Arpege: dinner and lunch; 2002-2004

[Fat Guy]

there are certainly many people and food writers who really love it

Yes, there is such a thing as an overrated restaurant!

Seriously, for me there are two categories of restaurants I don't like: Ones where I personally don't like it but understand why some would like it, and ones where I think those who like it are just wrong. Not to get too far back into the objectivity/subjectivity debate, that's the distinction I make. I made an attempt to like Arpege and failed. I tried to understand what people could like about it and that failed too. My opinions are my own (I made reference to that guy's quote for purposes of attribution, not to validate my own views), but it happens that I even dined there in the company of two of the smartest chefs I know -- one of whom had spent time in the kitchen there -- and we all thought approximately two thirds of the dishes on our tasting menu were quite poor for reasons ranging to bad judgment (the baby food issue) to bad cooking (pin feathers still in the duck). I can't even see how the place can get three stars based on the non-food aspects: It's just not a nice enough restaurant, and the service isn't good enough. Arpege turns out some nice dishes, but a restaurant like that is exactly why they have one- and two-star ratings.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I can see people not liking Arpege. It's a unique and unusual approach to cuisine. But I can't see people not giving it credit for what it does well. It's like the way I feel about Ducasse. It does everything a three star restaurant is supposed to do but in a superficial way. But I don't deprive them of the fact that it has the look and feel of a three star restaurant. It just doesn't have the necessary wow, either on a sensual or cerebral level, to meet the standard I apply for three star restaurants. It doesn't even do a good job of charming people like Taillevent does to change the focus into the dining experience . There is not a single dish that Ducasee has contributed to the lexicon of haute cuisine. By the way, Pierre Gagnaire is the same. Even though one can hardly say it's a boring restaurant, I can't think of a single dish he created that is part of the haute cuisine lexcion. Passard has what three or four dishes? Senderins has a few dishes. Pacaud has his langoustines with curry. Do Lorain have a dish or Roellinger have dishes they have contributed?

[Fat Guy]

There is not a single dish that Ducasee has contributed to the lexicon of haute cuisine. By the way, Pierre Gagnaire is the same.

To sum up Ducasse or Gagnaire's influences as a list of dishes would be a funny way to look at two of the most influential chefs of the past century.

The way I'd phrase it is that all Passard has contributed to haute cuisine is a couple of dishes. Ducasse and Gagnaire have contributed entire schools of thought. Ducasse in particular has trained and inspired a generation of chefs including Franck Cerutti, Jean-Louis Nomicos, Jean-Francois Piege, Sylvain Portay, Alessandro Stratta, and Laurent Gras. He is the current generation's Escoffier. I would say without question he is the world's most watched and emulated chef, with Adria being the one other serious contender.

For Gagnaire's part, because he is an improvisational chef it goes without saying that his dishes are not really susceptible to emulation. Rather, he is one of the key people in the whole improvisational cooking movement. A stage in Gagnaire's kitchen is the single most difficult stage to get in the world, according to my professional chef friends.

If you took a poll of the best chefs in the world and asked them who was most influential, Passard wouldn't even make it onto the questionnaire. Ducasse and Adria would most likely be alone at the top.

[MartyL]

I can't think of a single dish [Gagnaire or Ducasse] created that is part of the haute cuisine lexcion

Steve, I know you're not suggesting that this is the sole or even a primary criteria to judge a *** chef, but let me add that I think the whole "trademark" or "lexicon" dish thing can be a bad thing for diners.

I love the truffe en croute at Boyer and Guy Savoy's artichoke soup, and, had I had the opportunity to try Robuchon's mashed potatoes at the source, I'm sure I would love that dish too. But for everyone of these succesful trademark dishes that catch fire and enter the lexicon, there is a George Blanc Bresse Chicken or Tour d'Argent Pressed Duck waiting to happen. By that I mean thousands of people come to order that dish day after day and the kitchen becomes a tired assembly line rather than a place where creativity thrives.

