Arpege: dinner and lunch; 2002-2004

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - If you bother to read my prior posts, I said that "among diners who like to eat at this level," those people hold Passard in higher regard then Ducasse. There are many people who don't like Passard's food. But there is also a very large and strong contingent who think he's a genius and a great chef. I don't know anyone who feels that way about Ducasse other then you and other chefs. There is a paucity of people claiming that Ducasse is a great chef based on how his food tastes. And that is true for Escoffier as well, not only was he famous for the technique he invented, his food was delicious. Again, who is claiming that Ducasse serves delicious food other then you?

Bux - I didn't say I thought the langoustines with curry were a contribution to haute cuisine, I said that Pacaud is famous for it. But I like the rest of your post and your comparison to abstract art. Except regardless of whether you like the art or not, artists are remembered for their aesthetic contributions. I'm afraid it's the same for chefs.

[lxt]

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.

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.

Fame is a function of hitting the high notes. Artists and craftsmen are remembered by the seminal works of their careers.

It seems that the concept in question is what identifies a chef as one who’d be able to leave a print of his genius on future generations. Steve P.’s theory of fame alone does not address the question because “famous” means known to very many and does not imply greatness. Greatness and fame are not synonymous.

However, a chef becomes known from his individual creations no matter how improvisational and impermanent they are in his repertoire. A general perception of greatness either in art or cooking is usually based on several great compositions where the rest of the work is consistently good. Nevertheless, the historical significance of a chef who was the first to achieve a status of innovator in his field should not be undermined. I would suggest that one’s greatness would be defined through one of the following attributes, some of which will overlap:

Originality and inspiration. A chef’s work must not be imitative but rather new in character and design. It should be innovative and neither superficial nor academic. It may also be important that the work be progressive. In other words, if it shows little creative span, it may become merely predictable and uninteresting.

Intellectuality. A chef’s work must have substance and subsequent intellectual appeal. It should be superlative and not superficial. Bland, boring, sentimental and predictable dishes produce responses such as tedium or frustration. A superb dish may provoke intense and constructive response, but if it is only emotional, it may be short-lived. Emotive reaction without intellect is not enough, where intellect is necessary to arrive at what is called ‘taste’ or appreciation.

Craftsmanship and Technique. Any composition demands the highest level of skills. It must be structurally logical, competent, harmonically interesting and polished.

Durability. A great dish will not cease to tickle the pleasure senses over time and will continue to give the profound satisfaction and reveal more if its details.

Contrast. A variety of tone, and color, diverse themes, like a large scoop of mustard ice cream in gazpacho that “suppresses the acidity of the tomato and brings out its sweetness instead.”

Content. A great restaurant experience must have memorable content, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the ability to instantly recall all the details of the particular dishes, but maybe just moments of “magical orchestration,” and perhaps an overall impression even though the specifics may escape your mind.

It seems that if a chef fits into the above scheme, the individual dishes that may attract original attention to the chef’s persona may become secondary to the overall context of his work. Like in literature, the correct approach would be to read as many works as possible by one author to capture the essence of his style and his talent where recollection of the details of his work or even their titles is interesting but secondary.

[Steve Plotnicki]

There is something else to add to this. The times we live in now are very much different then the times that Escoffier lived in. Nowadays chefs are media stars. Their image revolves around their semenal achievements. In order to gain noteriety with the public that is longlasting, the public needs something to grab onto. It is very much a pop culture environment and the "hit singles" that each chef makes are what their noteriety revolves around. That's why chefs like Nobu, Jean-Georges, Douglas Rodriguez, Gray Kunz, Thomas Keller are famous. They changed, altered, or contributed something to the lexicon that is tangeable and accessableto the public. Those contributions ended up as delicious and interesting food on the plate. Their fame would not be at the level it is today is their contribution was cooking steak on the fat side first. That type of technique is not related to aesthetics so it would be of no interest to the public. Nobody remembers who really invented Impressionism, what they want to see are the great Impressionist paintings.

Lxt - I feel you are going backwards. "Signature dishes" already meet the requirements you laid out. That's why they are signature dishes to begin with . Try harder.

[Wilfrid]

Careme would have been a better example than Escoffier. Escoffier is credited with creating several thousand dishes, and a number of the do still turn up on menus. I don't think anyone eats Careme's food any more, but his influence on restaurant history and gastronomy has been adequately documented on other threads here.

