What is a restaurant trying to ‘say’ to us?

[Priscilla]

JD, the topic is good, but, better than that, the writing laying it out is fantastic. What a treat.

How one chooses to eat is one of the most revealing and important expressions of Self (I assume we're assuming above-subsistence-level, of course) in the cultural lexicon.

It's an I'm-the-kind-of-person-who. This model is in continual application while I read eGullet. Something about the solitude of sitting before a computer monitor makes for great transparency. (And, contributing no little bit to eGullet's absorbing quality.)

So I immediately thought I'm-the-kind-of-person-who when I was reading the restaurant profiles. A restaurant says to a customer, YOU-are-the-kind-of-person-who. And the establishment best at conveying the intended message, (and what makes best?), will be lauded as Best, within its category.

[Tonyfinch]

Most restaurants in the UK are trying to give us a vicarious or faux experience of dining in the particular country of that particular cuisine.. Not only the food, but the ambience ,drinks waitstaff etc.

If you read the Time Out Guide for example its notable how often they praise restaurants for "authenticity". This woukld appear to mean that those restaurants in the UK that can most approximate the experience of dining in France, Italy,India etc. will inevitably be adjudged the most successful restaurants within their respective cuisines.

I'm interested in the idea of restaurants moving our souls, but on a more shallow level perhaps the message is -"hey you might not be on holiday in India right now but two hours down The Light of Bengal is the next best thing". Come and enjoy "The India Experience". After all,restaurants are just another branch of the entertainment business, are they not?

Maybe that's why so many of us eschew fusion cooking. We like to know what country we're in and feel culinarily "lost" otherwise.

[Damian]

Thanks, JD - a great post by any standard, so funny because it rings so truly. Loving caricatures is what you set out to achieve and what you accomplished in spades, very well done.

Wilfrid, The choice of where we eat, the clothes we wear, the cars we drive (or don't), the way we write and speak, and virtually all of our preferences and tastes and the way we relate to others in the society constantly reveal things about us, intentionally and simultaneously unintentionally. I'm not sure if there is a unique point to be made here applicable to restaurant or food preferences. Certainly the restaurants we attend, not to mention those we enjoy and favor, say something about us - indeed many different things - to an observer. Even more revealing are the posts and discussions of these issues that we write.

As an aside, eGullet does an extraordinary job of allowing people to express these parts of themselves, intentionally and no, in an atmosphere of remarkable toleration and respect.

[jaybee]

What an innovative thread. Got me thinking about the messages I want to hear. Might be fun to make up messages that lure one in, and how these differe depending on circumstances. Hmmm... this project calls for Ardbeg, and plenty of it.

[Fat Guy]

The problem with most restaurants is that they convey no coherent, intended message at all. They're just places to eat. In order to convey a message, you first need to have a message -- and then you need to take steps to convey it. The only message that spontaneously comes into being and conveys itself without assistance is: "We don't give a damn." Any other message, you've got to work on it. It needs to be wrapped up in the decor, the menu wording needs to support it, the reservationists and hosts need to be on board with it, and of course the kitchen and waitstaff need to believe in it. If you're in some rural European place where every restaurant comes from the same mold, this is a lot easier to achieve than it is in a place like New York City the world capital of heterogeneousness. Also there is the problem of a disconnect between promise and delivery, where a restaurant telegraphs one message but provides a different experience than expected.

The problem with most customers is that, in the rare instance when they find themselves in a restaurant with a message, they refuse to get the message. This leads to many an unsatisfying meal wherein the customer's expectations run up against the limits of the restaurant's vision. The reason restaurants like Gramercy Tavern are so successful is that they are highly adaptable to customer preferences, which is to say the message they send is, "Whatever you want, we're here to give you."

[Tonyfinch]

The Great British Pub sends a message all right:

"Don't Eat. DRINK"

[Wilfrid]

Wilfrid,  The choice of where we eat, the clothes we wear, the cars we drive (or don't), the way we write and speak, and virtually all of our preferences and tastes and the way we relate to others in the society constantly reveal things about us, intentionally and simultaneously unintentionally.  I'm not sure if there is a unique point to be made here applicable to restaurant or food preferences.    

I absolutely agree that there's nothing unique to restaurants here.

