Haute Dining Trashing Becoming Very Tiresome

[gfron1]

The latest article trashing fancy shmancy dining, this time in Harpers. 

 

My simple response is - if you don't like it, don't eat it. If its not the style of dining you enjoy, then I don't care what you think of it. Believe me that you don't care what I have to say about Olive Garden.

 

Reminiscing to Jordan Kahn and Irene Virbila, and the Dallas chefs last year.

 

My more thoughtful analysis: Many chefs are artists. You as a consumer may prefer the kitty poster from Wal-Mart. You may prefer the Van Gogh print from Posters.com. You may prefer the $5M original. One does not negate the others. If you prefer the kitty poster, I bless you on your way. I will most likely not see you in Per Se...and you know what? That's okay for both of us. But please stop writing these asinine articles telling me how bad and overpriced these meals are. They clearly were not meant for you.

[cyalexa]

Reminiscing to Jordan Kahn and Irene Virbila, and the Dallas chefs last year.

 

 

What does this mean? Especially interested in the Dallas bit. Dallas is a common food destination for me.

 

And BTW, I think "overpriced" is in the eyes of the beholder (purse/pocket of the walletholder?). Anything prepared by slitting open the Sysco bag and reheating is overpriced to me.

Edited August 16, 2015 by cyalexa (log)

[Alex]

I'm sad to see the formerly reputable Harper's stooping to this ugly bit of trash writing. It looked like they were trying, in some feeble way, to publish an analogue of David Foster Wallace's brilliant 1996 piece, also in Harper's, about his experience on a cruise ship, Shipping Out (later retitled to A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again), but unfortunately they chose an author who lacked his wit, intelligence, and writing talent. She even stole his "cute-misnaming" trope, always referring to the restaurant Per Se as its translation, "Thought Itself." (Wallace turned the m.v. Zenith into the m.v. Nadir.) I can understand approaching these places with a bit of a jaundiced eye, but this writer's mind obviously was set before she set foot into any of the restaurants. I do like this reader's comment, though:

 

 

that’s a lot of words just to say “i’m a joyless cynical wank”

[MattyC]

I want to agree with you. I do. On a moral basis, you're right - to each his own, let the other guy do his thing, etc. I have one main issue with a lot of 'fancy cooking', though and it's why I side more with the article - I know I'm being a jerk with it, so yes, I will say you are correct, just let me vent as to why, and maybe some people will agree, maybe a lot won't. I'm also not saying that the article itself was great either, but I do sort of agree with the writer behind the idea.

 

It's not worth it. Plain and simple, it's not. I know the majority of techniques used with a lot of this - as most people with a tv, a cookbook, or any sort of modern day restaurant experience would, at least to a simple extent. How much of what you're paying is really towards the product, and the time it takes to make it, as opposed to paying the 'idea' behind it?

 

There's a restaurant in my area that was huge for a while. Chef had finally won his James Beard, and they made sure everyone knew it. Every help wanted ad had 'COME WORK FOR JAMES BEARD WINNER' at the very least 4 times per ad. The chef was in every single local paper, everything. One of the papers did an article about his 74$ roast chicken. Yes, you read that right, a simple, every day, chicken, for 74 bucks. They talked about 'why' it was that much. You want to know why? Because the legs were 'sous vide', and the chicken was brined in a 'special brine' for 2 days. But the restaurant was known for it's chef, and they plated everything very artistically, made everything in house, etc etc - all fine things, sure. I'm not knocking that. But a chicken, being cooking with techniques the next culinary student could do from home, in no way warrented 74$. The chicken wasn't even some insanely 'hyper local' farm raised blah blah either, it was bell and evans.

 

So to me, this insane. It was made with modern techniques, it was plated very beautifully, and I'm sure the chef thought it was his version of 'art', or at least in part, so my question is this - why should I support that or be OK with an example like that? A lot of these price tags are the chefs being greedy, and in truth not really paying for anything more than their next restaurant - they aren't thinking of the customers, just themselves. Why should I be ok with paying more for a menu item that says 'Basil leaf in the style of jade "curry"', or worshipping a 35$  gnocchi dish with 4 tiny gnocchi arranged on the plate with tweezers, when it cost them 1$ , and I'm still going to leave starving?

