Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Does Italy lack culinary relevance?


Fat Guy

Recommended Posts

In that way Italian cuisine cretaes a connection between home and restaurant that is the antithesis of everything a top French restaurant tries to do.And maybe within that very antithesis lies its "relevance".

That's true. This thread has for the most part (I'd have to re-read it all to be entirely sure though) concentrated on Italian cooking's contribution to haute cuisine and (mostly French) high-end restaurants, but there is also the other side of the coin - the way it affects how people prepare their own food at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter - I didn't say I didn't like it. I said it was overrated. I do happen to like it. I've been to the Piemonte twice, had 7-8 meals there, some very good and most mediocre. The main problem is that aside from the taste of the local terroir, which I can't replicate in my home, I can make everything else. And in fact I can make it almost as good, if not better in certain instances. What's to making polenta or a fondutta? Taillerin is just the ratio of eggs to flour. Roasted mushrooms? On both occassion that I went there I brought home a rather large truffle and invited guests to dinner at our home. And aside from the fact that the meat tasted of the U.S. and didn't have that distinct Italian flavor to it, what's the big deal?

Robert B. - I don't care how modern the cooking is in Italy (not that I am agreeing that it is,) the question was why isn't it relevant. That boils down to chefs and hobbyist eaters talking about their cuisine. Just look at the thraed on L'Arnsbourg and tell me when someone started a thread like that about an Italian restaurant.

Tony - Yes you did put it succinctly. But you have described a different relevance then the one Fat Guy was asking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony - Yes you did put it succinctly. But you have described a different relevance then the one Fat Guy was asking about.

I went back and re-read Fat Guy's initial post and from the text of the post it doesn't specifically mention modern high-end dining, it mentions "modern gastronomy" which could be taken to mean lots of things. Even if he did mean high-end dining though, the other influences are still important.

There certainly has been a rise of the "gastronomic middle classes" in recent times, which is probably more attributable to people watching shows on television of celebrity chefs wandering around countries like Italy trying the local produce than to the culinary trends in the relatively small number of high-end restaurants. In the big picture of where the overall gastronomic landscape and peoples' attitudes to what they eat is moving, that has a big effect. Sure, high-end trends sometimes filter down through the culinary hierarchy and affect what the average person finds on their plate in a normal restaurant or in the supermarket, but I wouldn't think that that has as large an impact.

Of course, we have a far larger than average number of people on eGullet who frequent high-end restaurants so there is a far larger than average chance that someone will dispute the relevance of what the average Joe is eating :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, we don't know if there is an Arnsbourg-type restaurant in Italy since no one, including myself, either has ever been, or recently been, to L'Ambasciata, Vissani, the Hilton in Rome, Enoteca Pinchiori, and several others. But even if one had and no single one resembled L'Arnsboourg, it is interesting that both Lizziee and Bux say that that restaurants could conceiveably be in lots of different locales even outside of France. My theory is that with all the restaurants being started in the USA, Great Britain, Australia, and dozens of other countries, modern gastronomy (cooking, really) has been so altered by the need for chefs, most of whom come late to the profession. Thus the killer technique that chefs like the Troisgros, Bocuse, Chapel, Guerard,etc. is viewed as not necessary and, under the circumstances, unlearnable except by the relative handful of chefs who are starting out as adolescents and learning from complete chefs. The end result is that we get a mish-mosh of cuisines thrown into the mix. Thus, certain Asian cuisines contribute this, Italian cuisine contributes that, US cuisine contributes such and such, and French whatever, and what you get in an increasing number of restaurants is a hodge-podge with no one cuisine totally dominating. The one single cuisine at the bottom of all this is still French, but I don't see its influence enjoying any kind of resurgence; probably it is slowly diminishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again with the arguing about the definition of relevance. I think that we can all agree that Italian food, in addition to being delicious, is a very relevant cuisine. The cooking techniques used in preparing Italian food crop uo in almost every aspect of our culinary lives. And considering that there is a pizza place on almost every block of the world (that is in the U.S.,) and on many blocks in other places, one can easily say that if you use a standard of commercially successful, both in and out of the home, then Italian cuisine isn't only relevant, it is the most relevant cuisine in the world. But what any of that has to do with the definition of relevance used in this question, I don't know.