If a Chef eschews the effort to add a dish to the canon and decides instead to change the menu more frequently and thoroughly, I don't necessarily have a problem with that.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - In the annals of music, literature, paintings, playwriting, pottery, and god knows how many other disciplines we can mention, the people who are famous are those who have created famous works. There is not a single artisan I can think of that is famous in his field if he can't point to a single contribution (or contributions) that he made that will last permanently. And right now, neither Ducasse or Gagnaire have created any famous works. And if they don't, I predict their fame will wither and they will be seen as temporary fads. But if you know another basis that people attain everlasting fame, please let us know. And you can't use as proof who professionals want to stage. More musicians might have wanted to play in Stan Kenton's band then in Duke Ellington, but Kenton is basically forgotten and Ellington is one of the legends of modern music. That's because what looks good on your resume has nothing to do with what makes great art, or food in this instance.

Marty - I hope the above answers your question. I'm not saying that it always tastes good. The issue is adding a dish to the lexicon of cooking. Fame is built on contribution, not just reputation. In the end of the day, people can taste your contribution or they can't. Hearing about it isn't good enough. Isn't Wynton Marsalis in jazz the same as Ducasse is in food? Lots of plaudits but it's all boring shit that pales compared to the masters.

[Fat Guy]

Steve, I'm going to hold off on burying you in a list of specific Ducasse contributions -- you simply don't know what you're talking about in this regard, but it's beside the point (hint: you can save me the trouble by looking at some books, especially the Atelier) -- because the more important point is that you're wrong about the theory behind this.

Let's take some examples of the most famous chefs in history. How about Escoffier -- would you agree that he qualifies as Numero Uno? Okay, why is he so famous? Can you name some of his dishes? Maybe. Maybe not. Most people, even among educated gourmets, can't. That's because his contributions are far more fundamental than putting together a few flavors that other chefs wanted to copy. No, he's famous because he invented the modern concept of the restaurant. And whether you like it or not Ducasse has reinvented it. Permanently. Nobody at the top tier of cuisine has been unaffected by Ducasse. You need to go talk to some three-star chefs about this; they will quickly disabuse you of your current line of thinking.

Name a few others and let's talk about what made them so famous. I assure you that you won't find a single case in which a chef's everlasting fame is due to a dish -- and if a chef is enduringly famous for a dish, like he has a salad named after him, that's not the kind of fame any chef really wants. If you think Robuchon's contribution to cuisine is his mashed potatoes as opposed to his technique, I submit you're adopting the view of the simpleton. And you're no simpleton.

Your analogies to the studio and performing arts are as usual irrelevant and only serve to demonstrate how different cuisine is from those other forms of expression. If you want to look at a chef's influence, you primarily should be looking at technique, management, and disciples. These are the true tests. It is in this regard that a central figure like Ducasse is several orders of magnitude above a peripheral one like Passard in the gastronomic pecking order. 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. He has trained many of the world's top up-and-coming chefs. You may not like his food, but to attack his reputation and influence strikes me as perverse.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - Your opinion would probably go over big for the Food Arts crowd but it has nothing to do with people who like to eat.

Nobody ever became famous for contributing technique to a craft. People become famous for contributing something that is aesthetic in nature. Techniques like cryovac, merging of Italian/French are worthless without any great aesthetics attached to them. The great chefs are all people who changed the way we thought about food. Their food moved us. Ducasse might have been responsible for a rethinking of the kitchen, but as far as I can see he has not moved a single person to think about food differently.

On the other hand, Escoffier (who invented Peach Melba by the way which was seemingly the first use of hot and cold so the singer Nellie Melba wouldn't hurt her throat eating only cold desserts) was in demand as a chef. Who is Ducasse in demand with? Ducasse might be a great chef, but as far as I can see he gave it up to be a restauranteur. He runs a high class McDonald's from where I sit, charging extravagent prices for the Ducasse name. That might fool you, but it doesn't fool me. That's because I ate the food and any generic three star restaurant could have served it. I don't care if he is the greatest technician of his time. If you don't make interesting food, your place in history is temporary. History is there to record those who moved mankind. Not those who just served them.

But of course if you want to adopt the Food Arts standard and say that we should admire him as a professional in the industry, well that's another thing. But I can't think of a single chef who is famous (unless it's among other chefs) for a reason other then he cooked delicious food. And if his food isn't delicious to the point where it moves me and it doesn't result in my saying "oh yum, this tastes good," I might as well be eating a hamburger. Because for the hamburger to be interesting, not only does it have to made well, it has to taste good. That is an aspect of cooking I would work on more if I was Ducasse. Unless he thinks I will be wowed by the fact that that he knows how to cryovac food. In fact yesterday I got Ducasse's most recent flyer in the mail. He actually has the gawl to push Cepes with Olive Oil. Does he think we are stupid? How about making a f*cking interesting dish for a change?