What I would say is that we are living in a period where restaurant-going has become a highly visible and much discussed form of conspicuous consumption (no pejorative intended). This has been the case in other countries and at other times, but I would venture the opinion that the last twenty years has seen dining out become a passtime of unprecedented significance in London and New York - the two cities I've lived in for the past fifteen years.

Sticking to those two cities, I would go further and say that, for the first time, a complex set of gastronomic codes (related not only to dining out but to food attitudes in general) have become sufficiently widely shared and understood that it has been for the first time possible to send a message about yourself by announcing what you eat, where you eat and what you think about eating. Just as it has been possible for a much longer time to send such messages by how one dresses.

I am sort of shuffling JD's original message around, and pointing to the mssages we send to others about restaurants rather than the messages restaurants send to us. But I do think it's something enormously important and often overlooked in our discussions here: as if preference for French haute cuisine over Italian regional cooking, for example, rested on a disinterested analysis of techniques and ingredients rather than being, in one aspect at least, an expression of an intricate set of social beliefs.

[Steve Plotnicki]

But I do think it's something enormously important and often overlooked in our discussions here: as if preference for French haute cuisine over Italian regional cooking, for example, rested on a disinterested analysis of techniques and ingredients rather than being, in one aspect at least, an expression of an intricate set of social beliefs.

But that is the ultimate in Plotnickiism. Prior to things becoming fashionable, a group of people evaluate it based on a disinterested analysis of technique. It doesn't become fashionable until they deem the technique worthy. It is only then that a rung of people who are interested, but less so then the first tier sample it. And then it trickles outward from there like waves.

When I first started in the music biz I worked in a record shop (they called them records back then.) And one of my jobs was to man a counter where they sold 7" singles. It was a fascinating job because I learned that as a single made its way up the charts, the quality of the buyers diminished. By that I mean that in the first three weeks after a song was released, the most serious collectors would be the purchasers. But starting in week four, a second wave of not quite as serious collector would ask for the song and that would go on for three weeks. That sequence would happen between three and six times. And depending on the life expectancy of a recording, and how mainstream it got, you would have people buying the new Barbara Streisand or Bon Jovi single between 12-18 weeks after release. And those buyers were what I would characterize as "poor quality buyers" because they bought recordings infrequently. For them to buy something they had to be deluged with the song on the radio. But there is an interesting internal phenomenon that takes place among the groups. Starting with the first group, if they don't bite, the second group won't appear. Same with the dynamic between the second and the third group and so on. I learned retaltively quickly in my career, each group was dependant on the other for their "taste." But it was really the very first group that set the standards of taste.

If one were to overlay this concept onto food, the proliferation of dishes like cassoulet have gone through a similar metamporphasis. They start with a simple bistro in Paris. But eventually they end up at the French equivelent of the Olive Garden (I know there isn't one but you get my point.) People who eat at the Olive Garden are the lowest common denominator diners. And by that I mean, they are the very last to hear about what is good and what is new in Italian food. If you look at Heston's answer about his friend with the scuba diving mask, if for some reason that became popular, it wouldn't hit the Olive Garden for another 20 years. These things move slowly. Of course unless it is something with a limited audience like the proliferation of white truffles and their oil.

That's why when you say "an intrictate set of social beliefs," I think that only becomes an issue when something is becoming popularized. And I think before that happens it is recognized for being a great technical achievement in the first place. Thos who are willing to annoint potato foam to be as good as mashed potatoes, analyze things outside of the context of popularity. There is no mass audience to test it against. But I have to say that in my experience, people who are expert on that level have an amazingly high hit to miss ratio. And if I can go back to my record store example and 7" sales, it isn't that every recording the people in the first three weeks would buy would become a hit, it's that they hardly ever missed a hit. And I would probably say that they bought upwards of 80% of the songs that became hits, or became well known for some other reason that had nothing to do with being played on the radio.

[Wilfrid]

And I would probably say that they bought upwards of 80% of the songs that became hits, or became well known for some other reason that had nothing to do with being played on the radio.

If so, they would have a lousy record collection. Have you looked at the charts? So much for your experts.