When we say relevance we mean food that people are talking about *because the preparations are different and unusual.* That is the standard. Being incredibly delicious without the flourishes doesn't result in the same amoung of verbiage being expended as things like Adria's potato foam. Now that's a topic we can get our arms around. And right now the Italian food scene hasn't spawned a chef in over ten years where "people" are talking about his interesting technique and intersting cuisine. So if we eliminate "delicious" as the equal of the word relevant, maybe you will understand how Fat Guy and I are using it.

Robert - I am not either defending French cuisine, nor lambasting Italian cuisine for their contributions or lack of, to the ritual of fine dining. And I am not even saying that the world's most interesting or creative chef doesn't exist in Italy right now. But I don't think that is what Fat Guy's question is. He wants to know why we have so little interest in what goes on in Italy (foodwise.) And you yourself admit that nobody here has been to Vissani etc. in a while. Do you know why that is? Because they aren't relevant the way some other restaurants are. And I can offer no better evidence then your own phone call this summer to El Bull which basically said that you would drop everything you are doing and drive the 6 hours from your home on a moments notice. Is there any restaurant in Italy you would consider doing that with? Was there ever? I know there wera a number in France over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I just described that as well. But if you want more detail, it is as an entire tier of restaurant cooking which is generally on a simpler level (simpler meaning the level of technique applied as opposed to French cuisine.) That really comes down to salads, pastas and roasted meats that generally create their own gravy or jus without the use of thickeners or binding agents or pre-made stocks. How else might it be relevant other then this description?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we say relevance we mean food that people are talking about *because the preparations are different and unusual.*

He wants to know why we have so little interest in what goes on in Italy (foodwise.)

Steve, You may be answering your own question: You "have so little interest in what goes on in Italy (foodwise)... because the preparations are [*not*] different and unusual".

I know we've discussed this in other threads before. There is general agreement that the Italians are not contributing in an influential way to the leading edge of creative and/or experimental cuisine. So Italian cuisine may be said to be "irrelevant", which is to say fundamentally noncontributing, to the leading edge of creative and/or experimental cuisine. Therefore, it is not interesting to people, like you, who have issues of haute cuisine and/or experimental cuisine and/or French cuisine foremost in their minds. To many of us, though, we have a great deal of interest in what goes on in Italy foodwise, because our thought processes are driven by different priorities.

Who said "There are no three star restaurants, only three star meals"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert - An excellent answer that unfortunately begs the question of why there aren't two prongs to Italian cuisine like there are in France. A traditional prong and a creative prong. And the truth of the matter is that there is a creative prong like Robert B. pointed out using Vissani etc. as an example. So the real question comes down to why therir creative prong has so little impact on the worldwide food scene. And the question becomes more puzzling because their traditional cuisine is so delicious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert - An excellent answer that unfortunately begs the question of why there aren't two prongs to Italian cuisine like there are in France. A traditional prong and a creative prong. And the truth of the matter is that there is a creative prong like Robert B. pointed out using Vissani etc. as an example. So the real question comes down to why therir creative prong has so little impact on the worldwide food scene. And the question becomes more puzzling because their traditional cuisine is so delicious.

Of course there's a creative prong, and I'd love to have an opportunity to check it out. As I've said before, I think its lack of influence is due to economics, regionalism, the predominance of cucina casalinga, and a certain predilection for avoiding Frenchness (I'm still being polite here.)

Who said "There are no three star restaurants, only three star meals"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That really comes down to salads, pastas and roasted meats that generally create their own gravy or jus without the use of thickeners or binding agents or pre-made stocks. How else might it be relevant other then this description?

That's a description of what it is, not how it is relevant. Some of us are trying to discuss in what way it is just as relevant to people's lives,if not more relevent,than French haute cuisine and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony - Well of course if you make the standard "relevant to people's everyday lives," then Italian cuisine is much more relevant then French cuisine. But that's like saying the cartoons in the newpaper are more relevant then the Mona Lisa because you read the newspaper everyday and you only go to a museum once a year. And if you use that standard, McDonald's is more relevant then Italian cuisine because more people at it then anything else.

