High Standards

[Steve Plotnicki]

Actually I need to add more to this. None of this thread has been about my opinion about any food in particular. I've painstakingly pointed out that everything I have said is based on looking at what people actually like to eat and comparing people who don't like to eat those same things to those groups of people. Yet you have to make it personal by making it a matter of my opinion. Which one is it, are you doing it on purpose to push my buttons or do you lack the ability to have this conversation in the abstract?

Edited January 27, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[Jaymes]

Actually I need to add more to this. None of this thread has been about my opinion about any food in particular. I've painstakingly pointed out that everything I have said is based on looking at what people actually like to eat and comparing people who don't like to eat those same things to those groups of people. Yet you have to make it personal by making it a matter of my opinion. Which one is it, are you doing it on purpose to push my buttons or do you lack the ability to have this conversation in the abstract?

It sounds to me, Steve, as though your entire point here, as well as elsewhere on the site, repeatedly involves the sitting in judgment of those whose tastes/palate are not as "advanced" or "educated" or "informed" or "right" or "complex" as yours.

Obviously, I am completely incorrect in my assessment of your entire point, and therefore am, as you said, incapable of arguing it "in the abstract."

I am relieved to know that your point does not involve "looking down your nose" or condescending to those lesser than you. And now, as you so helpfully suggested, I will get back to my Caribbean night.

Although I do find it a refreshing thought (that might even humble some people) that the vast majority of the folks out there who are, even as we speak, enjoying simple (non-complex) wines, plain peaches, and welldone steaks, do not give a rat's ass what you, or anyone else thinks about it.

Mojito, anyone???

Edited January 27, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[La Niña]

I don't like anise, ouzo, black licorice, sambuca, etc.  I do think something is wrong with that. I'm sorry I don't like them.  I can't help it, hard as I try over and over again - but I do think it's my problem.

Actually, it might be genetic and closely related to the initial dislike of Cilantro (which is easier to overcome), so it probably is your probelm.

But I love cilantro! In all its forms!

[tommy]

Actually I need to add more to this. None of this thread has been about my opinion about any food in particular. I've painstakingly pointed out that everything I have said is based on looking at what people actually like to eat and comparing people who don't like to eat those same things to those groups of people. Yet you have to make it personal by making it a matter of my opinion. Which one is it, are you doing it on purpose to push my buttons or do you lack the ability to have this conversation in the abstract?

but you're talking about yourself.

[Steve Plotnicki]

It sounds to me, Steve, as though your entire point here, as well as elsewhere on the site, repeatedly involves the sitting in judgment of those whose tastes/palate are not as "advanced" or "educated" or "informed" or "right" as yours.

Nobody sits in judgement of anyone else. But yes people are told they are wrong for liking things like a McDonald's burger better then one made from top quality meat. And you would probably be okay with that ananlogy except that sometimes you are that person when the item changes. So which shall we adopt, your standard, which I think is a low standard, so your feelings aren't hurt? Or do you think that you can get over the fact that the conversation isn't personal? That we aren't judging people, we are judging food. And when we say that someone is wrong for not liking oysters (me in this example) we are talking about the oysters being good, not the person being less of a person.

[tommy]

That we aren't judging people, we are judging food. And when we say that someone is wrong for not liking oysters (me in this example) we are talking about the oysters being good, not the person being less of a person.

:head exploding: ...again.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well I knew it was too complex for you so I'm not surprised .

[tommy]

Well I knew it was too complex for you so I'm not surprised  .

yeah. someday perhaps i'll learn the complex in's-n-out's of dealing with humans.

Edited January 27, 2003 by tommy (log)

[oraklet]

in my entire life, i can remember having had truly good meals c. 10 times. i can remember who i were with, and where. but the meals i can't remember in detail. this is due, i think, to lack of experience with excellence in food: i haven't been able to analyze the meals, so they've just become a haze of delight. now, someone with more experience could have made such an analysis and told us - to some extent, at least - what made for the excellence. the expressions and terms would be the same as would have been used by the cooks who prepared the meals. they would have a common standard, and know how to use it. and this is true of all crafts or art forms, and those of you who disagree with steve p. should think of how you will often feel that those outside your own craft may, for lack of knowledge, like or dislike what you produce, while you know they can be flat wrong!

sure, there may be genetic, traumatic or other reasons for not liking cilantro or licorice, or one may be allergic to certain produces. but that does not in the least change the common language and terms of excellence in food that are seen daily on e-gullet. what's more, getting acquainted with these terms makes one more liable to revise one's ideas of one's preferences. i now taste and prepare food in a different way than pre e-gullet, for the quite simple reason that i can now, if only rudimentarily, use a suitable apparatus for analysis. i expect this to develop as i dive further into the dialectics of tastes and flavours.