[cabrales]

He runs a high class McDonald's from where I sit, charging extravagent prices for the Ducasse name. . . it doesn't fool me. That's because I ate the food and any generic three star restaurant could have served it. I don't care if he is the greatest technician of his time.

Steve P -- I couldn't have said that better, except that I also consider Ducasse's technique to be unimpressive.

[Fat Guy]

Plotnicki, if the best example you can come up with is that Escoffier invented peach melba, I think I can rest my case. As for Ducasse, it's okay if you're not yet at the point where you can appreciate his cuisine. You can warm up with lesser chefs like Passard -- start with baby food, as it were -- and eventually you'll develop enough of a palate to understand what they do in the big leagues.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well first Ducasse has to create a cuisine before I can appreciate it . As for Escoffier and what he created, who said I'm expert on Escoffier.

But as to signature dishes for chefs. I'll start a thread if you'd like me to.

[Fat Guy]

Good idea. But have you done your Gagnaire writeup? We're all waiting for it. Or did I miss it?

[Steve Plotnicki]

It's not done yet. And it won't be posted until Monday morning. I'm in the country and I won't be back home (where the Gagnaire review is) until the weekend. But try this link on Escoffier;

Escoffier

[Fat Guy]

Tease.

[Michael Laiskonis]

A stage in Gagnaire's kitchen is the single most difficult stage to get in the world...

Painfully true. I've tried. I think I need better "connections." I'm sure I'd get into El Bulli easier...

As for signature dishes... As it relates to Arpège, I would add the Avocat... and Gaspacho to Plotnicki's list. Those dishes along with the Egg and Tomato- they are good and perhaps nicely serve as personal milestones in Passard's development. But is a tasting menu the best venue for such signature dishes? I wouldn't mind seeing them listed à la carte, but I don't think one's only degustation option should simply be a playlist of greatest hits. Hence, my feeling as to why I've closed the book on Passard for awhile...

As it relates to others... As a cook, I tend not to think of chefs in terms of their signature dishes, but, like with Fat Guy, of a more generalized style and how they influence the next generation. And as a cook, I do pay much attention to the technical innovators. To me, a signature dish should be in the eye of the beholder... I've recently posted elsewhere perhaps the most favorite dish I've eaten...

I must say that the most memorable dish I've ever eaten, in my short but rich dining career, came from that lunch at Le Bernardin:

Skate Sautéed in Goose Fat, Porcini Mushrooms, Confit of Fennel, with a Squab Jus

I recently confessed to Eric the significance of that dish for me, and it was nice to see his eyes light up a bit... obviously a favorite of  his, too.

To me, this is a signature dish in that it represents Ripert's skill, confidence, and adaptability of his chosen range of ingredients, namely, fish. And while Eric remembered it fondly, I believe it has not been on the menu since, nor for very long while it ran.

Steve, yes, I would count Robuchon's Potato Purée as a signature in a sense, but is it really, his, and isn't his dish merely a matter of technique, the likes of which you seem to downplay?

For Gagnaire's part, because he is an improvisational chef it goes without saying that his dishes are not really susceptible to emulation. Rather, he is one of the key people in the whole improvisational cooking movement.

...which is why you will never, ever see a "signature" dish from him. Which is surely why his book, Cuisine Immediate remains out of print ( Kitchen Arts and Letters told me it was one of the most requested book searches), which is why you don't see his grinning mug all over the press... Gagnaire's approach to food is that of an art that is constantly changing/transforming (even now... even now) from cooking to plating to eating. He does not even believe that a dish can ever be the same twice, that it is a moment in time, something that passes. It is a rather deep way of thinking, that, despite my poor explanation, I aspire to, though in my own food feel I as if I'm not yet skilled enough to fully realize. It is my understanding that because of this approach, he has no interest in documenting his dishes in a book again, that do to so would merely be like assembling a scrapbook, which would distract him from what he's doing today, this very minute. And I love that he cooks. Every time I've had the pleasure of meeting him, he's got spots on his whites and sweat on his brow. I won't discourage anyone from going for Senderens' Canard Apicius or Salmon with Sorrel at Troisgros, but for my money, I want what Gagnaire thought of this morning, and he's never let me down...