Why Italian cuisine is relevant is because along with bistro food, it is one of the two most successful examples of home cooking. Most restaurant food we usually eat is just a glorified version of home cooking. How about Jewish cuisine like cholent and salt beef and kishke? Or British cuisine including the infamous pies and puddings? Alsatian and German saurkraut dishes and stews. Even when you get to the Middle East the food they serve everywhere is just fancy home cooking. You want kofte kebab? No need to go to Maroush. Your local butcher will whack up the lamb, parsley and spices with that thick bladed knife of his in that back and forth motion they use. I can't think of another cuisine aside from French that is built around a restaurant culture other then Japan's where they have raised the practice of slicing fish into an artform. But when you pit Italian against French on the bistro/tratorria level, it's easy to choose Italian. The French are a bunch of fatmongers. Most of their homestyle dishes depend on rendering fat so they are heavy and rich. Italian cuisine is much lighter then French food. It might be loaded with carbohydrates but fat does not play a huge role in the meal.

How is that, relevant enough for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, I think there are two prongs to Italian cuisine. However, for what ever reason, the people behind it do not want to seem to conquer the world. Fifteen years or so, dining at San Domenico in Imola was a goal of many international foodists and for whatever reason Tony May decided to exploit the name and, to a certain extent, the cuisine by opening on Central Park South. It seems that the New York restaurant does well, although I haven't been there after the first year or two that it opened. (We also have the Cipriani family and the Torre di Pisa, not to mention Bice and, I think, Paper Moon, but those places are not "nuova cucina" ones). The sinister reason there are not more San Domenicos and awareness of all the restaurants in Italy that are tweaking classical Italian cuisine (and there are lots of them) is that they are owned and operated by families that want to work together and not venture to where they have to use ingredients that are not appropriate, or up to snuff, than what they use in the one restaurant they have. But look, on the terms that you discuss relevance, French food is still the most used and studied by chefs wanting to make more innovative or personalized food. Yet, as I implied above, I think we are in some kind of transititional period where one encounters increasingly cuisine that does not holler out one particular country.

El Bulli is the only restaurant that I rearranged my schedule for. Doing so, however, was a function of the inordinate difficulty of securing a table. Lots of times I was willing to take a NY-France trip based on the the possibility of getting a table in the late 1980s and early 1990s at Robuchon. I never had to do it in the end for my one visit there, but I would have. (I'm sure you remember how difficult reserving there was).

So Steve, when are you leaving for your white truffle and Nebbiolo tasting? Where precisely are you wining and dining? We all like forward to reading your report. We trust you will keep an open mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct when you say that about 15 years ago the Italians made a run at appearing contemporary. Same time as Gualtiero Marchesi had a run as a famous chef. And I can remember how hard it was to reserve at Robuchon. But you know what was almost as hard, La Scaletta in Milan. Foodies from everywhere were trying to get in to eat that blueberry risotto. I remember we couldn't get in for dinner and we went for lunch one winter on a sunny Saturday afternoon and we were the only people in the place.

End of the month I will suffer the truffle crop so I can give my report. As for wine, I've already secured tastings with both Conternos which should be fun. But I know what the food tastes like there and I doubt I will find many surprises. How could I? Nothing ever changes there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taillerin [tagliarini?] is just the ratio of eggs to flour. Roasted mushrooms? On both occassion that I went there I brought home a rather large truffle and invited guests to dinner at our home. And aside from the fact that the meat tasted of the U.S. and didn't have that distinct Italian flavor to it, what's the big deal?

Steve, I think you were exaggerating here to make a point. Fine Italian cooking doesn't have the layers of sauces and pre-preparations that French grande cuisine does, but it involves a lot more skill than shopping for the best ingredients and then following some simple recipes. The difference between a perfectly prepared pasta and a mediocre one is enormous, and, one Italian chef here (Giancarlo Caldesi) tells me that it has taken him years to get the technique exactly right.

Jonathan Day

"La cuisine, c'est quand les choses ont le go�t de ce qu'elles sont."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm honestly not sure exactly what question we are debating. But if it is "has Italian cooking had significant influence on French grande cuisine?" then it would not be hard to assemble evidence in the affirmative.