 

I think it's fine to let people do what they do and call it ok, but there has to be a line there somewhere at a certain point.

 

If an idea is worth the money, I think it's great to pay, even if it's pricey, but with so many 'haute' restaurants, it's not, it's just being greedy, because they know people with money to blow with find it "art" and pay 300% the cost to ad another pic on their blog or instagram post.

 

Again, not saying the article itself was great, I just have my own ideas with this sort of dining.

[gfron1]

What does this mean? Especially interested in the Dallas bit. Dallas is a common food destination for me.

 

And BTW, I think "overpriced" is in the eyes of the beholder (purse/pocket of the walletholder?). Anything prepared by slitting open the Sysco bag and reheating is overpriced to me.

HERE's a link to the story. A handful of chefs refused to allow reviewers to review them by not allowing them to pay for their meal, going so far as when a reviewer dropped money on the table, they took the money the next morning to the newspaper office and returned it, videoing the whole affair.

[cyalexa]

Matty C you do raise some interesting points.

 

When I am deciding where to spend my food destination travel dollars I spend a significant amount of time researching. I have been fooled once - a restaurant in Las Vegas in a hotel with fancy fountains. I paid a lot of money for food that was good but not great, however, it was my choice and I knew my meal would be expensive. If the food had been great it would have been "worth it" to me, even if the restaurant made a huge profit off of me and a recent graduate could have prepared the meal. 

 

Greed is common in many industries. I think about this a lot as I live in a state ruled by one of the greediest industries imaginable. However, I am not particularly worried about the effect of greed on people that have the resources to spend $74 for a roast chicken. 

Edited August 16, 2015 by cyalexa (log)

[gfron1]

I think it's fine to let people do what they do and call it ok, but there has to be a line there somewhere at a certain point.

 

If an idea is worth the money, I think it's great to pay, even if it's pricey, but with so many 'haute' restaurants, it's not, it's just being greedy, because they know people with money to blow with find it "art" and pay 300% the cost to ad another pic on their blog or instagram post.

I really do understand your point, but this is the point of the art analogy. I hate Warhol's art and Pollock's as well - like really, I find it meaningless trivial kindergarten blather. But obviously many do not agree. Yet that is the point of art - to illicit a response, good or bad. And if an artist can capture that moment, then they should charge what they feel they should charge and the public will decide if they've charged too much. Warhol's art hasn't gone down in price, so clearly I'm in the wrong on him, but I still acknowledge it as art.

[Tri2Cook]

Regardless of a person's opinions of high end restaurants and what they do, I agree with Rob that it doesn't warrant the person going out of their way to trash them for it. It really is as simple as what he said...if you don't like it or don't think it's worth the cost, just don't support them with your money. At the same time, I think it should apply to both ends of the scale. If I want to go pay $3 for a crappy burrito at Fred's Burrito Emporium, I don't really need people telling me that I have no taste and don't appreciate good food because "that place sucks". Good food is the food you like to eat and "too expensive" is an entirely individual scale that doesn't have anything to do with another person's scale.

[daveb]

I don't get the "overpriced" part.

 

If I go by Duncan Donuts I know a coffee and a muffin are about $3.50.  It's neither underpriced or overpriced - it's a good value to me and I go down the road a happy camper.

 

If I go into Per Se, with date, and think I'm getting out for a hundred bucks, I'm an idiot.  Whenever one selects a dining choice they are buying into what the cost will be and those costs are not unknown.  How can a known cost be overpriced?   I can appreciate the time, artistic value, food cost, facilities cost and everything else that goes into a Per Se ticket.  It's worth every dime.  Reality rears it's ugly head though and I spend (considerably) more time at the DD than in restaurants of that caliber.

 

Don't get the greed part either.  A chef owner artist should not be able to make a good living putting out quality food night after night?  People gladly pay a hundred+ bucks a seat to sit at a basketball game and watch grown men in their underwear run up and down the court.   The seats are a hundred so the players can make a gillion dollars a year.  It's not my thing but if it's yours then have at it.  .    . 

