Is excellence enough?

[chefette]

Is it sufficient for a chef to be excellent or does a chef need to go beyond the existing standards and pioneer new techniques or combinations to be outstanding?

Obtaining excellent ingredients, having an excellent kitchen, utilizing excellent technique, and producing an excellent menu in an excellent atmosphere is no simple accomplishment (partially due to the many varying expectations of consumers). Arguably there are few restauranteurs who are able to gather the talent and ingredients in a location that can support them. But is this achievement enough to rate the chef in charge as great? Does a chef have to break new ground, introduce new techniques, new flavor combinations to be considered great or outstanding?

What is it that puts any specific chef in the limelight? Is it possible to be excellent without innovating and introducing change?

What are your thoughts?

[Jinmyo]

No.

[Suvir Saran]

Is it sufficient for a chef to be excellent or does a chef need to go beyond the existing standards and pioneer new techniques or combinations to be outstanding?

To be an outstanding and pioneering chef, one must go beyond the existing standards. One has to experiment daily (at work, at home and in sleep and during travel) about how one could do things differently that would only further elevate ones art.

To stop thinking afresh and for new possibilities is to lose ones standing as an artist. At that point, one is no better than the best person copying them.

A good artist is a natural at changing and adapting with situations and times. They are not bound by the limitations of the diner.

And a good artist becomes even better when they keep their experimentation private till it is everything they want it to be. And when at that point, they share it with pride rather than hesitation and a temporary need to be acknowledged, they are able to find recognition as a pioneer that is far more lasting than any praise that is only momentary.

[Suvir Saran]

What is it that puts any specific chef in the limelight?  Is it possible to be excellent without innovating and introducing change?

Little if any talent or substance can put one in the limelight. That is sad but true.

But it is impossible to be excellent without innovating and changing with time.

[chefette]

So, anyone who actually is talented and excellent at their craft is excellent at it specifically BECAUSE they are never accepting the given and expanding above and beyond?

[Simon Majumdar]

This question really splits into two

1) What keeps the chef happy and motivated

2) What keeps the punters happy and motivated

I would imagine that any chef worth their salt ( er?) would want to keep moving forward, originating and pushing the boundaries of their abilities. Just as a musician or artist would do the same.

On the other hand, many consumers would want the chef to keep producing the dishes that drew the plaudits in the first place. If I was to go to certain restaurants and the signature dishes that I had heard about or tried on previous visits were not there, I would be very disappointed.

I suspect, as in most things, the answer is balance. Menu's should develop and show growth in the chef's skills and ambitions, but they should not throw the baby out with the bathwater by ditching the things which make them appreciated in the first place.

I have a dread fear ( based on Spinal Tap ) of going to Gary Rhodes for the Lobster Thermidore Omlette and having the waiter say "welcome to the rebirth of Rhodes in the Square. Tonight we will be presenting Chinese Fusion Night. We hope you like our new direction"

What do you know? 1000 Posts.

S

[chefette]

So, anyone who actually is talented and excellent at their craft is excellent at it specifically BECAUSE they are never accepting the given and are constantly expanding above and beyond the boundaries?

But...do you believe that there are those who innovate, or use innovation, as a means of draping themselves in the aura of excellence and accomplishment in the field?

(edit: Sorry, when I hit post the board told me it had flood control so I added some thoughts while waiting and hit post again.)

[Simon Majumdar]

I think there is a big difference between those who are excellent because they constantly look to improve and never accept that they should stand still and those who use innovation as a front to their own lack of talent.

I will give you some examples.

Gordon Ramsay ( warning, I am actually ging to say something good about him ) is one of those who strives for excellence in his kitchen. He is always trying to move forward and from the menu at RHR is pushing himself and his team. sometimes it works, sometimes ( as in the case of the awful Claridges ) it does not. I have many issues with him and the way he runs his places but his skill and development of it is not one of them

On the other hand you have Anthony Worrall Thompson who flutters from concept to concept in a futile attempt to hide his own lack of imagination. He leaps from Organic, to Manhattan steakhouse to Six Floor Brasserie ( not necessarily in that order ) while not doing any of them well. Why? Because he does not have the basic excellence.

A boxing trainer I once met said to me " Show me a man who has the talent and I will give him the skills and the moves. Show me a man who has no talent and I can still give him the skills and the moves but he is going to get his assed kicked every time"

S

[Jinmyo]

But...do you believe that there are those who innovate, or use innovation, as a means of draping themselves in the aura of excellence and accomplishment in the field?

