Alice Waters in Saveur

[KarenS]

Thank's Gordon, I have never been very good at typing (or spelling)

[babyluck]

and what's that? slow food and poor planning mentioned in the same sentence? whoda thunk it?

Exactly.

I just read the article (stolen from the lobby in my building -- lucky, that) and I actually came away from it liking Alice more. Maybe because I expected the worst. I loved the candid tone of the writing and I thought she came out pretty favorably.

My assessment was that it was a ridiculous situation, although the making-do with the outdoor grill sounds like lots of fun -- as a guest of the Slow Food conference, I would have felt gypped by the meal, even if it tasted good. There was nothing slow about it -- rushed is more like it. I'm still wondering when she and the chefs got to taste the donated Tuscan wines they were (I guess) forced to serve in lieu of the wine made in the castle where they cooked and held the banquet.

It made me realize that my philosophy of writing & art extends to food as well -- when politics becomes the main focus and purpose behind what you're doing, you are doomed to fall short of greatness. That theory got me a lot of heat among the activist types at college, but I say if you do that, you are starting with a conclusion that you have to prove, instead of learning and growing as you go. She makes edible propaganda.

[ronnie_suburban]

It made me realize that my philosophy of writing & art extends to food as well -- when politics becomes the main focus and purpose behind what you're doing, you are doomed to fall short of greatness.  That theory got me a lot of heat among the activist types at college, but I say if you do that, you are starting with a conclusion that you have to prove, instead of learning and growing as you go.

Very nicely put. I think you've touched on the essential difference between propaganda and art

=R=

[MatthewB]

. . . but I say if you do that, you are starting with a conclusion that you have to prove, instead of learning and growing as you go.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Sounds like you might have a conclusion yourself.

[trillium]

But the article (rgruby's synopsis, anyway) that opened the thread makes her sound like a hypocrite, and moral hypocrites are easy (and, sad to say, often justifiable) targets.

I'm leaving the whole gender thing alone, even though the shit that is thrown at Martha makes me sputter (and I'm no fan).

But I did read the article (and I've been to the restaurant upstairs and down). I thought the article was very well written because it showed everyone's foibles who were involved (AW + entourage and the "we're important people" hosts).

About the pears. I thought that rgruby's interpertation of that situation is a little disingenuous. They showed up at 2 am on the morning they were to cook (were roped into staying for dinner at the co-op they stopped at to buy vegetables (yes, they were all organic) and then got lost). The other stuff was bought for them ahead of time. They weren't happy with some of it (the fish for instance, sounded like it was already butchered into pieces and had salmon mixed into it). I can't remember if they bought the pears or if the pears were bought for them, but they didn't have time or resources to go out and buy more, it had to get done that day. Who hasn't had a little temper tantrum in a strange kitchen cooking for people you'd like to impress when faced with a similar dilemma (in less grandiose circumstances to be sure)? If you haven't you're a better person than I.

Before people opine about whether or not she was being a hypocrite, why not read the article first? Or even some of her own writing. In my own opinion, anyone that pours the amount of energy (and bucks) that she has into ensuring that inner city kids in the Oakland public schools get to grow, cook and eat CP style food can have all the temper tantrums about pears that they want. I admire her passion and drive to make sure *everyone* is able to eat the way she thinks is best even if they don't shop at Whole Foods and hang out on eGullet debating the importance of foam. And sure, her righteous vigor will sometimes provoke a person to run screaming to their nearest micky d's for a fillet o'fish but at least you have a choice, and choice is what is important.

regards,

trillium

[babyluck]

. . . but I say if you do that, you are starting with a conclusion that you have to prove, instead of learning and growing as you go.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Sounds like you might have a conclusion yourself.

Definitely. We all have to come to conclusions now and then to make sense out of things. But please, tell us more about the "perhaps not." My conclusions aren't set in stone.

[russ parsons]

Before people opine about whether or not she was being a hypocrite, why not read the article first?

hey watch it bub, talk like that will get you banned from this bar.

[MatthewB]

. . . but I say if you do that, you are starting with a conclusion that you have to prove, instead of learning and growing as you go.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Sounds like you might have a conclusion yourself.

Definitely. We all have to come to conclusions now and then to make sense out of things. But please, tell us more about the "perhaps not." My conclusions aren't set in stone.

I don't think that "starting with a conclusion" and "learning & growing as you go" are always mutually exclusive.

We can always take this up via Slow Food, but consider (for example) . . .

John Sayles' Men with Guns. I can't call it propaganda. Yet is it "art"?

In other words, I'd forward that many forms of social activity start with conclusions and yet such activities cannot be neatly summarized as holding onto either the pole of propaganda nor the pole of art. To put it another way, the poles themselves aren't interesting--what's between the poles is what is of interest.

To reframe: neither "pure" politics nor "pure" food are interesting. But what's between those poles of "purity"? Well, that perhaps is the staff of life.

Edited September 16, 2003 by MatthewB (log)

[plax]

I first ate at CP in 1986, dragging my parents there when we were on a family trip to SF, and loved it. My father wasn't too excited until he got back home, where he was a volunteer at the local library, and everyone there was excited that he'd been and wanted to know all about it. That changed his attitude.

I was fortunate in the mid 90s to travel to the bay area regularly on business, and whenever I could I went to CP (always upstairs, could never get my schedule organized enough in advance for downstairs reservations) and it never disappointed. Loved the Crafstman architecture, and I learned a lot of what I know about food from eating there and asking questions.