[lxt]

Lxt - I feel you are going backwards. "Signature dishes" already meet the requirements you laid out. That's why they are signature dishes to begin with  . Try harder.

You missed the point that was laid down pretty clearly, i.e. that a “signature dish” is not much different from one that falls under one or more of the specified categories but did not register as signature due to a chef’s philosophy of constant change, for instance. These dishes are only a means to achieve general recognition. They are secondary to the chef’s talent, and their significance is less important than the significance of the chef’s more profound achievements that spread far beyond one dish. That is what I believe Fat Guy was trying to convey.

[Steve Plotnicki]

My point is limited to fame with the general public that make up who the consumers are in fine dining. Not with the historians and educators who keep score of interesting cooking technique. As to these dishes being limited to achieve general recognition, well general recognition with the public is the only recognition I am dealing with. I am not interested in institutional recognition as chefs can't take that to the bank .

[Bux]

Bux - I didn't say I thought the langoustines with curry were a contribution to haute cuisine, I said that Pacaud is famous for it. But I like the rest of your post and your comparison to abstract art. Except regardless of whether you like the art or not, artists are remembered for their aesthetic contributions. I'm afraid it's the same for chefs.

I thought you said it was a contribution to the lexicon of haute cuisine in the context of that paragraph. Throughout history artists have been known for their intellectual contributions, but their ideas have come to define what we call aesthetics and how we see art and beauty. Yes, great chefs can redefine what we think about taste in food and there's a parallel.

If chefs are more like media stars today, perhaps it's all the more reason we shouldn't be so sure how they will be regarded in the future and we shouldn't assume the traditional criteria in judging them.

Wilfred, I was under the impression that Escoffier didn't so much invent all those dishes as he codified the names for those dishes and even for the garnishes so that you could know exactly what you were gettting when you ordered a dish in a new restaurant. In the post nouvelle cuisine era, chefs are doing the opposite and every dish's name is a pun or a joke and the ingredients are listed under neath the name on the menu.

[Wilfrid]

Well, I certainly can't verify the claim that Escoffier created thousands, in addition to codifying what already existed, but he invented a good number. I strongly recomment 'Sole Alice', which is not beyond the abilities of an average home cook.

[Fat Guy]

I said that "among diners who like to eat at this level," those people hold Passard in higher regard then Ducasse.

You've got to be kidding. By what measurement other than your mistaken gut feeling could you say that? It's harder to get reservations at Ducasse, Ducasse's menus command a higher price, more people eat his food than eat Passard's food, and he has every accolade imaginable. What point of comparison could possibly support the conclusion that Passard is held in higher regard by "diners who like to eat at this level" than Ducasse?

Again, who is claiming that Ducasse serves delicious food other then you?

Patricia Wells. William Grimes. Michelin. I don't understand what you're asking. Who do you want to hear say it? And I find it astounding that you dismiss the opinion of the professional chef community in this matter. That kind of willful ignorance is a prime example of letting your conclusions follow your prejudices rather than the facts. I happen to think Passard's food is weak, but I understand where he fits into the perceived hierarchy of chefs, who has studied with him, who has imitated him. Ducasse's fame by every imaginable measure exceeds Passard's by an order of magnitude. If you can't see that, it's just wishful thinking on your part.

[Orik]

What point of comparison could possibly support the conclusion that Passard is held in higher regard by "diners who like to eat at this level" than Ducasse?

While I rarely get any PMs, I agree with SP on this one. Most people I know with relevant dining experience find Ducasse's cooking uninteresting (but well executed) and have often said PA makes them feel like dining in a tourist trap. Granted, my circle of acquaintances is not statistically representative and some of them will never take my advice again after I sent them to L'Arpege, but I still find it hard to argue with such wide concensus. Having read Ducasse's menus and recipes, I've never had more than a passing curious urge to dine at PA or any other establishment of his, but eventually I'm bound to find myself going to ADNY.

Anyway, in planning our coming Paris trip, I will have to consider whether it's time to forgive Passard for his veggie nonsense, Ducasse is certainly not an option...

[Steve Plotnicki]

I want to hear someone's opinion I trust say it. I keep saying over and over again that other then you, nobody *I know* who I think has discerning taste at the three star level likes Ducasse's food. It's not a matter of willfull ignorance. I have tasted his food and he has failed to move me either emotionally or intelectually.

