High Standards

[jaybee]

The latter. I understood that you had a conversation with someone at that meal that led to this thread being posted.

Actually, I recall we had the same assessment of that meal, dish for dish.

We both thought the board had gotten too dull and needed some (on-topic) controversy, which is what led me to start this topic.

[jaybee]

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?

Do I read you right? Are you claiming that it is wrong to use my subjective point of view about sensual enjoyment to criticize people who don't share my point of view? Oh horrors. What a terrible thing to do.

Sensual enjoyment is not subjective. It can be measured on a quantitative scale. It is a linear dimension. My question seeks to determine whether culinary analysis has a negative beta coefficient in relation to sensual enjoyment, or whether there can be colinearity between them. I even accept the possibiity that they can be positively correlated, using parametric statistics. Using non-parametrics, there is no question that they can.

[La Niña]

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.

I assure you that both Steve and jaybee, with all their differences and similarities, are among the most charming dining companions one could hope to have.

[La Niña]

Sensual enjoyment is not subjective.  It can be measured on a quantitative scale.  It is a linear dimension.

I disagree. Think about the variability in intensity of sensual pleasure. It's completely subjective.

[britcook]

Sensual enjoyment is not subjective.  It can be measured on a quantitative scale.  It is a linear dimension.

I disagree. Think about the variability in intensity of sensual pleasure. It's completely subjective.

I think that's called irony

[hollywood]

Sensual enjoyment is not subjective.  It can be measured on a quantitative scale.  It is a linear dimension.

I disagree. Think about the variability in intensity of sensual pleasure. It's completely subjective.

Perhaps jaybee was satirizing Steve????

[britcook]

Snap!

[Wilfrid]

I think there's all kinds of standards by which opera has not stood the test of time as an art form. A handful of people are working in that genre; one simply has the remnants of a historical canon enjoyed by a vociferous but numerically small audience.

But why not address the question in terms of food? It seems clear that an amazing amount of complex technique went into classic dishes of haute cuisine which we rarely see nowadays, and which we'd find too rich and over-elaborated.

By the way, if this thread is about something else, please ignore me...

[lxt]

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.

Most of people’s actions are based on certain “assumptions that there is some kind of absolute standard”, i.e. truth, allowing them to create laws, execute trades, and set rules of ethics. Every establishment whether in science, philosophy, music or food is indeed relative to the applicable time. Some scientific discoveries become obsolete and false, ethics change, globalization occurs affecting different cuisines and previous standards extend with time. However, in order to move forward instead of backward, current standards are set in absolutely every sphere of human activity, and food is in no way an exception. Your statement of relativism is based on the assumption that the actual nature of the truth is the truth of beliefs. However, the truth or falsehood, for that matter, of a given judgment depends in no way upon the person judging, but solely upon the facts about which he judges. For instance if you were presented with two desserts, a plum-tart and a gooseberry-tart, and stated that a plum-tart is insufficiently sweet whereas a gooseberry-tart is just right, you will be expressing the truth of your belief, but in no way stating the truth because a plum-tart was prepared with a cup of sugar whereas the gooseberry-tart with a half-cup only. Now, the consequently logical question should be why we think that a cup of sugar will taste sweeter then a half-cup of sugar. According to your theory, we should say that we don’t, that no one can really tell the difference because it is all relative to the individual perception. According to my theory and what I believe Steve is trying to prove, the answer will be based on the fact that the majority of people who conducted this experiment came to the conclusion that the amount of sugar utilized effects its taste, and though this conclusion is still based on personal perception (I am assuming no scientific experiments), it becomes a fact and a standard based on which we can distinguish whether a person is right in his evaluation or wrong.

Stating that there are no standards in music is fallacious. There are so many standards in classical music, for instance, that a group of experts can easily determine even a slight deviation from the standard in one’s performance. In such a case, this musical interpretation or performance will never be considered “better” even if liked by an individual with less proficiency in the art. It is only when a composer decides to pass full power to a performer to express his own perception of the particular musical phrase that the composer, for example, uses the musical term “tempo rubato” (a subtle fluctuation of tempo for expressive purposes) and the performer is judged according to a subjective standard.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I think there's all kinds of standards by which opera has not stood the test of time as an art form.

What do you mean? There are operas by Mozart that are still performed today that are what, in excess of 325 years old? And you say that opera hasn't stood the test of time? I'd like to see the format of the pop song stand the test of time in the same way. Do you really think that 350 years from now people will be performing "I Want to be Sedated?"

