High Standards

jaybee · January 23, 2003

The disappointment that Jaybee'is asking about in the original question lies not so much with the quality of what's on the plate but in our need to perceive ourselves as moving ever onwards and upwards and a concomitant need to leave the past behind.

Though there seems to be a counter trend going on here in NY with restaurants revisiting the "old" ways. City Hall is an example of a place where the owner/chef is recreating the cuisine of New York from the gilded age. He does it with flair, taste and style.

But you are right Tony, in that my question referred to disappointment that was produced, not by the quality of the food, but bywhat was in the head of the eater.

Tonyfinch · January 23, 2003

Christ Jaybee I thought that you were at least trying to stay on topic. Now you also wanna talk about bloody peaches.
You want I should talk about bloody sunrises over Hawaiian beaches?

Hey-rhymes with peaches. I feel a limerick coming on

Steve Plotnicki · January 23, 2003

There is a counter trend going on here because we are in not the best of financial times. And during those periods, innovation and chance taking are not at their peak. But go to a place like Spain where real estate values increased by 18% last year and you will find some real risk takers in their restaurant industry.

macrosan · January 23, 2003

Of course some things are so great that they transcend this problem-Shakespeare, Beethoven, the Taj Mahal. But in terms of food and cooking is there an equivalent from the past?

Yes, I think there is, Tony. Every great signature dish from every great chef surely rank exactly with the examples you quoted. What could possibly have happened to downgrade a dish that was once acknowledged as "great" ? Our changing personal "taste" ? Maybe, but in that case what about the new up-and-coming tasters who never got to experience those great dishes ?

I totally agree with the main thrust of your post. Gourmets are being conditioned to seek innovation, either by the feeling that their own palates are becoming jaded, or maybe simply in a marketing drive for innovation for its own sake, or by the need to keep ahead of the ever-increasing body of the population to whom the "old" gourmet food is now becoming accessible.

That is not to say, of course, that new and exciting cuisines and dishes are to be derided. Far from it, they represent the dynamism and excitement of the culinary industry, and innovation deserves encouragement. But there is no reason why this should be to the exclusion of the traditional. In fact it is the careful preservation of the traditional that provides the benchmark and the foil for the innovative.

Beethoven's works have been carefully preserved and nurture. That never prejudiced the development of Mahler or Stravinsky, in fact exactly the reverse.

jaybee · January 23, 2003

There is a counter trend going on here because we are in not the best of financial times. And during those periods, innovation and chance taking are not at their peak.

True. Also, there are lots of aging baby boomers and thirty-somethings who want to experience what they think they missed and so marketers and restauranteurs are obliging them. So you have the retro/modern trend. The new T-Bird is a good example. So is that Plymouth thingy.

Steve Plotnicki · January 23, 2003

Tony - But you are overlooking the fashion component of dining. Food, in all of its glory, is mixed up in a social occassion we call dinner. And there is more to the ritual of eating dinner then any one aspect of a meal provides. The dichotomy here (and I was trying to get at this earlier,) is that while food should be viewed through the narrow lens when trying to discern its attributes, as a practical matter those attributes get applied at social events. And when you go out to a fancy meal, it needs fancy food. So I think what drives innovation in this framework is our needing X number of fancy meals a year that make statements about our lives. And eating the same food year after year is a metaphor for our lives not going anywhere. Life in a capitalist world is about growth, and growth is about progress. Food just follows suit.

Of course life is as much about stability as it is about progress. So while the Brits are chomping down on the trendiest Foie gras dishes at Club Gascon during the week, they are also eating their roast beef for Sunday lunch. Or the Americans are having their pastrami sandwiches or Chinese food for Sunday dinner. In dining, the old and the new are exclusive of each other. But even though that might be the case, when we say "better," we are really describing the active particpants who are trying to move the craft of cooking forward. But that shouldn't exclude me from saying that my roast beef dinner at the Dorchester Grill was "a better" meal then my crap meal at Racine which is far trendier and is trying to make some type of a statement.