[Jinmyo]

Delicious dialectics.

[britcook]

Much of this thread seems to be built upon somebody's assumption that there is some kind of absolute standard for food which can be judged objectively which is, of course, cow droppings. Our attitude to and appreciation of food is formed by our innate tastes, our culture, our upbringing, our education and our place in time. As in this and all other forms of art there are no absoutes, the only "best" you can hope for is some kind of concensus among like minds. It is the same for painting. Is Poussin or Picasso the "better" artist? If you like Picasso which was his "best" period, which is his "best" painting. Ridiculous questions. Even if you fully understand art in general or Picasso specifically all you are doing is ultimately giving your subjective opinion about "the best". The same goes for music, film, theatre or any other branch of the arts you care to name. Culinary art is no different. So if JAZ doesn't like blue cheese there is nothing wrong with her taste or with the cheese. If Tony's gourmet friend likes instant coffee with powdered milk that's his prerogative, and long may he enjoy it as part of his gourmet intake. Both may be surprising but neither are wrong or bad.

So back to Jaybee's original point, which I thought was excellent and has been (mostly) woefully ignored, which was, to paraphrase slightly, does our education in matters of taste which leads us to be able to appreciate and enjoy more complex flavours take away from our ability to enjoy simpler and more basic foods? In striving for the finer things in life do we lose something on the way? To use the bloody peach example does acquiring a taste for exquisite peach desserts blind us to the simple pleasures of an unadorned peach? I suppose most of us would like to think that it wouldn't, but in some cases it does happen, you find that having reached a certain level of maturity in your tastes the products that you once enjoyed no longer give you pleasure. In a restaurant you find dishes that you might once have enjoyed now seem to lack something compared to other dishes you have had since, which you subjectively found better. Or take bread, mass produced wrapped sliced loaves, the mainstay of my childhood, now seem pappy and tasteless compared to a decent rustic bread. So yes, too much education is not always a good thing, but the trick is not to let it become the focus of your meal. I frequently dine out at places where the food could, at least to my tastes, be better but I still enjoy the overall experience - the service, the company, the ambience and the simple fact somebody else is doing all the work for me. All I ask is that the food is edible and that I am allowed to express some opinion. Curiously enough I derive a certain perverse pleasure in analysing the strengths and weaknesses in a certain dish and even if the overall score is not high I can usually find enough good points to make it worthwhile. All my better half asks is that I don't do it too often or too loudly because everybody else will think I've had no fun at all.

[jaybee]

So back to Jaybee's original point, which I thought was excellent and has been (mostly) woefully ignored, which was, to paraphrase slightly, does our education in matters of taste which leads us to be able to appreciate and enjoy more complex flavours take away from our ability to enjoy simpler and more basic foods? In striving for the finer things in life do we lose something on the way? To use the bloody peach example does acquiring a taste for exquisite peach desserts blind us to the simple pleasures of an unadorned peach? I suppose most of us would like to think that it wouldn't, but in some cases it does happen, you find that having reached a certain level of maturity in your tastes the products that you once enjoyed no longer give you pleasure. In a restaurant you find dishes that you might once have enjoyed now seem to lack something compared to other dishes you have had since, which you subjectively found better. Or take bread, mass produced wrapped sliced loaves, the mainstay of my childhood, now seem pappy and tasteless compared to a decent rustic bread. So yes, too much education is not always a good thing, but the trick is not to let it become the focus of your meal.

Thank you britcook. I had a feeling my relatively simple question would stir the pot, but I was also looking for views on the question. It was prompted by dining with some old friends who had become "gastronomes" and "oenophiles" and I was struck by their inabilities to enjoy the meal and wine for the shortcomings they found. It may be that, in the early stages of gastronomoelia, some think it is more important to be critical than it is to enjoy. As they mellow, the realization that it is possible to both dawns.

[Steve Plotnicki]

It was prompted by dining with some old friends who had become "gastronomes" and "oenophiles" and I was struck by their inabilities to enjoy the meal and wine for the shortcomings they found.

Well I was at that meal in question. And the reason we didn't enjoy the meal as much as you is because we have more experience both at that restaurant and probably eating that type of meal then you do. So our sphere of experience is different then yours. That is my entire point. Your liking it is relative to your sphere of experience which is fine. But maybe if you had eaten there a half dozen more times, and you had eaten in a half dozen contemporary Paris bistros recently, you would have felt differently about it.

This is why I see Britcook's post as a complete waste of time. Fancy relativism. Because Picasso is a better painter then Poussin and we can probably come up with a dozen or more ways to measure that. But since none of the ways will result in a mathematical formula showing that he is absolutely better, Britcook wants to say that you can't make a meaningful comparison between the two. I think that is nonsense.