Let me try to explain carefully, so you see where you're wrong. When I say that we are in a period of history when gastronomic codes offer one way in which we can make statements about ourselves - both intentionally and unintentionally - I am not restricting my claim to making fashion statements. On the contrary, I mean to speak much more broadly. For example, if there was someone on the New York forum who advocated the virtues of The Leopard and Le Veau D'Or, they would certainly be telling us a lot about themselves beyond their taste in food; and they certainly wouldn't be telling us they were fashionable. So I think focussing on the "hits" - the fashionable, the successful, the popular, the terrific - is misleading as far as my original contention is concerned.

But let's talk about the "hits" for a moment, in order to deal again with the tenet of Plotnickiism which calls for an elite to make a disinterested determination of quality which is then expressed (although not always, you fairly say) as popularity in the market-place. Two obvious flaws with this theory.

First: many, many things - not aberrant examples, but many, many things become popular, trendy, fashionable, even cool, despite being crap. We could have fun on an off-topic thread making a list of them. So either your elite don't know their potatoes, or they play their part in the process only sporadically.

Second: you seek to take your elite out of society and out of history by having them base their ruminations on a pure, dispassionate concern for excellence. As if the elite are not making statements about themselves when they give some product or other their imprimatur. That's in your head. And let me tell you that, as a journalist and as an under-labourer in the music and 'youth culture' fields, I have met few tastemakers who did not have making a statement about themselves as their paramount aim.

Apply that last one to food writers if you like. It fits.

[Damian]

Wilfird

My only quibble is that you descirbe the existence of culinary codes for self-expression in New York and London, to limit my self to your examples, as a recent phenomenon. Perhaps I don't have the necessary information to judge about the increased pastime of dining out in the past twenty years, but the food people eat is often a code, at least for wealth status, in literature dating at least to Shakespeare and probably beyond.

I suppose, however, that your point is that now one can say things much more complex than "I am rich" by describing food or restaurant preferences. One can say, for example, "I am adventurous, but a hometowner" or "I am a purist, but a man of the people" while at the same time unintentionally saying "I am pompous" or "I am closed-minded" or the ilk.

I'd have to say that I'm still not sure whether this complexity of codes is new for gastronomy, and would be interested to hear more of the explanation for why it is a new phenomenon.

Given your concession that this point is not limited to restaurants, and it isn't surely, the notion of such codes is intriguing to me, and there may not be as many media as I may have thought that are similarly complex, i.e. allow for such variety of expression through a minimum of gesture. Fashion, music, art, literature, academic pursuits come to mind immediately, and I'm sure there are others.

Another notion that strikes me is that it is possible through combinations of media to send even more complex messages, and, indeed, the totality of these various messages is in a real way who we are as human beings (at least in society's eyes).

A final part of the interplay of codes is misperception and misinterpretation on the part of the observer which can lead to a virtually endless play of messages and missed messages. All of this is not new ground, as you know, and is the source of endless postmodern theses on signs and signifiers and the like...still and all, very interesting stuff (Derrida's "two gap" theory of communication and the like).

[Wilfrid]

Oh yes, I am only saying things which Barthes and Eco in particular have said much more elegantly. And I may be wrong in emphasizing the current importance of gastronomic codes - I just have the feeling that there has been an explosion of awareness the supra-functional aspects of gastronomy in NY and London since the 1980s.

[Deacon]

But eventually they end up at the French equivalent of the Olive Garden (I know there isn't one . . . )

I would suggest La Madeleine, but that would be unfair to La Madeleine. (I actually like those places.)

[Steve Plotnicki]

But let's talk about the "hits" for a moment, in order to deal again with the tenet of Plotnickiism which calls for an elite to make a disinterested determination of quality which is then expressed (although not always, you fairly say) as popularity in the market-place. Two obvious flaws with this theory.

What flaws? If "hits" are fashionable, and there are a group of people who can "pick the hits" 80% of the time on first blush, what flaws are there with the theory? Remember the original proffer, that things are popular because they are fashionable and not because they are new expressions of technique that are recognized. But that raises the question of how they can be fashionable before anyone else is liking it or doing it? "Fashionable" is a historical term. It describes someone who already made the right choice. How do you describe the person who has no external reference point as to how to make the right choices yet does so a signficant percentage of the time?