Yes.

[Suvir Saran]

But...do you believe that there are those who innovate, or use innovation, as a means of draping themselves in the aura of excellence and accomplishment in the field?

Yes.

[Suvir Saran]

I think there is a big difference between those who are excellent because they constantly look to improve and never accept that they should stand still and those who use innovation as a front to their own lack of talent.

Very well put Simon.

[chefette]

QUOTE (Simon Majumdar @ Sep 30 2002, 11:21 AM)

I think there is a big difference between those who are excellent because they constantly look to improve and never accept that they should stand still and those who use innovation as a front to their own lack of talent.

Who do you think are the most egregious examples of this?

[Varmint]

I believe I may be partially to blame for this post, as while I was dining with Chefette, Edemuth, Malawry at Cafe 15 last evening, I made the comment that although the food was nearly flawlessly executed, it didn't really knock my socks off. Our discussion turned to whether food had to be "challenging" to be "excellent." We certainly didn't reach a consensus by any means, but we were in agreement that impeccable ingredients, technique, and presentation will generally make for a fine meal.

Ultimately, however, my issue was indeed one of innovation. When I dine out, particularly if I'm going to drop a couple of hundred bucks, I want to be inspired. I want to praise the chef for doing something that first of all tastes great, but it also makes me think of the dish (or its components) in a different way. A restaurant that can do the classic dishes or slight variations thereof will always have a place in my dining repertoire. But more often than not, I desire innovation.

Innovation that doesn't work, however, is the worst. I think culinary innovation should be evolutionary, not revolutionary. When someone tries to turn the gastronomic world upside down, it usually is too far gone for me. It must, after all, taste good.

[Suvir Saran]

Innovation that doesn't work, however, is the worst.  I think culinary innovation should be evolutionary, not revolutionary.  When someone tries to turn the gastronomic world upside down, it usually is too far gone for me.  It must, after all, taste good.

WOW!!!

[Michael Laiskonis]

Using Alain Passard as an example, while I was disappointed with the repetition of certain dishes and their long duration on the menu, I don't feel that he must further reinvent himself. His style has come to be unique (yes, I guess that is the product of previous innovation!); I would have simply like to have seen variations within his style in the form of new juxtapositions of flavors and ingredients.

I'm of the school that considers cooking a form of expression, and like other forms of expression, the emotions elicited can be the result of mere mastery of technique as well as innovation.

Varmint hit it on the nose by saying,

I think culinary innovation should be evolutionary, not revolutionary.

It might make more sense to call it progression, rather than innovation. In my view, progression must be the logical conclusion in finding a way to intensify a flavor or refine a texture. In a sense, one must have a starting point with a specific result in mind (not to say happy accidents don't occur!). The Scientific Method is a good example. Some experiments will work and some may not, but I think those chefs that just dive in without regard to a point of departure are the ones that become transparent.

(edit: messed up the quote!)

[chefette]

So... are some areas of innovation or progression more significant or important than others? Can progress or innovation be made in one area at the expense of another?

For example, prime areas: Skill/technique, Ingredients/Flavor/Combinations, Presentation/Performance. Is it acceptable to progress in skill (faster, cheaper, new equipment) if there is no impact on flavor or presentation?

[Suzanne F]

So... are some areas of innovation or progression more significant or important than others?  Can progress or innovation be made in one area at the expense of another?  

For example, prime areas:  Skill/technique, Ingredients/Flavor/Combinations, Presentation/Performance.   Is it acceptable to progress in skill (faster, cheaper, new equipment) if there is no impact on flavor or presentation?

Discovering a flavor combination that no one else has found before (provided it works, of course) is of the utmost importance. But it had better look good, too, if you want people to try it.

"Can progress or innovation be made ... at the expense...?" Yes, but then it's merely invention for the sake of show, and not progress. Flash, but nothing that adds to good food and its creation. When I read about Heston Blumenthal, Paul Liebrandt, and even Adria, I get very nervous. Because I fear that they are going in that direction. But I've no direct experience with their food, so that's only my opinion.

"Is it acceptable to progress in skill ... if there is no impact on flavor or presentation?" NO. What's the point of just being a better technician? That's for us line cooks, not for chefs whose responsibility it is to create and teach.

[spqr]

To stop thinking afresh and for new possibilities is to lose ones standing as an artist.  At that point, one is no better than the best person copying them. 