Edited August 17, 2015 by daveb (log)

[heidih]

This response on Eater calling it bad writing and a non review was interesting  http://www.eater.com/forums/reviews-critics/2015/8/13/9148395/about-that-harpers-story

[gfweb]

British food criticism seems to be all about snark and the "clever" put-down. Actual substance is optional. Only the rare Brit critic pulls it off eg Jay Rayner (who used to frequent this site).

[cakewalk]

It's a silly article. Not necessarily bad writing per se (nyuk, nyuk), just a silly article. I think the subject is a serious one these days, and there are valid arguments on both sides. (I don't take a side, but I enjoy the reading.) But if you're going to approach the argument at all, why use a silly article to make a point either for or against?

[MattyC]

 

 

Don't get the greed part either.  A chef owner artist should not be able to make a good living putting out quality food night after night?  People gladly pay a hundred+ bucks a seat to sit at a basketball game and watch grown men in their underwear run up and down the court.   The seats are a hundred so the players can make a gillion dollars a year.  It's not my thing but if it's yours then have at it.  .    . 

 

 

So you're saying that some chefs aren't greedy? As I said, I dislike the article, but I think the underlying argument is valid in some cases - a lot of chefs with this 'fancy' or 'Haute' cuisine are playing too much into the art ideals, and yes, being greedy. Of course we should get paid to put out quality food - when a dish is costed out, you cover your costs of items, account for labor, and yes, calculate a percentage so that you can make some money on it - calling food art to justify overcharging people is silly. And just because you know what the price is, doesn't mean it's not overpriced - overpriced means 'too expensive', so I'm unsure where the comment about a known price can't be overpriced came from. Going with this train of thought, I can call my food art, and say I want a really good living, and be able to get away with charging a 700% markup - pretty sure that isn't how things work, or shouldn't, anyway. Not to mention, I would actually feel bad - it's just food. It won't last, and in the end, plops out in the toilet as waste.

 

Sports is different - I'm not saying that's completely justified either, but at the end of the day, they're rapidly destroying their bodies, and day in and day out physical demands would far exceed mine - and I worked for almost half a year straight, no days off, 100+ hours a week. They're getting paid compensation for having worn out *everything* by 40. Me, as much as I work right now opening my restaurant, and running a company, as it stands right now, I didn't put pants on today. 

 

At the end of the day, whether it's too high, or too low, there are lines to cross, and I feel supporting excuses just because people say it's 'art' is ridiculous. I want to make a good living, support my wife and pets as best as I can, but I know what greed is, and giving people who want to take advantage of others' wallets for the sake of art is just making it worse. This isn't all chefs, expensive or whatever you'd like to call it, I'm just saying - there are those out there who are greedy, who do charge far too much for the worth and justify with an 'artistic' excuse, because they know there are people dumb enough to buy into it.

 

Maybe I'm just going too far, I know this is just about a shitty article, that yes, *is* snarky and bad, but I detest people who charge too much for weak reasons - regardless of profession.

[FauxPas]

i thought the original article by Tanya Gold was intended to be a bit satirical? I found it funny, I thought she was making fun of the usual food critics and their overwrought writing style just as much as some restaurants and their over-priced and over-done tiny bits of food. 

 

But, what is art or food w/o criticism? I think we need more, not less. But this one I suspect was fun. 

[FauxPas]

British food criticism seems to be all about snark and the "clever" put-down. Actual substance is optional. Only the rare Brit critic pulls it off eg Jay Rayner (who used to frequent this site).

I think that Brits use satire quite a bit. Personally, I enjoy satire. But then I am Canadian, so maybe I am in bed with the snarky Brits. 

Edited August 17, 2015 by FauxPas (log)

[liuzhou]

 

 

My simple response is - if you don't like it, don't eat it.

 

My simple response is - if you don't like it, don't read it.

 

I actually found it quite amusing and informative. Jay Rayner does it much better, I agree.

 

But then I'm British.

[gfron1]

MattC "it's just food" What I'm suggesting is that these restaurants are about the experience not just food. I go to my local tavern for just food (that gives an experience too but not one that's special and worth paying extra for), but I go to Per Se, TFL, Alinea, etc for the experience, and that is something I'll pay extra for.

 

As for the 700% markup idea - again I go back to Warhol. And specifically let's talk about his prints. WTF?! You want me to pay a million dollars for a friggin print?! Its all a matter of opinion.