The Future of Cuisine

[jhlurie]

The whole rant against the middle class, in a way that I'm not sure Mr. Lewis intended, is exactly on topic.

Plain and simple, the culinary directions of Mr. Lewis' hated middle class are not dictated by chefs--they are set by corporations.  This, of course, invalidates the entire quote--but has very little to do with blanket attacks on middle class values.

The middle class has taken the blame for everything clear back to revolutionary France.  If it served his argument of the day, I'm sure Mr. Lewis would be berating the middle class for the exact opposite of what he currently is.

This begs the question... amongst the audience that chefs DO have, is the quote true?

Yes, I think it is.  Chefs are not the captains of culinary destiny that this quote assumes, but in their own space it is true that they are trying to combine elements of different cuisines in new and untested ways.  Is it a good trend?  Well, I'm just a middle class schmuck--I've got no idea.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

What I should have said is that there are many who don't mind spending a relative fortune on a bad meal if, in saying why it was bad, it provides an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge.

I find this depressing.

My apologies to all Colombians and their families.

[Wilfrid]

You surprise me.  I mind spending a fortune on a bad meal, regardless of whether it affords an opportunity for erudition.  I shouldn't have thought there were "many" people who fit your description.  But who knows?

As to the original topic of the thread, I should have thought the trend identified by the Samuelsson quote is in large part an epiphenomenon of globalization and/or world shrinkage (two sides of the same coin).  In short, cultural trends - including gastronomic trends - spread with a rapidity unheard of twenty or even ten years ago; and likewise, few regional cuisines are protected from such trends by geographic remoteness.  It once took many years for changes in one country's eating habits to register elsewhere.  Now it may take only weeks.  This, of course, is a general cultural phenomenon, and has its advantages and disadvantages (he muttered, straddling the fence).

[Lord Michael Lewis]

You surprise me.  I mind spending a fortune on a bad meal, regardless of whether it affords an opportunity for erudition.  I shouldn't have thought there were "many" people who fit your description.  But who knows?

So do I. However, far more space here is dedicated to saying why things don't work than why they do. Although the latter is far more interesting and worthy of attention, it is also a great deal more difficult to do.

[Tonyfinch]

That's funny,Michael. I took you to mean that there were many who didn't mind spending a fortune on a bad meal if,in saying why it was bad,it provided them with an opportunity to demonstrate that they had a fortune to spend. Not that I agreed with that,but maybe you're not the misanthrope of the Swiftian school that I was beginning to think you were.

[cabrales]

You surprise me.  I mind spending a fortune on a bad meal, regardless of whether it affords an opportunity for erudition.  I shouldn't have thought there were "many" people who fit your description.  But who knows?

So do I. However, far more space here is dedicated to saying why things don't work than why they do. Although the latter is far more interesting and worthy of attention, it is also a great deal more difficult to do.

LML -- When you have a chance, please consider clarifying whether your reference to bad meals is to meals that a member knows will not meet his standards before the meal, or to meals that in hindsight are not as expected.

My own experience is that I expect most restaurant meals I plan will not be rhapsody-inducing. That is because I know my own preferences quite well, read considerably about restaurants and can deduce quite a lot from menus on their websites (if any). However, for certain restaurants I have never tried in my life (including restaurants that I know would very likely not provide stunning experiences, which comprise many restaurants I visit), I want to have visited them at least once in my life to satisfy my curiosity about them. Bux has mentioned this type of curiosity in another thread. For me, it's not a question of wanting to visit this type of restaurant to be able to say to third parties I have done so. I also enjoy comparisons across different restaurants, and so visiting new-to-me restaurants sometimes triggers thoughts about all sorts of cuisine-related and restaurant-related matters.  I even enjoy the process of choosing known non-wonderful restaurants, and, yes, after a meal at such restaurants, I may have criticisms that are posted along with any positive aspects.  

Also, I (and presumably other members) do not post about every meal taken. What I post on reflects many factors, including perceived level of interest on the board (e.g., when I visit Craft or locunda locatelli for the first time, I am likely to post), personal quirks, time constraints based on the demands of work, friends and family at any given time, personal energy level and many others.  