The "elite" make their choices exactly the way the original proffer states. They recognize technical advancement or interesting application of existing technique. Because when they do so, clearly they can't rely on what is fashionable. It doesn't exist yet. It can only be fashionable after anywhere from one, to a larger group of people are doing it or make a certain choice. And it is irrelevent as to whether in the long term those choices turn out to have lasting merit, or turn out to be popular but crap. Those things are discreet from noticing technical advancement/application. Lasting merit is a historical perspective that extends beyond the fashionability phase. Which only occurs after someone has noticed the technical advancement phase. And if I can apply this to restaurant criticism.

1. L'Astrance opens

2. Reviewers and discerning diners who make it their business to eat at new places point out technical advancement/interesting technical application

3. A second and third rung of diners go and a larger body of public opinion forms

4. There is a groundswell of positive opinion and interest grows

5. Reservations become difficult, or nearly impossible to get

6. Word of mouth filters down to people who live in New Jersey and Kentucky and now reservations are absolutely impossible to get. Like The French Laundry getting 400 calls a day for 17 tables. I bet you that 90% of those 400 people do not regularly eat in haute cuisine type places yet they "have to go" to the FL. Would they if the "elite" didn't speak of it a certain way?

This pattern I've described happens time and time again with restaurants. It has nothing to do with anyone making a statement about themselves. That's because the chef has already made whatever statement needs to be made about his diners when he creates the cuisine. Their only role is to recognize it. But the whole thing relies on it being some sort of advancement in the first place. Because if it wasn't a technical advancement of some sort, and it wasn't noticed by a person with the skill to notice these things before they become trendy, it wouldn't become the trendy thing to do.

[oraklet]

steve, your description of how a fine thing becomes fahionable is very good. it still leaves the question (wilfrid's): how does crap become fashionable?

[macrosan]

Steve, you are ignoring the lesson of the Emperor's clothes.

Many suppliers play the game of the Emperor's clothes. They understand that there is an elite which will only buy something if it is expensive and exclusive. They can and do produce products and services whose primary appeal is exclusivity, and which are consciously and deliberately priced to achieve that, and the price bears no relationship to the cost or the value.

Amex Black is an example of that. I can buy the same services as Amex Black for less than half the price, but the services I can buy are not "exclusive" ... anyone can phone in and get them, so they are of little interest to many of the elite.

Many restaurants play the same game, of course. Those that seek the elite market establish a price which will attract their market, and that has to be a price which is significantly higher than the more general market. That addresses Wilfrid's point, of course, since otherwise the elite cannot use their chosen restaurant as the statement they desire. Further, it is important that the general public also know the price, so that the elite can make their status clear to that general public. The infamous leaking by Petrus of the £40,000 wine bill in the press was an example of exactly that.

So whilst it may be true that that the elite sometimes are the pioneers in forming later public appreciation, the suggestion that they always make their judgements on "technical advancement or interesting application of existing technique" is simply not so. Probably they occasionally do, but I guess that most of the elite for most of the time are choosing their restaurants based on other considerations.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Oraklet - "Crap" becomes fashionable because the thing that makes it popular appeals to a short term need of the market, as opposed to it having long term substance. But in reality the question is a bit of a non-starter because we are discussing controlled markets (high end) for food, fashion and design and the mass market is excluded from them based on price. But let me give you an example of a mass market item that isn't crap. Phiipe Stark furniture for Target (chain of U.S. department stores.) The furniture has a level of design to it that you don't usually get from a department store item and as such, the cognascenti in places like South Beach went out and bought it as "functional" everyday furniture for their apartments. But you can't seperate the level of the design from the function which is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. But on the otherhand, the Philip Stark Lagioule steak knife stands a lesser chance of becoming a "classic." It sort of looks like an oddity, and doesn't really add anything to the original. And as such I've never seen them in anyone's home, just in a few restaurants that wanted to appear trendy.