I am biased in this regard because much of my serious eating goes on in the South, where the Italian influence is very strong. But it is difficult to eat at a two or three star restaurant (Ducasse, Chibois, Maximin, etc.) in that area without encountering some pasta preparation, risotti, and occasionally even some dish done with polenta. Ravioli of all sorts are very popular as starters.

If the question, on the other hand, is "have specific (named) Italian chefs had a strong influence on top-end French restaurant practices?" then I have to admit ignorance.

Jonathan Day

"La cuisine, c'est quand les choses ont le go�t de ce qu'elles sont."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I can add to my last post in a way that is "relevant" to this discussion. Part of the reason I found myself disappointed when I went to the Piedmont is that I thought the cooking was going to be a higher expression of cuisine then it turned out to be. For years I had read so much about it that when I got there it was sort of a letdown. Yes there were meals that were delicious (I had some terrific meals at Da Cesare) but going to Gener Neuv or Giardin de Felicin were major disappointments. The other thing that I didn't like about the region is that I found that the restaurants pretty much served similar menus. Nobody had lifted Piemontese cuisine out of its environment and restated it in a different way.

Take a fonduta which is really nothing more then eggs, cream and curds of cheese I believe that are whipped into a creamy sauce/dip. It has a very distinct cheesy taste to it and it also has a grainy texture. But why doesn't somebody make a fondutta di __________ using a different cheese from outside the region? Or Savona is just a little more then an hours dive down to the coast. But my best recollection is that fish is virtually non-existent on menus.

JD - Okay let's take the ravioli in the haute cuisine restaurants in the Alpes-Maritime. They are usually stuffed with some luxury ingredient like foie gras or lobster. And they are usually served in an elegant or luxurious broth. You don't get daube stuffed ravioli at Jacques Chibois. And as for the skill to make handmade pasta, there must be 50,000+ Nonas in the Piemonte who make hand rolled pasta in their homes with their eyes closed that is as good, or nearly as good as a professionals. Just like there are 50,000 Nanas in Britain who can make a good shepherd's pie. And there are 50,000 Grand-Meres in Provence who can make a daube that is mijote, and 50,000 Bubbys in Jerusalem who can make a great cholent where the meat is really gedempt. Of the 200,000 women I just mentioned, I bet you not 2 of them can make a dish like Robuchon's Cauliflower Flan with Caviar or any other haute cuisine dish that we can name. Even the Grand-Meres couldn't do it. It takes more then mere practice to learn the skill of it, it takes intense studying to learn the art of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just look at the thraed on L'Arnsbourg and tell me when someone started a thread like that about an Italian restaurant.

But maybe that meal doesn't sound so attractive to people other than those who rate that kind of meal above all others.

Maybe to others it sounds pretentious, prissy fiddly-widdly,gussied up and self indulgent,with no connection whatsoever to tradition or terroir or anything in fact which might appeal to Italians.

They dont WANT that kind of restaurant and they dont WANT that kind of food. If this means that they refuse to join the self appointed cognoscentis view of what is and is not "relevant",well so be it and good bloody luck to them.

Woe betide us if in an ideal world every restautrant ended up like that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But maybe that meal doesn't sound so attractive to people other than those who rate that kind of meal above all others.

Again, all you are trying to do is to change the definition of relevant as framed in this question. It specifically means *people who are interested in the cooking style, and people who like to eat at THOSE TYPES OF PLACES.*

So there is no woe to betide us of because not every restaurant will be like that one. And people who don't go eat in those places still won't have to. And they still won't have to talk about them either. I wonder if they are relevant to this conversation? :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, dear friends I think that as usual when speaking of Italian cuisine there's always a big prejudice, the majority of people expect an Italian restaurant to be family run, rustic, filled with screaming waiter saying "ciao bella" to every woman and so on.... I still get American tourists asking for spaghetti with meat balls and fetuccine alfredo thinking they order the best Italian cuisine has to offer. Not to mention when they ask for "pepperoni pizza", what's that? I believe it's an American creation.