These conversations always remind of a conversation I had years ago with a cousin who is a tenor sax player. He tried to convince me that Stan Getz was a better sax player then John Coltrane. Having failed to persuade me as a matter of argument, he then put on some Stan Getz recordings and explained Getz's technique to me on virtually a passage by passage basis, lauding every obligato which switched to a trumpet blare. And no matter how I explained to him that as good a player as Getz was, he didn't move people emotionally or intelectually in the same way Coltrane did.

It is no different with Ducasse. It makes no difference how good a chef he is, how many people are impressed with the operation he runs, what type of unique cooking methods he has created to cook foods inside out, etc. His food doesn't seem to move anyone on an emotional or cerebral level. It's namby-pamby middle of the road three star cuisine. And regardless of what you think of Passard, his cuisine inspires emotion and intelect in an entire group of people who are vocal about it. I'm not sure what Ducasse's cuisine inspires other then a big bill. At least Ducasse should be honest and admit that he is just a restauranteur like Vrinat at Taillevent. Because from where I sit that is all he is with the brand name of an ex-chef attached to the restaurant.

[cabrales]

Oh, h*** (not even six hours, let alone six months) -- I am 100% with Steve P on this one. I think Ducasse's food is nothing next to Passard's cuisine . Ducasse is not as bad as Gagnaire/Pourcels in my book, so I would not fast instead of eating Ducasse's food, but I would not pay for it unless friends I cared a bit about wanted to sample it.

Unfortunately, I do have some friends who have asked to sample Ducasse's food, and therefore I have visited on more than one occasion ADNY, Plaza Athenee and some Spoons. I have also visited Bastide de Moustiers and L'Hostellerie de l'Abbaye de la Celle. So I am speaking based on, sadly, various meals with Ducasse. I would much rather dine at Blue Hill than ADNY.

As members know, Orik's reference to PA is to Ducasse's place in Paris (Plaza Athenee) and is not to AP, which might erroneously be taken as shorthand for another reference.

[jaybee]

I just received my copy of Jean Ducloux's book. The preface refers to him as one of the master cuinsiniers in France. Cuisiniers is a word that we have not in English, and it captures more of the art and skill that we have been taliking about than any word we have. Chef, culinary artiste, cunniliguist, cook....none of these descriptions do justice to the level of skill and art you are debating.

[g.johnson]

I have tasted his food and he has failed to move me either emotionally or intelectually.

You have to love it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

You have to love it.

'E's so clever that iron tongue. Yes, I mean 'im.

[Steve Klc]

I like Ducasse's food, alot. No problem admiting it. His is the total, complete restauration experience. I'm solidly with Shaw on this, sorry Steve P. You may or may not trust my opinion, but I've written on eGullet before that within the chef community--the chefs who are aware of everyone cooking, their books, their restaurants and their influence, it is Ducasse and Adria, one and two, head and shoulders above the rest in terms of significance, achievement and setting standards. For different reasons.

And Steve P--name me one other three star level restaurant that does as supreme a job as Ducasse's pastry chefs with dessert service, chocolates, petits fours, the dessert trolley, lollipops, caramels, etc. I'm not sure what middle of the road moves you elsewhere, but the Ducasse end of the meal experience is transcendent--as is what comes before.

This cynical, jaded diner needing to be moved--needing to be challenged is hard to take sometimes. Like challenging is inherently or necessarily better. I wonder if diners feel more informed when they appear to be challenged. I do think it says more about the diner than it does the kitchen's efforts or the chef's skill. It shows up on lots of eGullet threads--and may be the single biggest misunderstanding on our site--the single biggest divide between us at the high end. (This coming from someone who has been touched by Adria and considers Ferran the greatest chef of the 20th and 21st century. But as I keep telling everyone, Adria isn't considered great and won't become the most influential chef ever just because he challenges you.) Recently when my wife ate at Cafe 15 in the DC Sofitel, this came up, naturally, and I believe she was the only one not worried about the "appearance" of not being challenged by the Westermann-supervised cuisine there. Recognize supreme achievement for what it is. Appreciate the supreme effort, energy and desire to fulfill your every service need effortlessly. Whatever it is, do it the best it can be done. You, cabrales and others are not moved by Ducasse and are immune to the wordwide perception that he is near alone on the culinary mountaintop--joined only by Ferran. I'm not trying to put words in Shaw's mouth, but I believe he and I understand.

