3 Most Important Elements of a Plate...

[Craig Camp]

Then what's that bulge in your pocket?

Hey - how did that get there?

[Jinmyo]

A good example of an excellent presentation is the Blue Hill use of a ceramic egg holder depciting spring colors and a little yellow chick.

Was the little yellow chick still moving about? Is this a kind of live food ortolan thing?

edit:

Continuing to read the thread I cleverly parse that the "little yellow chick" is a representation painted upon said egg cup.

Don't mind me.

Edited April 2, 2003 by Jinmyo (log)

[g.johnson]

Taste can have more to do with just what goes on in the taste buds.

Again, semantics. Yes, if taste includes perception of taste, all sorts of things other than actual taste can affect it.

'Taste' is a perception.

OED:

The act of tasting, or perceiving the flavour of a thing with the organ of taste

To talk of the taste of food in the absence of a taster seems to me to be literally nonsense.

[Wilfrid]

I largely agree, but it's not hard to get from there to Bishop Berkeley's view that matter does not exist. And then you'll have to go and kick a stone, or something.

(No, no footnotes, do your best everyone.)

[g.johnson]

I'm not denying the existance of salt in my soup. I'm denying that the soup can be described as 'salty'* in the absence of a taster.

*Unless you wish to define 'salty' as 'containing salt'.

[Fat Guy]

OED:

The act of tasting, or perceiving the flavour of a thing with the organ of taste

To talk of the taste of food in the absence of a taster seems to me to be literally nonsense.

I'm not even sure that's the right part of speech; aren't you defining a verb? But in any event, there are a dozen or more definitions of taste in just about any big dictionary, including objective definitions. As I've said before, if subjective perception is the issue, of course perception can be influenced by a million things. If it is, as I have posited for the purposes of having a discussion that makes sense, "the objective, physical reality of food," it cannot be influenced by cosmetic changes. We're back to semantics yet again, though. I'm just not sure what you're actually disagreeing with. I don't see any debate within the parameters of any given definition. If your definition is utilized, I agree with you. Okay?

[g.johnson]

OED:

The act of tasting, or perceiving the flavour of a thing with the organ of taste

To talk of the taste of food in the absence of a taster seems to me to be literally nonsense.

I'm not even sure that's the right part of speech; aren't you defining a verb?

Not according to the OED. 'The act of tasting' must refer to a noun, no?

But in any event, there are a dozen or more definitions of taste in just about any big dictionary, including objective definitions.

This is the closest the OED comes to an 'objective definition':

"That quality or property of a body or substance which is perceived when it is brought into contact with certain organs of the mouth, etc., esp. the tongue; savour, sapidity; the particular sensation excited by anything in this manner."

Again perception is key.

[Fat Guy]

'The act of tasting' must refer to a noun, no?

I don't really understand it as a definition at all. Is it listed under the archaic section? Who uses taste as a noun to mean "the act of tasting"? I'm having trouble coming up with a sentence where it would be used that way.

As I said, if it's all about perception, you'll get no disagreement from me. Do you agree that the food itself does not change with the presence or absence of little painted chicks?

[jackal10]

While it is true that in part "we eat with our eyes", I think you can over-emphasise presentation at the expense of taste. Surely taste should be the primary element, in turn composed of the five basic tastes (including Umani), and odour/perfume, supported by what it looks like.

This is taken to extremes in the cheats in most food photography - that is not a fully roast chicken, but parcooked, painted and with drops of glycerine. The steam is dry ice. Looks great, but I wouldn't want to eat it. I understand the real food would look awful under the lights, but it is still a cheat.

I also prefer food to look of itself, unless deliberately misleading as a joke. I abhor meaningless garnishes, for example, like the stray mint leaf or parsley branch, or even the carved carrot. I hate it when the chef has thought more about what the plate looks like, rather than what it tastes like

I would therefore re-arrange your preferences:

66% Taste, including interest factor

33% Visual presentation

33% Service: right temperature, and not to long a wait.

Edited April 2, 2003 by jackal10 (log)

[Wilfrid]

I don't think the verbs and nouns are the issue. The issue is that if we accept the involvement of perception, it is perhaps hasty to reject the role of psychology. If that's the case, then elements extraneous to the chemical and physical properties of the food may be relevant to its enjoyment. That's not to say that facts about decorative yellow chicks are central to the discussion.

[Fat Guy]

I don't think the verbs and nouns are the issue.  The issue is that if we accept the involvement of perception, it is perhaps hasty to reject the role of psychology.  If that's the case, then elements extraneous to the chemical and physical properties of the food may be relevant to its enjoyment.  That's not to say that facts about decorative yellow chicks are central to the discussion.