Neil

[Hest88]

I finally read the article as well, and am also baffled by the hostility. From my interpretation it looked like a group of people were invited to cook for a major fundraiser, and forced to make-do with whatever foods and conditions they were supplied with by their hosts. By the end, I was actually surprised they pulled it off as well as they did. (Cooking in the dark?!?) The fact that it was the Chez Panisse team was almost incidental to the story.

[ferdlisky]

and what's that? slow food and poor planning mentioned in the same sentence? whoda thunk it?

[babyluck]

John Sayles' Men with Guns.  I can't call it propaganda.  Yet is it "art"?

In other words, I'd forward that many forms of social activity start with conclusions and yet such activities cannot be neatly summarized as holding onto either the pole of propaganda nor the pole of art.  To put it another way, the poles themselves aren't interesting--what's between the poles is what is of interest.

To reframe:  neither "pure" politics nor "pure" food are interesting.  But  what's between those poles of "purity"?  Well, that perhaps is the staff of life.

I haven't seen Men with Guns -- I'll check it out. Until then, do you have another example?

Maybe I should turn my idea around: if you begin with a conclusion and set out to prove it with no room for evolution, you create propaganda, not art. Of course there are many in-between points inhabited by artists who are political but are not completely constrained by their presuppositions.

My friends and I are starting to work on a documentary and we have had discussions related to this issue about Michael Moore's work and whether it is propaganda. I don't know if I consider documentary (or cooking for that matter) an art form, but the question is whether it is ethical and/or creative. That's a tough one. I tend to think that it is propaganda but that I'm blind to any faults in his creative process because I agree wholeheartedly with his agenda. That's natural. So it is with loyal Alice followers.

What is "pure" food? And what is pure politics in the context of food? Tofurkey? Seriously, I'm trying to get my mind around the concept -- I take it to mean that pure food is on the artistic or mystical end of the spectrum, and politics is on the concrete, propagandist end. So pure food = art and not sustenance? There are a million ways I could take this, including speculating on the existence of a higher power, so I'll just let you clarify your statement first!

[badthings]

The restaurant--while no longer as relevant as it once was--is still very very good, I think. And if it has been surpassed--that is largely due to its own wide-ranging influence.

what he said.

anyone that pours the amount of energy (and bucks) that she has into ensuring that inner city kids in the Oakland public schools get to grow, cook and eat CP style food can have all the temper tantrums about pears that they want.

Uh, that would be Berkeley public schools. Fanny's school, in fact. Which doesn't diminish the attempt. Let's just be clear about it.

Thanks to the Berkeley post office, I just read it the other day, and didn't find anything annoying about it. If anything, it makes the Slow Food people look bad, as Russ said.

[ingridsf]

As someone who is a profoundly ordinary cook, let me say this: Alice, Chez Panisse (upstairs, downstairs, wherever) are what I remember wnen I grab organic lemon thyme in the Safeway. When I was first cooking for myself in the mid-80's, it was a major coup to find fresh basil once in a while. Big news: Shopping IS a big part of cooking. Funny how people forget how things used to be. I suggest you prepare yourself a delicious salad of iceberg, Bac-O-Bits and sauteed canned button mushrooms the next time you're pondering the value of a Chez Panisse meal. If you're still unconvinced, try a Birds-Eye green bean and Durkee onion ring casserole! What's that you say? You understand good cooking's not all technique, and you need good ingredients to work with???...

I have actually eaten at CP (twice, can you believe?) AND both times were downstairs, though I was unaware at the time that this made me a rube. (Naive and credulous person that I am, I enjoyed both meals, though this apparently made me the gastronomic equivalent of a circus bear being fed buns, albeit organic, stone-ground buns. Evil, evil Alice!) The food isn't complicated and this seems to be what disturbs people. It's frustrating to hear people complain about something so simple and enjoyable -- a good meal in a good restaurant that uses excellent ingredients. Good lord, can we save the horror for the day they put chicken fingers on the fixed-price menu? (Rocky, Jr. Chicken Fingers in a Napa Mustard/Marshall Farms Honey Sauce)

[KarenS]

Ingridsf, i totally agree with you! I know where Wolfgang Puck used to eat before he opened Spago- Chez Pannise.

I grew up in Berkeley; CP was where we went for special occasions (or Narsais). I have had the opportunity to work in the pastry kitchen (I used to fill in when people got sick). Everything was organic; items used in season and when they were good. I attended a lecture a couple of years ago when Alice was talking about "the edible schoolyard"- where previously there had been only fast food carts, a cement playground, and no cafeteria. Her passion almost brought me to tears.

She is not the Chef of her restaurant (and has not been for years). CP hires good Chefs. One more time- Chez Pannise has been open for 30 years, and in that has helped educate the country to the point of having quality to choose from.

[maggiethecat]

(Naive and credulous person that I am, I enjoyed both meals, though this apparently made me the gastronomic equivalent of a circus bear being fed buns, albeit organic, stone-ground buns. Evil, evil Alice!)

I'm N and C too.! Welcome to eGullet and thanks for this intelligent post.

How quickly we forget.

[russ parsons]

I have actually eaten at CP (twice, can you believe?) AND both times were downstairs, though I was unaware at the time that this made me a rube.

just for the record, i don't remember seeing anything in this thread saying anything like that. because some people enjoy upstairs more certainly doesn't mean that downstairs is bad. dining out is NOT a zero-sum game.