Macrosan - Gourmets are not conditioned to do anything. This is their chosen hobby and they are looking for ways to show their chops, or flex their muscles if you may. You cannot confuse their ability to do that with anything else. That is the outsiders perspective who doesn't understand their chosen hobby. Have you ever met people who travel all over the world to see the opera? Would you describe them as "conditioned to seek better operas? Nonsense. That is what they know how to do well. And gourmets know how to eat and to tell what is good and what is bad. To speak of them in any other way is as unwitting admission that one doesn't get it to begin with.

Liza · January 23, 2003

This is maddening. Personally, I have yet to eat a fruit dessert made with a fruit that I love in its raw state, that is in any way better than the raw, ripe fruit itself. Just because someone f*cks with it, does not, in my opinion, make it better.

Also, just my opinion, my expectations are usually low as I'm fifty percent pessimist, and therefore there's almost always something that meets or exceeds them, as I'm also fifty percent optimist. Keeps me balanced.

Steve Plotnicki · January 23, 2003

This is maddening. Personally, I have yet to eat a fruit dessert made with a fruit that I love in its raw state, that is in any way better than the raw, ripe fruit itself. Just because someone f*cks with it, does not, in my opinion, make it better.

All you have said is that you don't care for prepared desserts. But for example, the Pierre Herme Isfahan, which is a raspberry macaron filled with lychees, raspberries and some sort of cream filling, is a better dessert then just plain lychees or raspberries are. There is a mulititude of complexity in that dessert that goes beyond the same perfect raspberries that you can eat raw. But of course you might not like it better. But in my experience, even the best raspberries in the world are "better" when spritzed with some lemon juice and sugar. It releases certain complexities in the berries that you don't get when eating them raw.

Liza · January 23, 2003

I think it's really a matter of opinion. :smile:

macrosan · January 23, 2003

This is maddening. Personally, I have yet to eat a fruit dessert made with a fruit that I love in its raw state, that is in any way better than the raw, ripe fruit itself.

Of course, that may say more about the dessert maker than your preferences, Liza :smile:

I think that restaurateurs are afraid not to do something special with raw ingredients, since they think that somehow threatens their position. Of course, if all a restaurant served was raw food, then people wouldn't go because they might just as well eat at home. But I see no reason why individual ingredients, or individual starter or dessert dishes, should not be raw.

Many restaurants serve smoked salmon (bought in) or asparagus (just steamed) or oysters (raw) as starters, and they seem to have no problme with that. But I have rarely seen raw fruit for dessert in the USA, although it is quite common in the UK. The Americans have a love affair with dessert in general, and it has become an art-form in its own right, so maybe that's the reason.

I happen to love raw fruit, and I agree with you that I regularly find fruit being spoiled by a chef's insistence on attempting to improve it. I remember once ordering "raspberries and loganberries" (two of my favorite fruits) from the menu, to be served with a plate of the two fruits covered with a red sauce and with chocolate chips sprinkled around the dish. I sent it back and got just the fruit, then drove the waiter crazy insisting I didn't want sugar, or cream, or creme anglaise, or anything poured over or around it :raz: Incidentally, the fruit was totally delicious :biggrin:

Liza · January 23, 2003

Macrosan,

I sincerely hope you told the waiter to hold the creme anglaise between his knees. :wink:

Gavin Jones · January 23, 2003

I thought the whole reason we disposed of OTC was to put an end to this argument. I give you Rimbaud vs Verlaine, The Sex Pistols against all comers & so on.

macrosan · January 23, 2003

I thought the whole reason we disposed of OTC was to put an end to this argument. I give you Rimbaud vs Verlaine, The Sex Pistols against all comers & so on.

Sorry, Gavin, but you lost me :wacko: Why is this discussion off topic ? Who is comparing what with which ? And who are the All Comers ?

Steve Plotnicki · January 23, 2003

Because the discussion isn't about food, it's about happiness in life.

lxt · January 23, 2003

You see, "good" is a relative word and a subjective word. It only acquires any meaning in a particular context. You could say that "ripe fruit is good" in a greengrocer's shop, but you might say "ripe fruit is bad" at a Weightwatcher's meeting.