Well I think whatever the semantic considerations are we can all agree that there's a difference between the physical reality of the food and people's perceptions thereof. One is not susceptible to change by chicks. The other is. Again, are we really disagreeing about anything?

[Basildog]

Cabby's point about the presentation meaning the construction of a dish on a plate, stacking , saucing, arrangement etc is a valid and important one.Our Sticky toffee pudding is served with sauce poured over the top.A subtle but important point in the enjoyment of this dish IMHO

[g.johnson]

'The act of tasting' must refer to a noun, no?

I don't really understand it as a definition at all. Is it listed under the archaic section? Who uses taste as a noun to mean "the act of tasting"? I'm having trouble coming up with a sentence where it would be used that way.

It's flagged as 'obscure' which I hadn't noticed initially.

1592 SHAKES. Rom. & Jul. II. vi. 13 The sweetest honey Is loathsome in his owne deliciousnesse, And in the taste confoundes the appetite.

As I said, if it's all about perception, you'll get no disagreement from me. Do you agree that the food itself does not change with the presence or absence of little painted chicks?

Of course. I don't think anyone has been arguing that.

[vengroff]

I would therefore re-arrange your preferences:

66% Taste, including interest factor

33% Visual presentation

33% Service: right temperature, and not to long a wait.

That adds up to 132%, which sounds like a great meal to me.

Seriously, though, would the strong advocates of the importance of visual presentation in taste argue that a blind person is not capable of fully experiencing the flavor of a top dish?

[Fat Guy]

If it's good enough for Bill it's good enough for me. Let's start repopularizing that "in the taste" usage.

[Fat Guy]

would the strong advocates of the importance of visual presentation in taste argue that a blind person is not capable of fully experiencing the flavor of a top dish?

Perhaps only a blind (or blindfolded) person can.

[hjshorter]

Actually, it's by no means obvious that the taste of food is a function of the food's physical and chemical properties alone.  As with heat, while the disposition of an object's molecules is clearly relevant to its temperature, what feels to hot to one person will feel cold to another.  Similarly, the state of an individual's organs of taste and olfaction influence how food will taste to them, and thus one can readily imagine what tastes sweet to one person tasting bitter to another.

Good grief, haven't we been over all of this on various "supertaster" threads?

Does every serious thread on this site dissolve into a puddle of subjective vs. objective taste and sematics?

[Fat Guy]

Does every serious thread on this site dissolve into a puddle of subjective vs. objective taste and sematics?

Yes?

[hjshorter]

Does every serious thread on this site dissolve into a puddle of subjective vs. objective taste and sematics?

Yes?

Ok then. Just checking.

I will need to start buying Advil by the gross.

[Jonathan Day]

The reality we perceive is rarely congruent with the "physical reality" or "objective reality" that is in some sense "out there".

Look at http://www.sandlotscience.com/Distortions/...ortions_frm.htm for (numerous) examples of visual illusions -- note that many of these demonstrations take a bit of time to load, since they use Flash and Java. Illusion number 2 ("ball and shadow") is particularly striking, but there are also old favourites like the Muller-Lyer illusion.

Same holds with food. Setting and context matter. My dinner at Ledoyen on Monday was different because of the lovely setting and the warm service. Had the same molecules been slapped on a tin plate on a rickety table by a snarling waiter, I can't imagine the experience being anything like what it was.

All of which is to say that I struggle to understand how we could ever access purely "objective" taste. As you read this screen, there are "objective" interactions between photons and the rods and cones on your retina, but the brain goes through a lot of work to turn that into image and then into sense. This isn't an issue of picking up one element of the dish before another, or of concentrated aromas, or anything like that -- presumably Steven would say that these are "objective" as opposed to "interpreted" elements, e.g. if the tin reacted with the food, it would "objectively" taste bad. And I agree, let's rule that out. I'm talking about contextual elements that don't alter the chemistry or temperature of the food in any way. And I still think these are very hard to separate from "objective" taste.

(Having said all this, I must admit that I also struggle to see why the Blue Hill egg dish should come across all that different in a decorative egg cup of as opposed to a plain egg cup. But then my sensibilities may not be all that finely tuned).

[Fat Guy]

I struggle to understand how we could ever access purely "objective" taste.

