a pencil is a Pauilliac. And you are also going to have to learn which wine from Pauilliac it is. I don't know how else you would do that other then to have a refernce point.

[Wilfrid]

Behave yourself. I didn't for a moment say that I didn't like haute cuisine. The approach of refining dishes to the point at which they resemble very tasty baby food is not historically essential to haute cuisine. Nor is it necessarily a stamp of high quality cooking. One must look case by case to see whether it is appropriate, and I just wondered whether there were too many creamy dishes in the meal you described.

And it's nothing to do with the ethnicity of the palate in question; whether you agree with me or not about h.-c., French cooking of other varieties incorporates a full range of textures.

[Steve Plotnicki]

We have a disagreement here. To me haute cuisine means that a certain technique is applied in how the food is prepared. Most often, the goal of the technique is to make smooth, creamy, satiny and luxuriously textured dishes. There are other French cooking techniques that do not have the same emphasis but they are usually not considered haute cuisine. It's the same principal for wine. The Grand Crus and First Growths usually have a more luxurious mouthfeel then other wines that might be delicious, but not as refined. In my book, it's diffiucult to be chewy and crunchy and to be refined at the same time.

As to my palate comment, it isn't about ethnicity as much as a description of the difference in cooking styles. One cuisine is heartier, features more complex meats and game and doesn't make much of an effort to refine the food. The other cuisine bends over backwards to makes things refined. It takes a pigeon which would ordinarly have chewy meat and it slices the brest very thin in order to make it more elegant and easy to eat. So when I say one palate versus the other, it goes to ths style of cooking, and a palate preference between the styles. It didn't make a value judgement between the styles. Lord knows we have had that conversation too many times already .

[Wilfrid]

Most often, the goal of the technique is to make smooth, creamy, satiny and luxuriously textured dishes. There are other French cooking techniques that do not have the same emphasis but they are usually not considered  haute cuisine.

Yes, I had suspected for some time you believed that, and I am sceptical about the thesis. But I need to think about it and then, if appropriate, start a different thread. The question I am formulating is along the lines of whether this rage for smoothness is a relatively recent and possibly unwelcome development in h.-.c. But I need to convince myself before wasting hundreds of words failing to convince you.

I think I do have a preference for the heartier, although my tastes are, of course, sufficiently catholic to embrace both styles.

[Bux]

Whatever happened to bones?

I understand you exaggerate the point and I think Steve does even more so, if unintentionally, but I should note that mlpc "left [Arpege] vaguely disappointed."

Perhaps my least favorite dish, however, was the chicken. It returned from the kitchen broken down into several pieces, with all the requisite gizzards and baby root vegetables, but I had the feeling that not a single bone had been removed, resulting in a fierce battle with my Laguiole, trying to get at all the good stuff. Fine, but labor intensive.

I disagree that Robuchon's potato puree is the epitome of haute cuisine and it's ultimate expression, but haute cuisine has tended towards the highly processed product of a labor intensive kitchen. Joints with bones, tend not to make it to the tables of joints that serve haute cuisine. Even chops have their dainty little bones "Frenched." I thnk there are those who attempt to eat haute cuisine every night and for them this ultra refined food is most disturbing. One must see this sometimes outrageous display of creativity and finesse as a once a week or even once a month excursion and then encourage the real artists to break away from the concepts of dinner as we now know it. Perhaps Michelin needs a four star designation for destination restaurants where you are not assured of eating superbly well and where you may be outraged or amazed by the skills, dexterity and creativity, but I fear that would encourage too many chefs to think they could skip the first three stars successfully.

Fat Guy may well be expressing his opinion, but he is goading you.

But as one gentleman wrote on the www.patriciawells.com message boards: "There is more wrong at Arpege than an 'off night' can justify."

Guys, he's pulling your leg. He quotes an anonymous poster on the www.patriciawells.com message boards, as confirmation of his opinion and you take him seriously.

[Fat Guy]

He quotes an anonymous poster on the www.patriciawells.com message boards, as confirmation of his opinion and you take him seriously.

I also got lots of PMs saying so.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid - Well I will amend my statement to say that haute cuisine is a certain technique that is applied when cooking food. And the use of that technique precludes many dishes that would tend to be chewy, or have ornery bones etc. What Bux said. Whether haute cuisine is obsessed with the creamy and silky is another issue. And although I will also make that proffer, it's seperate and apart from the first statement.

Bux - I didn't say that Robuchon's potato puree is the epitome of haute cuisine, I said I always use it as an example that it is . But if it's not, along with Bocuse's truffle soup. Troisgros salmon with sorrel, Canard Apicius at Lucas-Carton, can you tell me what dishes are the epitome? I mean people went to eat at Robuchon just to sample the mashed potatoes. I don't know of another vegetable dish like that.