Where did this notion that chefs are artists, or should be aiming to create "art" rather than a good meal, come from? A chef, even a brilliant one, is a craftsman, not an artist.

What is wrong with achieving excellence in anything? Those chefs who can legitimately claim to have achieved excellence are few and far between, I would surmise, and being consistently excellent at anything is a very big accomplishment.

[Suvir Saran]

Where did this notion that chefs are artists, or should be aiming to create "art" rather than a good meal, come from? A chef, even a brilliant one, is a craftsman, not an artist.

What is wrong with achieving excellence in anything? Those chefs who can legitimately claim to have achieved excellence are few and far between, I would surmise, and being consistently excellent at anything is a very big accomplishment.

To me a good craftsman is an artist and a good artist must be a good craftsman.

Either name is fine. A good one of either is certainly the other. It is that little extra that would separate them from the rest in their art or craft.

There is nothing wrong with achieving excellence. IN fact that is the only way one should live or want to live. And being consistent and excellent is certainly a triumph. I would celebrate that even before I would celebrate mere hollow innovation.

I think we agree more than we may know or think. I am with you and your thoughts. We are saying the same thing. But in our unique voices.

[Suvir Saran]

Innovation, this is a thread under General and is discussing almost the same stuff.

[Suzanne F]

Where did this notion that chefs are artists, or should be aiming to create "art" rather than a good meal, come from? A chef, even a brilliant one, is a craftsman, not an artist.  ...

With all due respect: in order to be considered "great" or "brilliant" or even "excellent," yes, a chef must be an artist. An artist in the kitchen can see, smell, taste, hear, and feel things even the best craftsman (= cook) can't. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "excellent" execution. A craftsman can execute a design brilliantly, but it takes that extra artistic vision to come up with the design. The chef who moves food beyond good to "OH!" needs that vision.

And as a professional cook, I'd rather work for an artist, as long as s/he is a capable teacher as well. Because it keeps me learning, and keeps my job interesting. No matter how consistent one might get, it is BORING to make the same (perfect) dish over and over.

[chefette]

Quote spqr: What is wrong with achieving excellence in anything? Those chefs who can legitimately claim to have achieved excellence are few and far between, I would surmise, and being consistently excellent at anything is a very big accomplishment.

Quite true. I really doubt there are all that many people out there achieveing excellence. I spent a week staging at the French Laundry last summer and after that I really do believe that excellence is their goal and they devote quite a bit of manpower and thought to attaining it. I don't really know how much role innovation plays in that kitchen. But excellence is king!

They serve what - 100 people a night? They have about 30 people working hard/studiously all day long to make that happen. It is a really nice atmosphere to work ion - natural light, windows, fresh air, open space. Everyone is really into food and not all horribly rushed and stressed like you see alot of places. But during service it is very apparent that there is no room for sloppy performance. If something isn't right it is redone. Really impressive. Really inspiring.

Setting an excellent standard and living up to it every day has got to be a laudable undertaking. But like Suzanne F says, how do you keep it interesting? I guess at someplace like tyhe French Laundy you don't accept anything less than excellence, but you change the menu every day so it is excellence in something different.

Is that less of an achievement than the innovation of - say Heston Blumenthal? I have read many copmments about him on the site. Not that I want this to deteriorate into a discussion of Heston and molecular gastronomy - but say how do you weigh innovation like that or the Adrias against the French Laundry and their pursuit of excellence?

Do you think more diners are willing to spend more dining dollars on innovation or on excellence?

[Jinmyo]

cheffette, "if you have time and are comfortable in doing so", perhaps you would consider posting about your stage at FL? I would really love to read it.

[spqr]

I think we agree more than we may know or think.  I am with you and your thoughts.  We are saying the same thing.  But in our unique voices.

Perhaps you are right. But I maintain that this is more than just a semantic difference. I think that chefs who see themselves as "artists" are missing the point. I think customers who patronize, nay...worship, certain chefs for their "art" are also missing the point (not to mention dropping obscene amounts of money on what is basically just a meal). Ultimately it's a harmless game for those who want to, and can afford to, play. But to my mind it's all pretentious foppery.

[Jinmyo]

spqr, I have no problem as such with loosely speaking of "art" in the sense of a masterful level of craft. But I have found that painters or sculpters or photographers or musicians who define themselves as "artists" are usually lacking in craft. That much more so with cooks and chefs. To speak of the "art" of cuisine can give one a sense of on-going possibilities. To speak of what one has done as "art" or oneself as an "artist" closes down those possibilities into self-indulgence.