Just because something can't be done doesn't mean it isn't a worthy aspiration. Do you think we'll ever have peace on Earth? Probably not, but let's try. When it comes to assessing food objectively, of course we're never going to be able to do it. But we can try to be as relentlessly honest as possible about the food we're served, because ultimately if we allow our food to seem different on account of externalities we fail as gourmets. That's why professional wine tasters, for example, conduct so many of their tastings on a double-blind basis. It doesn't eliminate subjectivity, but it helps. It's a goal.

[lizziee]

At Suba, they do a dinner in the dark. "The theory is that without the sense of sight, our senses of smell and taste are more astute. 'Studies have shown that directing your attention toward a weak stimulus makes it more likely you will detect it,' says Barry Green, a Yale University neuroscientist who specializes in taste research. 'Dining in the dark may therefore make it easier to notice subtleties of flavor that would otherwise be missed.' " The full article can be found at: http://eatdrink.timeoutny.com/articles/378...78.eat.feat.php

I think it might be interesting to test the theory of just how much sight, visual clues and presentation influences the dining experience.

For the interested go to: http://www.cosmoparty.com/

The event:

Tuesday

April 15th

7:30 PM   The Dinner in the Dark @ Suba! - NYC's food craze!

Type of Event: Cosmo Blind  

Theme: NYC's newest food craze

Where: Suba

Who: Food Gastronomes and all Curious New Yorkers

Age Group: 25-45

The Venue   Sign Up!   Get Together!

[Wilfrid]

Interesting in theory, although as has been observed on other threads the events seem to have a lot to do with sitting on strangers' laps too.

Nevertheless, it helps me focus my question about the Shavian position. Eliminating what I'd rather call sources of bias than "subjectivity" is "a goal". Yes, I can see it might be, and a reasonable goal at that. However, I wonder if it's a goal which everyone interested in food need share. If we agree, as I think we all do (and if not, Jonathan's post explains why we should) that an experience of food unmediated by elements extraneous to the mechanics of taste, is at best elusive, at worst perpetually deferred, then perhaps it's an equally reasonable goal to evaluate an overall dining experience. Perception of the food will be central to such an evaluation, but one will be conscious of presentation, setting, one's own preferences and state of mind, and even perhaps of the little yellow chicks which unscrupulous diners will be tempted to purloin. I think some participants here will reject that as an impure approach; but I'm not sure I want to be a food puritan.

Lizziee's example of dining in the dark seems to me to go completely in the wrong direction. For most of us, anyway, this would be a dining experience completely out of the norm, and I would need a lot of convincing that one's appreciation of the food would not be seriously distorted by the circumstances, not made more precise. In experiments - and I'm sure Dr Death will back me up - strenuous attempts are made to avoid the subjects being placed in stressful and unfamiliar surroundings, because it is recognized that this will bias the results. (Obviously that's a generalization which applies only to experiments where the subject's reactions and behavior are relevant.)

[sammy]

At Suba, they do a dinner in the dark. "The theory is that without the sense of sight, our senses of smell and taste are more astute. 'Studies have shown that directing your attention toward a weak stimulus makes it more likely you will detect it,' says Barry Green, a Yale University neuroscientist who specializes in taste research. 'Dining in the dark may therefore make it easier to notice subtleties of flavor that would otherwise be missed.' " The full article can be found at: http://eatdrink.timeoutny.com/articles/378...78.eat.feat.php

I think it might be interesting to test the theory of just how much sight, visual clues and  presentation influences the dining experience.

For the interested go to: http://www.cosmoparty.com/

The event:

Tuesday

April 15th

7:30 PM   The Dinner in the Dark @ Suba! - NYC's food craze!

Type of Event: Cosmo Blind  

Theme: NYC's newest food craze

Where: Suba

Who: Food Gastronomes and all Curious New Yorkers

Age Group: 25-45

The Venue   Sign Up!   Get Together!

From today's NY Post and an earlier egullet post.

dinner in the dark

As was suggested, more about groping than food.

[lizziee]

Wilfrid,

I hope it was obvious to all that I found "dining in the dark" absurd. Paul Leibrandt experimented with the concept at Pavilion with the Twenty Mouthfuls tasting menu.

I will repeat again Michel Trama's statement (he is the chef of the two-star Loges de l'Aubergade, in Puymirol. He says, "All my searching has one goal: to sharpen and satisfy our five senses. I try always to orchestrate elements for the satisfaction of our senses. For me, a dish should be beautiful: well-presented to attract the eye, aromatic to excite the sense of smell. The savor must satisfy the palate and the crispness between the teeth make pleasant music to the ear. Touch is also satisfied, because at my place one resorts to fingers for sucking a shellfish."