The full extent to which we see Gagnaire's influence is not quite apparent... Sebastien Bras (Michel's son), one of the Pourcel brothers, Jordi Butron, Ludovic LeFebvre, are just the few that immediately popped into my head... I think it is too early to say, though I'll step out on a limb and suggest that he might contribute more to cuisine than most on Plotnicki's Signature Dish thread...

Umm, perhaps I should save some for when Plotnicki starts the damn Gagnaire thread...

[cabrales]

The full extent to which we see Gagnaire's influence is not quite apparent... Sebastien Bras (Michel's son), one of the Pourcel brothers, Jordi Butron, Ludovic LeFebvre, are just the few that immediately popped into my head...

Michael -- I'd have to say that Ludovic LeFebvre is not necessarily best classified as a disciple of Gagnaire.

http://www.jamesbeard.org/events/2001/11/018.shtml

("He entered the professional kitchen at age 13 with an apprenticeship at Maxim. A year later, Lefebvre secured a second apprenticeship, this one in Marc Meneau’s kitchen at the legendary L’Espérance in Burgundy. Lefebvre was deeply influenced by the culinary leanings of his next mentor, Pierre Gagnaire, who encouraged his protégé to experiment with unusual combinations and spices. **From Gagnaire’s kitchen, Lefebvre moved on to Alain Passard’s famed L’Arpège,** and followed that experience with a **stint** at the Michelin three-star Le Grand Véfour.")

http://www.orangerie.com/news.htm

("Bon Appetit. . . . Executive Chef Ludovic Lefebvre came to the Ferry's from a multi-starred background which includes Marc Meneau's Three-Star L'Esperance, Pierre gagnaire and Guy Martin's Three-Star Le Grand Vefour, **Alain Passard's Three-Star Arpege** restaurants in France.")

Also, while Michel Bras' son did work at Gagnaire, wouldn't he be more influenced by M Bras? For example, M Troisgros worked for all sorts of chefs. However, wouldn't M Troisgros have been influenced most by the Troisgros family?

[Michael Laiskonis]

Cabrales,

Regarding LeFebvre, I sadly missed the one opportunity I had to dine there, and I know that the both of us are curious to see where he goes next. My inclusion of him, apart from simply free-association, comes solely from what I've read, and is best evidenced by the Culinary Chronicle, Volume 2: The Best of Italy and California Cuisine. To quote from the introduction,

His ambitious career in the field was highlighted by stays at the three star Arpège, as well as with Pierre Gagnaire, whose influence and signature are still present in some of his creations.

Of the five dishes presented in the book, four bear close or peripheral resemblance to Gagnaire...

Shrimp with Cinnamon Butter, Vermicelli, and Clams which is obviously descended from Gagnaire's Tempura de Langoustines, Pommes de Terre Sautées au Beurre Clarifié, Beurre Fondue à la Cannelle et Ciboulette from another excellent book, Dining in France by Christian Millau, published by Stewart, Tabori, and Chang in 1986.

Sea Bream on a Bed of Vegetables with a Cucumber Cream, the jus de concombres easily attributed to PG.

Rack of Lamb with Caraway and Sweet and Sour Vegetables, the mere appearance and manner of spicing suggest PG.

Meringue,...Rhubarb and Balsamic Ice Cream... the recipe given for the ice cream is nearly identical to PG's Balsamic Ice Cream I have on file.

As for Sebastien Bras, I don't know how much his own style would yet influence either son père or Régis, le second. Although Séba is credited for some of the recipes (which ones?) in the latest book, we will have to see perhaps further into the future what PG's influence might have been... I was simply thinking aloud.

And Troisgros the younger seems comfortable associating himself with the Groupe des Huit (Passard, Gagnaire, Bras, Roellinger, Chibois, Veyrat... why does the eighth escape me?) as opposed to the Bande à Bocuse of the previous generation...

To the others, sorry for derailing the thread. To my muse, Cabrales... right back at ya!

[cabrales]

His ambitious career in the field was highlighted by stays at the three star Arpège, as well as with Pierre Gagnaire, whose influence and signature are still present in some of his creations.

Of the five dishes presented in the book, four bear close or peripheral resemblance to Gagnaire...