Of course “good” is a relative word when it is perceived on an individual level or applied to different situations. However, would the price of the “ripe fruit” be changed because it was said not to be good by the Weightwatchers? It wouldn’t because a set of experts decided that the “ripe fruit” is better based on their expertise, and it was priced appropriately according to the market demand, which means that there was an objective measurement set to identify the value of this product. The situation could be reversed only under one circumstance: if the majority of the population would become weightwatchers and refuse to buy the ripe fruit. Then there would be a different set of experts rendering a different opinion and setting new objective standards. Therefore the question is whether “objective standards” are subjective, and the answer is that they are as they pertain only to a specific location and timeframe. For now, however, the “ripe fruit” is objectively “good” whether Weightwatchers likes it or not. :raz:

g.johnson · January 23, 2003

A pedant writes...

None of you know what linear means. And its opposite is not multidimensional but non-linear.

OK, just had to say that. Carry on.

Edit: Rogue apostrophe.

Edited January 23, 2003 by g.johnson (log)

macrosan · January 23, 2003

Of course “good” is a relative word when it is perceived on an individual level or applied to different situations. However, would the price of the “ripe fruit” be changed because it was said not to be good by the Weightwatchers? It wouldn’t because a set of experts decided that the “ripe fruit” is better based on their expertise, and it was priced appropriately according to the market demand, which means that there was an objective measurement set to identify the value of this product. The situation could be reversed only under one circumstance: if the majority of the population would become weightwatchers and refuse to buy the ripe fruit. Then there would be a different set of experts rendering a different opinion and setting new objective standards. Therefore the question is whether “objective standards” are subjective, and the answer is that they are as they pertain only to a specific location and timeframe. For now, however, the “ripe fruit” is objectively “good” whether Weightwatchers likes it or not.

The only rationally accurate part of this post is the first seven words, in which you correctly confirm what I wrote :laugh: The rest is just semantics and sophistry.

What is "good" absolutely need have no relationship to price.

Weightwatchers would not say ripe fruit was not good, they would (or might) say it was not good for them.

"Experts" would not say ripe fruit was good, they would say that ripe fruit was good if you wanted to eat raw fruit.

Therefore the question is whether “objective standards” are subjective, and the answer is that they are as they pertain only to a specific location and timeframe.

I need a translation into English of this :wacko:

g.johnson · January 23, 2003

A cooked dessert is a "better" dessert then plain fruit because plain fruit applies no technique by a chef and when I measure desserts that is what I am looking for.

This is simply not what 'better' means. Similarly 'complex' is not a synonym for 'good'. If you want to say that a more complex preparation has the potential to be better, fine. But you can't just redefine words to mean what you want them to mean.

Jinmyo · January 23, 2003

Attention:

"Right" now means "left".

"Cheese" means "paper".

"Discuss" means "silence".

Thank you for your cooperation.

g.johnson · January 23, 2003

Attention:
"Right" now means "left".
"Cheese" means "paper".
"Discuss" means "silence".
Thank you for your cooperation.

Good essay on Orwell in this weeks New Yorker.

For the off-topic police: Orwell worked as a dishwasher in a Paris hotel.

tommy · January 23, 2003

But you can't just redefine words to mean what you want them to mean.

since when? :blink:

macrosan · January 23, 2003

But you can't just redefine words to mean what you want them to mean.
since when?

Ever since g.j took out a subscription to On-line OED :smile:

Jinmyo · January 23, 2003

gj, it's online as well.

Um. This is on topic because it's on eGullet and eGullet is about food.

Oh. Yeah.

Orwell wrote a famous essay on tea.

There.

Truman Nabors · January 23, 2003

In fact if raw ingredients or plainly roasted ingredients were typically better then prepared versions, we wouldn't have much need for restaurants would we. So the quality (of a dish) is dependant on the level of complexity.

But isn't this the idea behind craft?

cabrales · January 23, 2003

High standards may breed a thirst that confers the pleasures "of the chase" for one's subjectively compelling meal experiences. As such, standards could add further purpose to one's dining endeavors. They could make decisions more deliberate and more internally deliberated. One could pursue restaurants that one believes have a chance meet one's standards, or one could *knowingly* pursue some other facets of another restaurant. Either way, high standards may permit the diner to more knowingly choose.

Sign In

High Standards

Recommended Posts

Similar Content

Recently Browsing 0 members