As for complex technique, I haven't said complex technique by itself means anything. I have said that there is technique that is profound because it offers a complex result. That is why I think we are going in circles. Because the best peach in the world offers great complexity in the simplest way. But it is less complex then a pairing with something that compliments it perfectly. Then it is complex plus. And whether the thing you pair it with is just something fashionable (think lobster with vanilla) or actually can stand the test of time (think goose fat and garlic) is a different question. It depends on what we are measuring doesn't it? Opera is measured over centuries. Food is measured over decades so for each you need to adopt a different standard.

[stellabella]

By the way, if this thread is about something else, please ignore me...

i think it's about peaches.

[Wilfrid]

Perhaps we are just missing each other slightly. I'm trying to say that complexity can't be correlated in any simple way with excellence. In other words, the more complex it is the better it is, is not a plausible position. Otherwise we'd never have stopped serving chickens stuffed with five kinds of forcemeat, with truffles under the skin and garnished with coxcombs, sweetbreads and langoustines, all cooked in a different way, and surrounded by a mighty reduction of a sauce.

And I suppose my other point is that an increase in complexity is not always beneficial. That's the point I was trying to make with the Dylan and Ramones analogies. If Dyaln's songs - and singing style - were restructured according to operatic principles, they'd lose their virtues. So too, I suspect, would simple but good dishes in the hands of some highly rated chefs.

I wonder if the Ramones will survive as long as Mozart? He's one of the relative handful of composers whose operas are performed with any regularity. Most operas were long ago consiugned to the dustbin of history. And I tell you what: I'd rather have ten per cent of Britney Spears than of Monteverdi.

[hollywood]

By the way, if this thread is about something else, please ignore me...

i think it's about peaches.

If you don't like my peaches, don't shake my tree.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilf - I don't I disagree with you about any of your examples. But, that doesn't really address my assertion (or Lxt's) that things get measured based on how well they perform in their marketplace and that those measurements become an objective standard.

[hollywood]

I think there's all kinds of standards by which opera has not stood the test of time as an art form.

What do you mean? There are operas by Mozart that are still performed today that are what, in excess of 325 years old? And you say that opera hasn't stood the test of time? I'd like to see the format of the pop song stand the test of time in the same way. Do you really think that 350 years from now people will be performing "I Want to be Sedated?"

As for complex technique, I haven't said complex technique by itself means anything. I have said that there is technique that is profound because it offers a complex result. That is why I think we are going in circles. Because the best peach in the world offers great complexity in the simplest way. But it is less complex then a pairing with something that compliments it perfectly. Then it is complex plus. And whether the thing you pair it with is just something fashionable (think lobster with vanilla) or actually can stand the test of time (think goose fat and garlic) is a different question. It depends on what we are measuring doesn't it? Opera is measured over centuries. Food is measured over decades so for each you need to adopt a different standard.

It's the bellini standard.

[ahr]

At the risk of offending Dr. Death, who may already have attempted to do so earlier in the thread, I’d like to remove some of the confusion about objectivity and preference.

Normally sighted observers in most any context of time, place, and culture will be able to identify some arbitrary object as being red, blue or green – though they may well differ in what word or sound they use to name it. This is an objective assessment, measurable as well with the instruments of science. (Note that I said “capably sighted;” no digressions, please, about the small segment of the male population that suffers from colorblindness.)

When asked, however, which color they would like to see on the walls of a cell in which they were to be confined for the rest of their natural lives, these same observers might very well disagree. This is preference, which varies by observer, and probably by time, place, and culture. (Yes, I know. Experimentation has found that different colors can provoke different moods and emotions, but people have individual preferences here as well; strange to say, many prefer a lifetime of comfortable depression – or agitation.)

Similarly, when our observers are asked to judge which of two dishes is hotter or colder, or sweeter or less sweet, they are likely to agree, within the limits of precision of human sensory organs. These, too, are objective assessments, irrespective of time, place, and culture.

Now, here’s the important part: When asked whether Bux's delicious artisinal sausage is “better” served hot or cold, whether tea is “better” with one teaspoon of sugar or two (or none), or – Heaven help us – whether Stef’s beautiful challah (same thread) is “better” when served simply with cream cheese or prepared as French toast, our tasting panelists can only reveal their individual, subjective preferences.

Yes, at any given time and place, collective preferences can be tabulated within a specific culture. When these are the preferences of the masses, say for McDonald’s hamburgers, they’re termed popularity; when those of a team of “experts” – whether designated by the French government or self-appointed – they do indeed become standards, for that time, place, and culture.