You know you are on slightly firmer ground when you divorce cuisine from the total, complete experience, the total package of significance. Subjective preference is like that. But that's like stacking the deck. I agree with Shaw's money quote:

"And I find it astounding that you dismiss the opinion of the professional chef community in this matter. That kind of willful ignorance is a prime example of letting your conclusions follow your prejudices rather than the facts. I happen to think Passard's food is weak, but I understand where he fits into the perceived hierarchy of chefs, who has studied with him, who has imitated him. Ducasse's fame by every imaginable measure exceeds Passard's by an order of magnitude. If you can't see that, it's just wishful thinking on your part."

I think we still have more to discover about Passard over here and when we do, he may or may not ascend to join Ducasse and Adria on the mountaintop. I lean against but if impaneled I'd say the jury would stay out awhile.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Steve Klc - You are just espousing what I call the "trade view" of Ducasse. I don't care if 10,000 chefs think he is the best. What chefs think has nothing to do with what the paying public thinks. The world is full of writer's writers, musician's musicians and actors's actors, all forgotten except for educators, historians or people in their own trade if they don't write a famous novel, hit song or star in a film that makes them famous forever.

There is a reason that the public has a different view of things then professionals have. They have no vested interest in the outcome and are not biased by the preconceptions of the trade. Chefs, using this example, are wowed by technique. They sit there and they wonder how Ducasse got the chunk of salmon they are eating to come out the way it did. But the public doesn't ever get that far unless they think it's delicious first. There's the big difference. Chefs care why and how for the purposes of work. I just want to enjoy it and if I don't, I don't care if his invention is as important as the wheel.

As for Ducasse's dessert trolly, yes it's terrific. And the caramels they serve at the end of the meal are great. But so what? They were not enough to make me reserve again. That is the threshold issue as far as I'm concerned. But I was at Arpege in Ferbruary, again last month and I'm going again the end of October. Yet I haven't been back to Ducasse in NYC since March of 2000, Monte Carlo in maybe 10 years and I've never been in Paris and have no desire to go. You know why? Because dining at Ducasse is merely about having a three star experience. I don't need to do that anymore. I've been there, done that 100 times, and with chefs that have more to offer creatively then Ducasse. What I am interested in is the heightened aesthetics that come from creativity in the kitchen. And so far nobody has told me that heightened aesthetics are available at Ducasse. Unless we are stooping so low that we are going to call Baba au Rhum heightened aesthetics. Puhlease.

[Steve Klc]

I fear your understanding of chefs and how chefs approach eating--at all price points--is as accurate and nuanced as your appreciation of Ducasse, Steve. And you are most certainly correct when you state "There is a reason that the public has a different view of things then professionals have." Too often the public, which includes some very experienced diners, get caught up with things like signature dishes, spoon fed to them by publicists and the food media machine. If over-reliance on signature dishes is not the trade view, I don't know what is.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well it's like that in everything that the public does. They have their own reality of the world. That's because the purpose of things aesthetic is to communicate something to the diner. Once you get into what the technical aspects are, and you place greater or undue emphasis on them, the thrust of the communication changes from aesthetics to communicating technique. That's the difference between the trade and the public.

This happens with every aspect of consumerism. What car the public likes to buy is different then what professionals think is the best car. And clearly professionals would choose a different top selling album each week then the public does. I can make an endless list of things like this to point out the differences between them.

But clearly you must be joking about the media promoting signature dishes. There is no greater self-promoter in the field of cooking then Ducasse. He is a guy who hyped his way into six stars strictly on politics.

And that he lost a star, for no apparant reason, only means he didn't really deserve it in the first place. For god sakes the guys sends me mail to my home showing pictures of cepes in a sauce of olive oil. Like I've never seen cepes or had olive oil before. That's inventive?

You can trot out all the fancy words like nuanced you want. I will stick by what the people on this site feel is the real deal. So far I don't see anyone rushing to defend Ducasse's food other then you and Shaw. As far as I can see, everyone else thinks his food is boring, uncreative, and uninventive. I'll give you nuanced but you have to give me those three.