Rack of Lamb with Caraway and Sweet and Sour Vegetables, the mere appearance and manner of spicing suggest PG....

And Troisgros the younger seems comfortable associating himself with the Groupe des Huit (Passard, Gagnaire, Bras, Roellinger, Chibois, Veyrat... why does the eighth escape me?) as opposed to the Bande à Bocuse of the previous generation...

Michael -- The eight member of the Group of Eight is J-M Lorain. I don't disagree that M Troisgros' views are in certain ways close to certain views of others in that group of eight. I am making the point that, even though Michel Troisgros worked with M Guerard, among others, he must have been more influenced by Pierre Troisgros (if not Jean) than by Guerard. Absent a more concrete showing on your part re: S Bras, I would tend to assume that M Bras would have been more influential. I was calling into question your earlier statement that "[t]he full extent to which we see Gagnaire's influence is not quite apparent... Sebastien Bras (Michel's son), one of the Pourcel brothers, Jordi Butron, Ludovic LeFebvre, are just the few that immediately popped into my head". If S Bras is to be an example of Gagnaire's influence or potential influence, wouldn't there have to be some type of demonstration that M Bras, his father and the person with whom he has been immersed all his life, was not more influential?

http://www.saveurs.sympatico.ca/relais/fra.../troisgros2.htm

"Michel a suivi son parcours de part et d'autre de l'Atlantique

MOULIN DE MOUGINS, Roger VERGE, en Eté 1974

Restaurant Alain CHAPEL à Mionnay en Eté 1975

Restaurant GIRARDET à Lausanne, Suisse, en 1976

Restaurant TAILLEVENT à Paris, en 1977?1978

Restaurant CHEZ PANISSE à San Francisco, en Hiver 1978

Restaurant COMME CHEZ SOI à Bruxelles, Belgique,

HOTEL CONNAUGHT à Londres, Grande Bretagne, en 1979

Restaurant MICHEL GUERARD à Eugénie les Bains, Saison 1981

COMPTOIR GOURMAND, MICHEL GUERARD à New-York, en Hiver 1982

Depuis 1982, retour dans l'affaire familiale, le RESTAURANT TROISGROS à Roanne"

On my point re: Lefebvre, it was merely to point out to other members a fact of which you are, of course, aware -- that Lefebvre (whom you mentioned as an example of Gagnairian influence) worked at Arpege after he worked at Gagnaire, and was influenced by not only Gagnaire. I do not believe that five examples from a book -- containing dishes that neither you nor I have sampled -- are persuasive on the slanted influence of Gagnaire on Lefebvre that you might be inferring. I should mention that, for example, one does not know how the rack of lamb was prepared --perhaps it was roasted in a special way. Also, the inclusion of sweet AND sour vegetables with the lamb goes to negate the inference you draw that the lamb dish suggests Gagnaire. That manner of spicing does not necessarily suggest Gagnaire.

[Michael Laiskonis]

Oh man, it's getting late... I should just say, "Uncle"...

Also, the inclusion of sweet AND sour vegetables with the lamb goes to negate the inference you draw that the lamb dish suggests Gagnaire. That manner of spicing does not necessarily suggest Gagnaire.

Hmmm. I disagree. I've had a few dishes where PG has explored sweetness and acidity in such a way (in this case it was honey and sherry vinegar). The caraway is not necessarily mind boggling, and the cooking of the lamb is rather straightforward- but throw in the fact that the picture in the book (I'm not so naive to think one can sum up a chef's ouevre on the printed page or computer screen) looks like a PG dish! ... it seemed an easy conclusion to draw.

I'll give you the point on Troisgros, surely he learned from his family, all I asserted was that he's taken his cuisine and thoughts further (of course, a matter of opinion) than that older generation, and soon the torch will pass to Sebastien Bras... I wasn't discounting Michel's obvious influence, just stating that an heir apparent was exposed to a very different approach to cooking. Influence is a funny thing, however... the best filter it through themselves, while the most easily spotted simply imitate...

The full extent to which we see Gagnaire's influence is not quite apparent... Sebastien Bras (Michel's son), one of the Pourcel brothers, Jordi Butron, Ludovic LeFebvre, are just the few that immediately popped into my head... I think it is too early to say

...which is/was my real point, though I believe, even if it is totally without basis and extremely personal, Gagnaire will have an influence on the way some chefs cook. Cabrales, your views on his cuisine aside, would you agree with that prediction? Why or why not?