I’m outta here. I hope this helped. Sorry if I was off-topic.

[Steve Plotnicki]

That was prety reasonable post. Don't you think?

[Wilfrid]

A very clearly reasoned post indeed.

things get measured based on how well they perform in their marketplace and that those measurements become an objective standard

So Bob Dylan is better than Monteverdi, at least? Dunno if he's outsold Mozrt. Probably.

[Steve Plotnicki]

But now you are tying performance to a quantity or money standard and that isn't the way you necessarilly measure it. For example, which is a better indicator that heirloom tomatoes are superior to other tomatoes, their price at market or the fact that between mid-August and mid-September every important restaurant in NYC has an heirloom tomato appetizer on their menu? One assumes that price would follow demand but it doesn't have to.

[hollywood]

Yes, at any given time and place, collective preferences can be tabulated within a specific culture.  When these are the preferences of the masses, say for McDonald’s hamburgers, they’re termed popularity; when those of a team of “experts” – whether designated by the French government or self-appointed – they do indeed become standards, for that time, place, and culture.

If only experts can have standards, what's the point? To establish some sort of cultural one upmanship? I think this breaks down all over. Yesterday, I saw Bill Viola's The Passions at the Getty. It's a series of a dozen plus high density video portraits/scenes of various sizes and durations seen on LCDs or thru rear projection . Actors are taped at high speed and shown at low speed making movement of the actors barely perceptible at times, but they do move and express emotion. The colors and the images are very vivid. Yes, an art critic (or expert) might discern more in these images than an unschooled person but I think they can both enjoy them and see there is art at work. What any particular person might get from the works would have a large measure of subjectivity, yet at the same time I think many would have some similar thoughts. Some might argue that the works are more technique than art. I don't think anyone could objectively make the call. See for yourself now in LA, starting in October at London's National Gallery, thereafter in Munich. http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/viola...exhibition.html

[Steve Plotnicki]

Hollywood - You miss the point. We all agree that everyone has standards. It's just that experts are trained to understand things at a higher level then your average museum goer can. A person without much experience might be moved by that exhibit on some innate or visceral level. But to see it metaphorically would probably entail formal training. Did you see the movie The Pianist (excellent fim by the way.) What is it about? Jews in Poland during the time of the Nazi occupation or is it about advanced isolationism? The answer is that it is about both. But one description is not only a more complex discussion then the other, it subsumes the other argument. Isn't that what expertise is about? Advanced discussion? And that brings us back to the topic of this thread. How are high standards bad?

[stefanyb]

Forgive me if this has already been addressed.

Re wilfrid's opera analogy: true and apt

Re steve's complexity criterium: Theres the difference between implication and inference that can be applied here. Complexity on the receiving end of food, the diner, could in my opinion be one criterium for an objective assessment of the food. Complexity of preparation, on the other hand, would not be a way to determine merit. Its the same in art. It really doesn't matter what it took to produce a painting or any other art object. All that matters is what the result is and on what levels it can be appreciated by its audience. So, its possible to both agree and disagree with steve.

Edited January 27, 2003 by stefanyb (log)

[lxt]

So Bob Dylan is better than Monteverdi, at least?  Dunno if he's outsold Mozrt.  Probably.

How valid is this comparison in the first place? Dylan and Monteverdi compete in different marketplaces. Comparing Dylan with Monteverdi is identical to comparing folk music with classical music. These are two independent genres, and individual performers can’t possibly be compared aside from a reasonable comparison of the popularity between the two genres as a whole.

If you insist on making a statistical comparison, then I’d suggest to narrow it to the criteria set within each genre, that is how many classical music lovers buy Monteverdi, and how many records of Bob Dylan were sold among folk music fans.

[hollywood]

How are high standards bad?

SUCCESS is counted sweetest

By those who ne’er succeed.

To comprehend a nectar

Requires sorest need.

[Wilfrid]

It's necessary both to agree and disagree with Steve.

I think two of Steve's theses have always sat a little uncomfortably together: on the one hand that performance in the marketplace gives a measure of excellence, but on the other that such performance can't be assessed in terms of units shifted or profitability. The problem is that, on the one hand Steve wants to champion the marketplace as where the good really gets separated out from the bad; but on the other, he appreciates commodities which appeal to a small, albeit discerning, audience. Lenny Tristano doesn't perform in the marketplace better than Jean-Michel Jarre by any criterion, but those who have heard of him know he's a better musician.

Steve, maybe you have a way of reconciling these positions? I would take the consensus of an informed audience over the marketplace any day.