A 'sophisticated' palate

[Fat Guy]

And of course it's always possible that, by applying whatever conventional standards you're applying, you're going to give a D to the next ee cummings. But it's not likely. The "rules" are there for a reason: they work in most instances, well enough to be rules.

[Carlovski]

The only problem with discussing this here is that we tend to only get one side of the argument. This thread follows on from a discussion I had with some friends who are much more of the 'Food is just fuel' opinion.

I think everyone here has a pretty close opinion on what constitutes good food, and more importantly is prepared to try eating almost anything, with an open mind.

We probably need a few more posters horrified by the idea of eating 'foreign muck', 'stinky blue cheese' and 'meat with blood dripping out of it' to get a balanced argument.

[MatthewB]

And of course it's always possible that, by applying whatever conventional standards you're applying, you're going to give a D to the next ee cummings. But it's not likely. The "rules" are there for a reason: they work in most instances, well enough to be rules.

I think we can probably speak of some "rules" as you've pointed out.

However, I wonder if my earlier notation of "breadth" & "depth" of experience isn't perhaps foundational for the operation of said rules.

I'm thinking about Carlovski's "Food is just fuel" folks. My assumption is that this attitude results from a lack of culinary breadth & depth.

In other words, what experiences are necessary (and, thus, a "precondition") for the effective operation of the "rules"?

[macrosan]

Oh yes, I'm always willing to try and discuss these topics again

I think a relative assessment of good urchin against bad urchin has nothing to do with sophistication of taste; that has to do with refinement of taste.

Surely sophistication is determined by a willingness to experiment with unfamiliar foods and flavors, and an unwillingness to conform to commonly accepted ideas of what food is good or interesting, or even edible.

Anyone who agrees with all the expert opinion on wine is not being sophisticated, he/she is simply conforming. A sophisticate would drink the wine that the expert community has not yet even considered tasting, and formulate an independent view of whether or not the wine was good. In this model, the sophisticate actually leads expert opinion.

[Fat Guy]

Oh yes, I'm always willing to try and discuss these topics again 

Aren't we all?

Clearly, there is something deeply unsatisfying to many gourmets about the difficulty of responding to the statement that, "in matters of taste, there's no dispute." So we'll try until we figure it out. This question of sophistication is an interesting angle -- one we haven't quite pursued before, and perhaps one worth pursuing.

I think it's important to distinguish between a sophisticated product and a sophisticated palate. We can call a piece of chocolate, a bottle of wine, a sauce, or a finished dish "sophisticated," or we can use the term to refer to the palate, taste, and attitude of the person perceiving that object.

The urchin example was a poor one, because the differentiation between good and bad urchin is most likely going to be a matter of freshness -- I do agree that falls under the category of refinement of taste. But the chocolate example, I think, stands because better chocolate is typically more sophisticated: highly developed, exhibiting great refinement, subtle, nuanced, etc. (as opposed to better urchin, which is probably just in better condition or from better waters or whatever).

And while it's certainly the case that blind obedience to expert taste is mere conformity, the ability to taste as an expert does is a form of sophistication. Perhaps not the highest form, though.

[Katherine]

Perhaps pineapple and sweetcorn seem a little "homely" and that's why people might label it unsophisticated.

I think this illustrates perfectly the role of personal taste in the perception of sophistication, and thus the impossibility of codifying it as such. Some people must think "pineapple and sweetcorn" to be homely. Sweetcorn on pizza may be very popular in the UK, but to most people in the US it would seem only bizarre, and not in a good way.

Edit: I'll get those quotes figured out yet.

Edited May 28, 2003 by Katherine (log)

[Pan]

For an interesting angle on the development of childrens palates read this article by Jay Rayner

http://www.observer.co.uk/foodmonthly/stor...,568557,00.html

What a great article! Thanks. Heston Blumenthal is a real sport and sounds like a nice man.

[Fat Guy]

I think this illustrates perfectly the role of personal taste in the perception of  sophistication, and thus the impossibility of codifying it as such.

Codifying is the easy part. That's basically what Escoffier did with French cuisine. The hard part is supporting the codification with any sort of rational argument beyond, "It's this way because this is how we codified it."

[Random Alias]

I wonder if having a 'sophisticated' palate has anything to do with being a ....or not. Maybe you can't appreciate certain foods unless you can really taste them. Then again, maybe if you could really taste certain foods, you wouldn't eat them.