Macrosan - You are talking about the market at the point where goods or services are already popular. What you aren't addressing is how a bottle of Petrus was deemed to be worth that much money in the first place. At some point in time the first bottle of Petrus appeared. When that happened, all the winemaker had to say about it was a story of where the grapes were grown, what method they were raised with, and how the wine was vinified. But when they decided to price Petrus at four times the cost of Mouton, someone had to taste the wine and say it was worth it based on noticing that the technique applied got a special result. Without that tier of people, the bill at the restaurant Petrus never happens. How would those diners know about it if the first tier of appraisers (the press, wholesalers etc.) didn't qualify it as being extra special? Of course this doesn't mean that there aren't items that are expensive and highly sought after that aren't crap. Of course there are. But over time you will see that their popularity fades and those items that have substance to them last. Look at Louis Vuitton luggage. You can look at it as fashionable crap. But then you can go to a design musem and see the beautiful steamer trunks that LV made at the time that sea travel was fashionable. Mens and womens wardrobes or writing desks that open up out of trunks. That is the foundation their brand is built on and without it, the handbags with their logos never would have happened.

[macrosan]

That's right, Steve, but my point is not just that there's expensive crap out there, my point is that there's expensive crap which at least some parts of your elite claim not to be crap solely because of its price, or its artificially maintained exclusivity. In the same way, some of what your elite claims to be exceptional is not at all so, it's very ordinary, and the only basis for the judgement is that it carries an elitist price tag.

I am therefore suggesting that endoersement by the elite is not sufficient as a judgement of merit. The elite very often get it wrong, and their capacity for getting it right is no better than the capacity of the plebs to get it right --- it's just probability theory.

[Steve Plotnicki]

The elite very often get it wrong, and their capacity for getting it right is no better than the capacity of the plebs to get it right --- it's just probability theory.

Macrosan - You are 10,000% wrong. Very few items make it to market without the described elite endorsing it. And of the items that do, just a small percentage of them "make it." This is why there are people who are professionals in their field, and who get paid to make these choices for a living. And there is also a collector or hobbyist level of people who are expert at it.

I don't know what to tell you about the world of "fashionable things" that rely on underlying substance to make them work. Certain people are good at "picking the hits" and that includes things that are fashionable for the moment and things that will be deemed important long term. And if nothing more, the level of your protestation will identify you to not be among that group of people . Price and fashionalbility are affectations that you have to look behind in order to see the substance of things. It's like judging a book by its cover. One has to assess why they became fashionable in the first instance. Because as I have said (and which nobody has refuted,) the first person who deems something "special" does so without the knowledge of how the market will react to it. They endorse something based on their own expertise and ability to discern things that are interesting and new, even if they restate something old in a new and fresh way.

[robert brown]

I’m not sure how seamlessly this goes into the flow, but I believe that there are two phenomena that account for the role of fine dining in the culture and how it is played out. The first is what the social scientists called a “badge”, which simply means that similar to a Boy Scout wearing his merit badges, the fact of where we ate last night, or where we will eat tonight, or where we have eaten in the past has somehow become a type of merit badge; perhaps a conspicuous consumption one, a well-traveled one, etc. (How this got to be so is a separate topic for another day, another thread.) An adjunct to this is that like wine (which preceded good food in this context), good food can confer, or give a gossamer notion of, an immediate impression of sophistication and connoisseurship.

The second aspect that plays heavily into the elevation of fine dining in everyday life is, to put it into a context that posters above have implied, the dilution of luxury. (Steve’s comparison of vintage Louis Vuitton steamer trunks to the Louis Vuitton products of today is an apt one). The world abounds with examples; certain stores in outlet malls; boutique and new Ritz-Carlton and Four Seasons hotels; low-price Gucci, Prada, Armani, etc; and any number of wines and restaurants with pretense or aspirations.

The unfortunate result is a kind of disguised shoddiness and formula-like approaches that permeate the world of leisure time. While some vestiges of old-time luxury remain, the fine dining sphere strikes me as particularly hard hit. I have discussed this many times in the past, so I am loath to do it again. Thus, to return to the general theme of JD (London)’s terrific thread and post, I would say that the ex-cuisine message that many restaurants are sending is in the nature of “Dining in our restaurants will give you something to talk about; you will appear to others as not being a cheapskate when it comes to eating; and you will be radiating a sense of sophistication and of being ‘au courant’ ”. I hope I will be able to illustrate these concerns better when I post my impressions of my recent, brief, and first foray to the Napa Valley.

[Tonyfinch]

Macrosan - You are 10,000% wrong.