Let's get on the slippery slope. Can we say which one is a better painter in this example;

Picasso versus the average child in kindergarten?

I would like to ask Britcook if he believes that you can't say that Picasso is a better painter then your average child? And if he thinks that isn't true, that indeed Picasso is a better painter, at what point as you go up the scale of painting expertise does it switch from your being able to make a concrete distinction to relativism on the subject?

Without trying to insult anyone, the only people who complain about too much eductation are people who are having trouble keeping up with the topic. A body of people are allowed to be interested in a subject to a far greater extent then I am and they are allowed their space and verbiage to practice their hobby. I have done this with many of my wine friends who are interested in the minutia regarding wine to an extent that doesn't interest me. And my stepping back from the situation, and realizing that their interest is more intense then mine, and might result in a different point of view as a result, allows them for example to tell me I am wrong for liking chardonnay better then riesling. But somehow we can still go to dinner together and have fun in spite of it. And the reason for that is that although I think they are dead wrong about it, I see their argument from an intellectual standpoint and do not discount the fact that I might adopt it myself if I had a different sphere of experience. In other words, I am trying to be open minded about it based on external evidence of what knowledgable people like to drink. Which is exactly what I've been trying to say in this thread.

[Blondie]

It was prompted by dining with some old friends who had become "gastronomes" and "oenophiles" and I was struck by their inabilities to enjoy the meal and wine for the shortcomings they found.

Well I was at that meal in question. And the reason we didn't enjoy the meal as much as you is because we have more experience both at that restaurant and probably eating that type of meal then you do. So our sphere of experience is different then yours. That is my entire point. Your liking it is relative to your sphere of experience which is fine. But maybe if you had eaten there a half dozen more times, and you had eaten in a half dozen contemporary Paris bistros recently, you would have felt differently about it.

Yeah, jaybee, maybe if you were more experienced you would have hated it too. Don't feel bad; you'll get there

[britcook]

And the reason we didn't enjoy the meal as much as you is because we have more experience both at that restaurant and probably eating that type of meal then you do. So our sphere of experience is different then yours. That is my entire point.

Some of us don't give a stuff about your entire point. Jaybee's original point was not about knowledge as such, but did acquiring that knowledge actually reduce the pleasure of dining out, which you have now fully agreed with by implication in the point above - "we have more experience". But until then you chose to ignore that and go charging off on your own favourite hobby horse (no change there then) and bring all sorts of other irrelevant points in. Cows are still wandering about the meadow.

[Liza]

Edited: Why bother?

Edited January 27, 2003 by Liza (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Some of us don't give a stuff about your entire point. Jaybee's original point was not about knowledge as such, but did acquiring that knowledge actually reduce the pleasure of dining out, which you have now fully agreed with by implication in the point above - "we have more experience". But until then you chose to ignore that and go charging off on your own favourite hobby horse (no change there then) and bring all sorts of other irrelevant points in. Cows are still wandering about the

But your whole point is bogus. It equates too, you can enjoy literature better if you are less well read. That is total and complete relativism.

You are insisting on defining personal enjoyment as something that is set by the limit of one's capabilities. That does not take into account complexities offered by an item that you are unable to discern because of lack of experience. In all of your writings as well as writing of others on this thread about how things are a matter of personal taste, I have not seen anyone make an allowance as to how to describe something you are inexperienced at analyzing.

In addition, you insist that the criteria adopted for analyzation of a food or wine be limited to the criteria you want to choose. Look at the verbiage. This thread is postured on the concept of "enjoyment." What about people who eat and drink for cerebral purposes? Where is there room allowed for their hobby? You might eat for sensual pleasure but why can't the people at this dinner eat out for the purpose of comparing that meal analytically to other meals? Why can't their enjoyment be cerebral as well as sensual? And why can't people who eat and drink in that matter think that people are wrong about eating only from a sensual perspective? Isn't Jaybee's post a backdoor way of criticizing people with too much analytical experience so it "hampers" their ability to enjoy the meal?

It seems to me, and a number of us have been saying this, that the concept of "reasonableness" takes all these things into consideration. Sphere of experience, sensual pleasure, analytical capability. And I see that people like you are willing to discard that reasonableness when you get to the limit of your own capabilities. Well I hope you enjoy that spot. I would like better then that and you are going to have to excuse me if I state that out loud.

[Tonyfinch]

And the reason we didn't enjoy the meal as much as you is because we have more experience both at that restaurant and probably eating that type of meal then you do. So our sphere of experience is different then yours.

Why you didn't enjoy the meal is not germane to the topic. Jaybee's question was whether those who move in your "sphere of experience" inevitably moan and complain in restaurants because 99% of them don't meet your standards.