[marcus]

I almost always agree with Steve Plotnicki's restaurant evaluations, but often have problems with his discussions of more general subjects, especially when he obsesses over standards, when I think that the interesting subject is connoisseurship. However, in this case it is just the opposite. I have eaten in Ducasse's Paris restaurant only, none of the others, and not yet at the plaza. In fact, the service was rather poor at my last meal, they didn't want to allow me enough time to review the wine list and then attempted to veto my choice and were quite offended when I didn't acquiesce. The food however provided one of my greatest meals in terms of overall succulence and execution. Admittedly, it did not strive for complexity, but I don't find this to be a problem, it was far from simple. Steve, you at least need to try the Paris restaurant once.

Where I agree with Steve P completely is in his view of the dining trade and their attempts to dictate to consumers. I have been going to 3 star restaurants, bistros, and everything in between frequently, all over the world since the mid-60s. I know my way around and I know what I like. I find that a chefs view of the world is interesting to understand, but certainly not determinative. I do dismiss the opinion of the professional chef community when it doesn't jibe with my views and interests. There are plenty of actual restaurants that I really love. I've read many of Steve Klcs posts with interest, and my usual reaction is -- so that's how these guys think, doesn't bear much relationship to my view of the world, its almost like occupying a parallel universe. And I'm certainly not going to accept the premise from a professional that I am mistaken unless I accept his point of view just because he is a professional.

[Toby]

I've read many of Steve Klcs posts with interest, and my usual reaction is -- so that's how these guys think, doesn't bear much relationship to my view of the world, its almost like occupying a parallel universe.  And I'm certainly not going to accept the premise from a professional that I am mistaken unless I accept his point of view just because he is a professional.

And, of course, how monolithic is the professional community's view of things? Surely there isn't just one opinion, or even an overriding consensus in the professional community. That would be boring.

[Fat Guy]

That's the difference between the trade and the public.

But there is no disconnect between the trade and the public when it comes to Ducasse. The only disconnect is between you and those who say what you want to hear on the one hand, and the rest of the world on the other hand. Who do you think is eating in his restaurants? Other chefs?

[lxt]

There is a reason that the public has a different view of things then professionals have.

For someone who strongly promotes objectivity and standards in taste and food set by the professionals in the culinary field, your current assertion that “what chefs think has nothing to do with what the paying public thinks” contradicts your previous statements. From your prior thoughts so well presented on other threads, part of the enjoyment is the ability to understand and admire the chef’s technique. Here, however, you are dismissing the whole world of professionals to validate your personal and subjective dislike for a whole culinary trend well regarded by many. On one hand you are talking about “heightened aesthetics and creativity” that seems to appeal to you, and on the other complaining about technicalities that prevent the public from enjoying simple pleasures. Aside from my personal preferences that are yet to be set, I’d like to get a straightforward picture on your approach to evaluating cuisine abstracted from your own subjective preferences.

[Fat Guy]

And, of course, how monolithic is the professional community's view of things?  Surely there isn't just one opinion, or even an overriding consensus in the professional community.  That would be boring.

There is no one opinion, but I'd say for sure that on this issue there is an overriding consensus.

I should add that while I'm a journalist who covers that community I am decidedly not a member of it. I'm first and foremost a consumer. Ducasse won me over with his restaurants, nothing more, nothing less. Passard alienated me with his. Everything else flows from those experiences. If the whole world thought otherwise, it wouldn't change my mind. But I wouldn't go into denial about it and start trying to convince people that I held the majority view. I'd say, okay, I'm in the minority, that's fine, but you're all wrong. It just so happens that on this one I do hold the dominant view because I'm aligned with multiple convergent consensuses covering just about every imaginable dining subculture save for the amorphous Plotnicki-and-his-friends and of course all those now-humiliated journalists who thought Ducasse would make an easy target.

[Toby]

It just so happens that on this one I do hold the dominant view because I'm aligned with multiple convergent consensuses covering just about every imaginable dining subculture save for the amorphous Plotnicki-and-his-friends and of course all those now-humiliated journalists who thought Ducasse would make an easy target.

Excellently constructed sentence, especially the rhythmic flow without the use (or need) for commas.

I still wonder if there is that much consensus (on anything) in the professional community -- people are often reluctant to publicly state negative opinions about people they have worked with in the past or may work with in the future.