Is excellence enough?

[spqr]

Then we are basically in agreement, Jinmyo, as long as we recognize that we are speaking colloquially when we talk about the "art" of someone's cooking. The problem is that there are both chefs as well as the serious foodies who follow them who truly believe in this chef-as-arteest stuff. And being a master craftsman is an achievement to be admired. So why isn't this enough?

[Jinmyo]

I think because some people try to get more than they give. They use what thedy do to define themselves. And what they (and others) say about what they do to tell themselves bedtime stories. Waking up, it's still just food. But also, it's food . Essential. What our skin and bones are made of.

A Zen Teacher, Anzan Hoshin roshi said, "Cooking is the art which becomes your audience. They don't look at it and just walk away. It becomes their bodies and minds."

But he meant "art" as something done as fully as one can.

[chefette]

Well, it seems to me that there will always be people who need to idolize an arteest. I see thos e old movies from the 60s with some society type just all a dither over some ridiculous arteest.

I think that a chef, any craftsman can find the 'art' in their craft. The problem that I think you are referring to is when the chefs get a hint that the audience may indeed perceive them as an arteest and start to play up to them shamleslly. I think this may be most evident in the relation some chefs have with the media.

Blam!

[Fat Guy]

Aside from perhaps Robert Brown, is there any eGullet user who would recognize any of several hundred Escoffier dishes not to mention thousands of dishes served at Michelin starred restaurants in the past fifty or so years? All this talk of innovation assumes we are super-experienced diners. In fact most of what we label as culinary innovation is an illusion -- the world of restaurant reviewing is rife with examples of critics who praise innovation when all they're seeing is a copy.

Look at a guy like Christian Delouvrier at Lespinasse in New York. Here's a gentleman who draws his strength from the classics, but they're classics with which we mostly aren't familiar. His food is great. Lespinasse is one of the best restaurants in America and experienced diners are constantly blown away by the food. But the last thing I'd call the restaurant is creative; I think the chef might even be insulted if you defined him by creativity. I think many people when they speak of the classics are referring to a universe of less than fifty dishes that somehow became standard-issue at exported French restaurants in London and Midtown Manhattan. The real universe of the classics is so massive that we'd all live very long and full gastronomic lives if we ate from it exclusively.

And what of minimalism in cooking -- that pesky example that pops up again and again to thwart generalization about innovation, creativity, and complexity? In a sense, the minimalist chef is anti-innovation.

There are only a handful of chefs in the world who are true innovators. That group probably doesn't even include the majority of chefs cooking at restaurants with three Michelin stars. So no, I think the evidence is pretty conclusive that you don't need to be an innovator to be a great chef. Take any grouping of great chefs as defined by the international educated gourmet community and you'll find some innovators and some non-innovators, which is as it should be.

[ngatti]

Steven (deadeye dick) Shaw does it again.

damn if I had that scope on my rifle I'd never have to work for my supper.

Nick

[oraklet]

"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." (jinmyo)

to be repeated by every craftsman when getting out of bed in the morning.

(- though i'll have to speak of myself as a "graphic artist" in lack of other english denomination. doesn't mean that i think i'm doing "art".)

the romantics felt that art was about "the good, the true and the beautyful" (and the opposites). so, if that's what you're striving at, you're an artist. as i see it, this rules out even the best of chefs, furniture makers or whatever. only an architect may be artist and craftsman at the same time.

i'm not implying that an artist is a finer or better person than a craftsman.