Only 10,000% wrong Mac. Not bad not bad.

The people doing the initial "recognizing" do not form an elite because they are not the same people even within the field. The same people who recognized the potential of The Beatles are not the same as those who recognized that of The Stones are not the same as those who recognized The Who and so on.

Col. Tom Parker perceived Elvis's "potential" What does that say about Col Tom Parker? Does it mean he has great taste in music which is more attuned to anyone else's? No. All it means is that he perceived Elvis's potential. Great. But he didn't perceive anybody else's potential.

The "elite" is a myth in terms of it existing as an actual group of people. Good taste and discernment does play a part in discovering that which may subsequently become fashionable but it is spread so wide as to render the concept of a hierarchical elite meaningless. And other factors play a part too. Such as luck and and the abilty to manipulate markets to serve vestaed interests.

[Toby]

Col. Tom Parker perceived Elvis's "potential" What does that say about Col Tom Parker? Does it mean he has great taste in music which is more attuned to anyone else's? No. All it means is that he perceived Elvis's potential. Great. But he didn't perceive anybody else's potential.

Actually, teenage girls and Sam Phillips first perceived Elvis's "potential."

[Steve Plotnicki]

And other factors play a part too. Such as luck and and the abilty to manipulate markets to serve vestaed interests.

Said with the conviction of a man who doesn't know how to pick hits.

Colonal Parker wasn't someone who picked talent, he was a personal manager. That he only picked one artist is proof of nothing. He happened to pick the biggest artist of all time so there was no need for him to pick anyone else. But I wonder how you explain how there are people who work for recording companies that choose hit artist after hit artist for decades? Or radio station programers who do the same with records that become hits? Or how certain producers, directors and actors end up usually working on hit movies? Or how certain fashion magazines happen to feature the clothing that becomes fashionable and trendy? Or how there are certain editors at publishing companies who on a regular basis choose to work with authors that write hit or important books? Do you think it's all luck, merchandising and vested interests? Or do you think that possibly that the reason people do these things for a living is they are good at it?

If you worked in any of the entertainment industries, including the fashion industry, you would find that a remarkably small group of people are responsible for shaping taste. You just happened to pick three names of artists who have no ties to each other because they recorded for different labels and had different managers. But if you were to look inside a single label, you would be surprised at how few people do things that make a big impact. But you don't really want it to be that way, even if it's true. God forbid that the ability to be good at something and make money at it was something more then luck. How would the people who weren't "lucky" feel if they had to admit the truth about it?

[Tonyfinch]

Once again you have distorted my argument. I didn't say it was all luck or vested interests. I said they "played a part".

I didn't say that no-one had talent or that no-one was good at anything. My point was that this group is actually very large-too large to be considered an elite,which by its nature is self defining and exclusionary. Talent breaks through IN SPITE of elites,not because of them,and always has.

There was a story in yesterday's paper about how novel that just won the Booker prize was rejected by dozens of major publishing houses before being given a whirl by some obscure one. Harry Potter and Bridget Jones were the same.

Anyway I do know how to pick hits. My MOTHER knows how to pick hits. The minute she heard The Wombles of Wimbledon Common she said to me:"You know something,son. That's a HIT". So there!

[Steve Plotnicki]

Talent breaks through IN SPITE of elites,not because of them,and always has.

Tony - You're the punter who looks at the one example in thousands that breaks the mold and then points to it as proof. If the various media and fashion businesses relied on "accidents" to run their businsses they would be out of business faster then you could say their names. Your argument is really the typical one that people who "can't pick the hits" use to explain their inability to do so. And as someone who works in the media industry and sees how these choices are made, I don't understand what the big deal is with admitting that there are certain people who are gifted at these things, and that those people shape taste and the market. And even more so, they are responsible for some percentage of taste shaping that is probably in excess of 90% of the successes that occur. Did it ever occur to you that while that might be the case (they have a high success rate,) you insist on pointing to the ones that fall between the cracks? That all makes for good copy for the afternoon dailies so the punters feel better about themselves. But all it proves is that the "elite" isn't infallable. It doesn't prove they don't exist.

[Basildog]

Macrosan...would love to know what you thought my place was " trying to say"...if you feel comfortable discussing it here.

interesting thread..but a bit over my head