So how many 'sophisticates' are 'super-tasters'?

All it takes to find out is a hole punch, some blue food coloring, and a magnifying glass.

Unfortunately, at the moment I'm short the blue food coloring.

So c'mon. Take the test and throw down. Let's see who's got the goods and who doesn't.

It's kind of like SAT scores for your tongue.

Tongue test identifies 'super-tasters'

A simple tongue test can tell people if they are a "super-taster" or not.

Around 35% of women are super-tasters, compared with just 15% of men, US research has shown.

(Continues....)

[mise en place]

I don't find the notion of a "sophisticated" palate particularly interesting or useful. It does tend to smack of arrogance and disdain for what is common. But what I find most unhelpful about the term is that it refers only to matters of taste and judgment. That is, a person with a sophisticated palate is usually said only to "like" X where X is not something common. Merely liking something uncommon is not particularly interesting. It takes no particular skill and is completely uninformative.

What I find interesting is captured by terms like "educated" palate or "discriminating" palate. This is someone who has a very broad range of tastes and can describe clearly what something tastes like. And, if X is a prepared dish, can discern all of the ingredients. This is a skill and not merely the having of an opinion. These sorts of skills are what is to be cultivated if you consider yourself a "foodie" (also not a term I particulary like, but the other choices--gourmand, maven, etc., aren't that great either......)

By contrast, it annoys me when I read or hear someone say, "I hate X" where X is some food they despise. You might as well just announce your ignorance and lack of education with regards to matters of the palate. People who make such claims tend to have quite lengthy lists of such foods and are generally unadventurous about trying new foods.

[slkinsey]

I wonder if having a 'sophisticated' palate has anything to do with being a super taster....or not. Maybe you can't appreciate certain foods unless you can really taste them. Then again, maybe if you could really taste certain foods, you wouldn't eat them.

My understanding of supertasters is that they actually prefer fairly bland food because the flavors are so much stronger to them -- especially bitter flavors. This is because supertasters have a much higher concentration of taste buds than normal tasters. Supertasters often find relatively benign foods unbearably bitter, and for this and a variety of other reasons would not tend to appreciate foods most of us would consider appealing to a "sophisticated palate."

My first take on "sophistated palate" is that it has rather to do with class distinctions, which we all like to pretend don't exist. One with "sophisticated tastes" is able to appreciate those things that are normally consumed and appreciated by people of means. This goes along with the presumption of old that the "higher classes" attain a higher level of education, intellectual development and cultural refinement, which is more central to the question in modern times when these characteristics are not necessarily indicative of one's socioeconomic class. Most "high art," and certainly high art in the classical tradition, tends to be more complex and to require a certain level of exposure and education to fully appreciate. As others have remarked, "sophistication" has certain connotations that imply "complexity" or "the ability to appreciate complex things." It is undeniably more difficult to fully appreciate complex things -- typically requiring some kind of education, although not necessarily formal. Most anyone in the Western World can immediately appreciate just about everything there is to appreciate about a pop song. Not everyone can immediately appreciate a staged performance of Rossini's "La Donna del Lago" with period instruments and vocal embelishments according to early 19th century Italian performance practice. The latter requires a greater level of sophistication in one's appreciation of music (and, to appreciate fully, further sophistication in one's understanding of early 19th century opera). This may smack of snobbery to some, and indeed it is a 20th century ideal that we are not allowed to say that one kind of art (or cooking) is "higher" or "better" than another -- but there it is. At some point one comes up against the wall of making a value judgement.

So, really, IMO it is not the case that the difference between the sophistication of two "palates" is simply a matter of individual taste. It is a matter of understanding and education and appreciation of complexity. A person who appreciates an anchovy/olive pizza over a corn/pineapple pizza demonstrates that they understand the Italian tradition of pizza making, that they appreciate complexity of flavor that goes beyond a blast of sweetness, and that they have learned to appreciate flavors that are not instantly appealing. I would challenge the idea that one can have a "universally sophisticated palate" as well. I have a very sophisticated palate with it comes to regional Italian or French cooking but would have to say that, while I am a great admirer of Japanese cooking, I am not exactly a sophisticate when it comes to that kind of cooking. If I take the time to learn and understand and develop my Japanese palate... that might change. In this way, "sophisticated palate" should not be confused with "refined palate," "discerning palate," "delicate palate," "sensitive palate" and so forth.