[cabrales]

Gagnaire will have an influence on the way some chefs cook. Cabrales, your views on his cuisine aside, would you agree with that prediction? Why or why not?

Michael -- I don't disagree Gagnaire will have "an" infulence on the way "some" chefs cook, but the question is what type of influence in the context of the current discussion. By the way, I don't happen to agree that a great artist (which, in my mind, excludes Gagnaire) would necessarily produce a large number of pupils. Nor necessarily great pupils. It's one relevant measure, but not necessarily determinative. I don't purport to know the future influence of Gagnaire, particularly as it might be perceived by others.

On Lefebvre's lamb dish, I concede that I have never sampled it. I am very cautious about making assertions about dishes that have never been tasted, including by reason of looking at pictures, reviewing the ingredients and the name of the dish, etc. Perhaps you are confident framing arguments predicated on such secondary or tertiary information; I am not.

[Michael Laiskonis]

Perhaps Cabrales would like to hire me as a full-time research assistant and dining companion, so that I can begin my real culinary education.***

***Insert smilie that suggests I've simply lost this particular argument and that I'm totally kidding, but if one offered me this position I would not necessarily turn it down...

[cabrales]

Perhaps Cabrales would like to hire me as a full-time research assistant and dining companion

Michael -- Perhaps you could prepare desserts, and then sample them with me, one day.... By the way, I read somewhere that you might have started at Tribute not in the patissier position, but as part of the non-patissier cuisinier team. If you are comfortable, please consider discussing how much you like cooking non-dessert items.

[Michael Laiskonis]

Haven't we diverted this thread enough already?!

[Steve Plotnicki]

Michael - We are talking about two different things. You are talking about how a chefs cooking technique influences other chefs of their generation and future generations. I am talking about how they gain fame with the public. Of course there are instances where a chef's technique is so unusual and is such a big contribution that he becomes famous for it. Adria is a good candidate for that. But innovations like cooking in cryovac or cooking a steak inside out will not be seen as contributions on the level of Adria. They won't even be seen to be as big as Jean-George's flavored oils.

Fame is a function of hitting the high notes. Artists and craftsmen are remembered by the semenal works of their careers. Go think how people like Joseph Heller, Whistler, Clapton, and Troisgros would be remembered if they didn't write Catch 22, paint A Portrait in Gray (Whister's Mother) record Layla, and create the Salmon with Sorrel Sauce? That's how fame (with the public) works. There are lots of top chefs who will not be remembered because they have not contributed anything to the lexicon. What will someone like Michel Trama be remembered for? And it seems to me that everything put forward about Ducasse so far has to do with fame within his profession and nothing to do with fame among diners. Charlie Trotter's is the same way. It's fame seems to be a function of the fact that *it is supposed to be a great restaurant.* But about 75% of the people I talk to don't like the place. We in the media business call that hype.

The dish you described from Rippert, while possibly a fantastic dish, is not a signature dish. A signature dish means that people went out of their way to eat it because they heard about it. Daniel Boulud's potato encrusted snapper and hamburger are signature dishes because they are famous with discerning diners at large. It's funny but in the middle of my writing this I got an email from someone who has been on a long trip through France and it had their tasting notes from their meal at Arpege. Amazingly similar to my notes.

I am reticent to speak of my experience at Gagnaire short of spilling the beans to my review. But the reason his fame seems to have come to a standstill is that he hasn't corraled his cooking style and codified it. I don't buy the improvisational chef theme. A great composition is timeless and if you do not find a way to codify it, and offer it on a permanent basis then your potential for fame will suffer in the long run. Some chefs don't care about this. Passard says that he doesn't have time to write a cookbook. But his signature dishes are both plentiful and legion among diners. In the end, I predict he will have more lasting fame then Gagnaire will because "improvisational" is not something that is tangeable to one's belly ten years after one retires. But Robuchon stopped working almost ten years already and we are still talking him because of his mashed potatoes.

[Fat Guy]

You're still stuck on Robuchon and mashed potatoes?

You're talking about two different concepts of fame -- present and future -- and neither one supports the mashed potato world view.

Regarding present fame, do you really think Passard is more famous than Ducasse? Can you define any subset of the population to which Passard is "more famous" than Ducasse in any way? Maybe among employees of the Rodin museum, but that's about it.