If the answer to that is "yes" then all I can say is you all may well be knowledgeable but you must make dreadfully dismal dining companions.

[jaybee]

It was prompted by dining with some old friends who had become "gastronomes" and "oenophiles" and I was struck by their inabilities to enjoy the meal and wine for the shortcomings they found.

Well I was at that meal in question. And the reason we didn't enjoy the meal as much as you is because we have more experience both at that restaurant and probably eating that type of meal then you do.

No, Steve I was not referring to Babbo or any other meal with you. I was referring to a meal I had with two old friends I hadn't seen in a while. Since I had last seen them they had gotten more into food and wine. I was reminded of the quote "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." Alexander Pope (1688-1744) - An Essay on Criticism .

I will ignore your proposed reason why I enjoyed that meal more than you.

Edited January 27, 2003 by jaybee (log)

[tommy]

plotz spends an inordinate amount of time explaining his point to people who clearly don't give a shit.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Some of us don't give a stuff about your entire point. Jaybee's original point was not about knowledge as such, but did acquiring that knowledge actually reduce the pleasure of dining out, which you have now fully agreed with by implication in the point above - "we have more experience". But until then you chose to ignore that and go charging off on your own favourite hobby horse (no change there then) and bring all sorts of other irrelevant points in. Cows are still wandering about the

Britcook - But your whole point is bogus. It equates too, you can enjoy literature better if you are less well read. That is total and complete relativism.

You are insisting on defining personal enjoyment as something that is set by the limit of one's capabilities. That does not take into account complexities offered by an item that you are unable to discern because of lack of experience. In all of your writings as well as writing of others on this thread about how things are a matter of personal taste, I have not seen anyone make an allowance as to how to describe something you are inexperienced at analyzing.

In addition, you insist that the criteria adopted for analyzation of a food or wine be limited to the criteria you want to choose. Look at the verbiage. This thread is postured on the concept of "enjoyment." What about people who eat and drink for cerebral purposes? Where is there room allowed for their hobby? You might eat for sensual pleasure but why can't the people at this dinner eat out for the purpose of comparing that meal analytically to other meals? Why can't their enjoyment be cerebral as well as sensual? And why can't people who eat and drink in that manner think that people are wrong about eating only from a sensual perspective? Isn't Jaybee's post a backdoor way of criticizing people with too much analytical experience so it "hampers" their ability to enjoy the meal?

It seems to me, and a number of us have been saying this, that the concept of "reasonableness" takes all these things into consideration. Sphere of experience, sensual pleasure, analytical capability. And I see that people like you are willing to discard that reasonableness when you get to the limit of your own capabilities. Well I hope you enjoy that spot. I would like better then that and you are going to have to excuse me if I state that out loud.

Tony - Why, when we are served something good we enjoy it. I loved New Tayeb didn't I? Why? Because it is good. What we were served at the meal Jaybee was referring too was not very good.

This all gets back to people being able to identify good from bad and my example about Tesco. I submit, people shop in Tesco instead of Borough Market because they don't know, or don't care about the difference (mind you I am not dealing with people who do it for economic reasons.) Those people are wrong about it because much of what they sell at Tesco is unacceptable when you apply any quality standard to it. But I am sure there are families all over Britain who eat all of their meals with food bought at Tesco and think they are delicious.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Ah that's not what I heard (and what I heard might have been wong.) I had heard it came out a discussion you had at DiFara's about a meal we had together at a certain NYC restaurant. But even if that is incorrect, the meal I am referring too is a good example for what we are discussing. You liked it more then we did. Why?

[jaybee]

It was prompted by dining with some old friends who had become "gastronomes" and "oenophiles" and I was struck by their inabilities to enjoy the meal and wine for the shortcomings they found.

Well I was at that meal in question. And the reason we didn't enjoy the meal as much as you is because we have more experience both at that restaurant and probably eating that type of meal then you do. So our sphere of experience is different then yours. That is my entire point. Your liking it is relative to your sphere of experience which is fine. But maybe if you had eaten there a half dozen more times, and you had eaten in a half dozen contemporary Paris bistros recently, you would have felt differently about it.

Yeah, jaybee, maybe if you were more experienced you would have hated it too. Don't feel bad; you'll get there

[Sandra Levine]

plotz spends an inordinate amount of time explaining his point to people who clearly don't give a shit. 

...which raises the question, "Why do they responding?"

[SobaAddict70]

...which raises the question, "Why do they responding?"

It's a vast conspiracy (mostly by committee) of undetermined politics to raise Plotz's post count so that it will eventually exceed that of our Fearless Eater....er, Leader.

Yeah, that's it.

SA