I really don't know what peaople expect but the situation in Italy is not that bad really, there are loads of restaurant offering modern Italian cuisine all over the country , and not only in the big city, of course trattorias and osterias still are very popular and they always will, but living next to France ( where I often go and experience different restaurants ) the situation isn't that different than is in Italy, maybe because Provence and Liguria are very similar in cooking habits and way of life, but except from few top rated restaurants over the border the food has a lot of similarity to the one on this side.

I get the impression that is taken for granted that Italian cuisine has to be considered kind of "ordinary" and French as "chic", but is it really that way?

I don't think so, but this is what majority of people think, and Italian food restaurants , especially in the US, really have not helped in this.

Being Italian food very popular , many big companies have invested in the opening of Italian themed restaurants where the only thing they have of Italian is the name. I've also seen in London a lot of "Bella Pasta" "Spaghetti House" "Sbarro" etc. claiming to be authentic Italian restaurants, well I think not, if any of you has ever tried this type of restaurant know what I am talking about.

On the other end I've also seen restaurant offering great Italian modern cuisine, and I'm talking of places like Osteria Isola, Cecconi's, River Cafè, Santini's, etc. , but of course you can not expect to pay little for dining in theese restaurants, and this is probably one of the main reason why people associate Italian food=cheap bill, Frech food=expensive bill.

If any of you is around Italy I suggest to try places like Flipot in Torre Pellice, Gener Neuv in Asti, orBalzi Rossi in Ventimiglia, or Claudio in Bergeggi just to name a few, and see that Italian cuisine is well and alive.

Salute !!

Dom :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, all you are trying to do is to change the definition of relevant as framed in this question. It specifically means *people who are interested in the cooking style, and people who like to eat at THOSE TYPES OF PLACES.*

The question was about Italy's relevance to "modern gastronomy". It is you who insists that that means its relevance to a very specific type of dining in very expensive 3 star restaurant,which you repeatedly refer to as "the standard"

Many people on the thread have chosen to take a far broader view of the term "modern gastronomy" and come to the conclusion that it represents a spectrum of modern eating patterns which both derive from and work towards a range of traditions and influences and which suit a range of eating needs and lfestyles.

Italy's relevance in that sense has been meaningfully and intelligently discussed and the general consensus is that it remains very much alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original question framed "modern gastronomy" as something that "gourmets' practice. Now how are you defining who gourmets are? Are they people who eat spaghetti and meatballs from a tin? Pizza Express? Is it someone who goes down to his local tratorria and orders mushroom risotto? Eats at Locanda Locatelli? Who exactly do you think goumets are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bene detto, Dom Costa, and quite right, Tony.

Steve's definition of "relevant" may be acceptable to him, but it's not to many others here. Relevant means relevant, that is having some significance to, or bearing upon, the issue being discussed. It was FatGuy's question, FatGuy's word, not Steve's.

Actually, the original question goes even wider than Tony suggests. It doesn't mention "modern gastronomy", it addresses cusine as a whole. Many contributions here have clearly proven that Italy does indeed have "culinary relevance" in a variety of ways.

I absolutely agree with the Dom that to characterise Italian cuisine as homely, peasant cooking for the common man does it a great disservice, as well as being inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, the FG originally stated that "most gourmets would cite Italy as one of the top food destinations on Earth", and then went on to ask about the relevance of its cuisine to modern gastronomy. So maybe the better question would be, what do we mean by modern gastronomy?

Who said "There are no three star restaurants, only three star meals"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to point out that the people on this thread who disagree with my definition of "modern gastronomy, goumet" and relevant" do not travel to France or Italy to eat at restaurants serving food that would qualify as "modern gastronomy served to gourmets and which would be relevant to a discussion about the topic." Yet they keep arguing about the definitions. When you cut to the chase, their entire purpose seems to be to deny others the use of the word "better" because they want what they like to eat to be considered "the best." It's so tiring. Class warfare through pasta and cassoulet. It's the same faulty argument my son uses when he tells me that Hershey's cocoa is "better" than the cocoa from Maison du Chocolate.

Robert S. - Modern gastronomy should be defined as "Food where new and interesting technique is applied and such application of technique spurs interest in dining at said restaurant or conversation about their technique."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...