As for the future -- how these chefs will be remembered -- I think you're still fleeing the Escoffier example. He is not remembered for his dishes. Nobody associates his name with peach Melba, and if they did they wouldn't think of him as the greatest chef of his time (and perhaps all time) because of peach friggin' Melba. You've got to ditch this primitive greatest-hits view of what makes chefs famous because it's not true for the public or a chef's professional peers (and in the restaurant world, where food is eaten, it is only through one's peers that one's legacy can be established or persist). It's not like the way people associate Beethoven with the opening bars of the Fifth or the Ode to Joy from the Ninth. You stop a million people on the street and ask them what chef invented peach Melba and what will they say? They'll probably say Chef Dannon. How about if you ask everybody eating in a three-star restaurant tonight? How many will know? Not many, I think. Rather, they will most likely associate Escoffier with the Ritz, and they'll peg him loosely as the father of modern restaurant cuisine without being able to name a single one of his dishes. Because those are his important contributions, not peach Melba. And a hundred years from now when everybody has forgotten Passard's insignificant contribution to cuisine and they don't even associate his name with the baby food maple syrup egg (if it's still around) they will still remember Ducasse as the guy who broke the three-star mold and showed the world how to run a fine-dining restaurant like a real business, the guy who transitioned the restaurant kitchen from the 20th Century into the 21st, the guy who taught the most and best disciples, and whose business model the most successful chefs from the late 20th Century through the 22nd followed. The Escoffier of his generation. If we both live long enough, I hope to show you just how much Ducasse and Adria will separate themselves from the pack when the long-view historical accounts come into being.

As for Gagnaire, maybe you're right that his inability to codify his cuisine will affect both his fame and his legacy, but so what? He's still ten times the chef Passard is. I'm sure even Passard would tell you that. Even people who prefer Passard to Gagnaire should be able to understand that Gagnaire is the towering figure of the two. So if Gagnaire has doomed himself to obscurity because what he does can't be reproduced -- if he will be excluded from the greatest hits and dumbed down "Hooked on Classics" version of future culinary consciousness -- that's too bad but it just means he will be unsung. His influence in terms of who he taught and inspired can't be taken away by any amount of rewriting of history.

[Bux]

Was eGullet down for a few minutes or was my computer just balking at letting me respond to all this. I'm reminded of why I like reviews and food articles by champions (defenders of the faith, not victors). For the most part, the positive statements leave me at worst, curious, and at best eager to eat in the restaurant in question. On the other hand, most of the negative comments leave me unconvinced about whether the chef has little to say or if the diners just didn't get it.

I am amused to read that Pacaud's curried langoustines are a signature contribution to haute cuisine. I had thought, against arguments, that they were a superbly crafted contemporary version of a dish that was almost a classic flavor combination by the time I had it in the late 90's. The last counter argument regarding that dish seemed to say it was a sign of all that's wrong with French food today.

When it comes to influences on a younger chef, I'd have to say that a small influence by an unrelated chef would be of more significant interest to culinary historians and the generally curious than would the expected great influence resulting from that chef cooking with his father. There is a "man bites dog" aspect to all news. The obvious need not be noted too often.

It's easy enough to modify our standards to fit what we like after the fact, but it's still curious to see who likes what. Haut cuisine may be starting to resemble modern abstract art more than anything else. As painting stopped being about representation and the telling of stories to the illiterate, it stopped speaking to every one and in many cases only spoke to a very small group, at least until they made converts. Haute cuisine has, at least until recently, still been about an incremental refinement in what we normally eat for lunch and dinner. Fashion came and went in representational art, but abstract art was far harder to digest, appreciate or even understand. Negative comments about revolutionary or even major evolutionary movements become irrelevant. It's best to either ignore what you don't like or understand and concentrate on what you like or find interesting and explain what you find of interest. For that reason I find few people here worth reading from start to finish. Michael's voice has been the most interesting as he's presented a view that I've found to be consistently open and appreciative even when he's ready to dismiss a chef or a cuisine. When he does, it seems it's not because he found it worthless, but because he's taken all he can and is ready to move on.

I should not be surprised to find Michelin altering it's notes to state that you may or may not eat superbly well at a three star restaurant, but that it's worth the voyage to establish your own opinion of the controversial cuisine.