[Lord Michael Lewis]

I think for the purposes of predicition I can identify two broad camps. The first are those that limit themselves and aim for perfection with the materials their earth and culture provide, the second are those that admit anything and play the game of permutations.

Sadly, for me, it's the head turning novelty of synthetic permutaions that seem to be gaining predominance.

[Wilfrid]

I think I do agree with that.  I tried to make a similar point on the Papillon thread, and probably did it rather clusmily, but let me repeat my remarks in any case:

"I think I agree with Suvir's sentiment.  I did eat Liebrandt's food at Atlas, and I think my opinions are not much different from others expressed on this thread.  It is great to have the opportunity to eat adventurous food prepared with precision.  And of course, not all restaurants in New York are going to follow the Liebrandt route.  

What saddens me, however, is the spectacle of many young chefs around town succumbing to the pressure to present menus with novel dishes, fashionable ingredients or unusual combinations of ingredients, when one senses they do not have a mastery of the basics."

[cabrales]

I think I do agree with that.  

Wilfrid & LML -- I would also agree with LML's last post.   However, I would add, with all due respect, that mediocrity in restaurants has so many causes other than chefs trying for gimmick-like synthetic novelties. It is also unfortunate that chefs with a genuine interest in pleasing the client and in cooking well are frequently incapable of doing so in my assessment. It's always better to have that kind of motivation and to have failed (at least for some diners), than to not even have aspired (?).

LML focused on chefs' aspirations. I think alot about diners' aspirations too, and how one can mold one's restaurant experiences (not control, but attempt to influence and to choose -- frequently with little precision!)  

[Ruby]

Wow, what started out as a simple, straightforward post has IMHO turned into a complicated pompous high-sounding thread. Sorry to say, when I have to read something a few times in order to follow it, (and I have a good attention span) then I lose it. I'm not singling out any one particular person on this thread--the thread has gotten complicated in a collective manner.

I remember when I first started to enjoy drinking wine but became intimidated by all the knowledge out there that I didn't know about. Finally, with all thise information overload I decided the hell with it. It didn't matter if I didn't know a Chablis from a Chardonnay. I drank what I liked and kept it simple.

Hope this is taken in the spirit it's given - let's keep it simple. Of course this is only my opinion but I would be interested to hear what others think-especially those who may have not posted yet.

[Fat Guy]

Ruby, may I suggest that the best way to guide the direction of a thread is to comment substantively in the manner you prefer while ignoring those posts that seem off-topic or otherwise distracting to you, rather than to tell those who have participated on the thread that they've done something wrong?

When you call something pompous -- unless it is clearly intended in jest -- it must be taken as an insult by a reasonable speaker of the English language. Whether you call a person pompous, or you say the way a person says something is pompous, or you call a group of people pompous, or you call that group's dialog pompous, or you call an activity in which that group of people chooses to participate pompous, it's an insult all the same.

Insults can be true. For example, on eGullet it is always acceptable (encouraged, actually) to say Steve Plotnicki is pompous, or that Andy Lynes is feeble minded, or that Bux is a grouch, or that talking to Steve Klc is like talking to a herd of stampeding wildebeest, because we all know those things to be true. And I confess when I asked the question this thread wasn't what I had in mind. But I only asked the question. If I wanted to answer my own question, I wouldn't have asked it here. The direction of the thread got decided by those who bothered to participate. And I see no evidence of any pompous statements here.

The opinions that interest me the least are those of the people who read along but choose not to participate. I don't waste time trying to be telepathic. Let them participate if they have interesting opinions to share, and if they're not willing to share their opinions I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

With regard to the example you gave -- "It didn't matter if I didn't know a Chablis from a Chardonnay. I drank what I liked and kept it simple." -- I fundamentally disagree. Though it's possible to be distracted by technical knowledge, the reason we learn what Chardonnay is and what Chablis is (by the way isn't Chablis by definition Chardonnay?)  is to increase our appreciation and enjoyment of wine. I don't think complexity is a bad thing, if it's for a reason.

[cabrales]

Wow, what started out as a simple, straightforward post has IMHO turned into a complicated pompous high-sounding thread. Sorry to say, when I have to read something a few times in order to follow it, (and I have a good attention span) then I lose it. I'm not singling out any one particular person on this thread--the thread has gotten complicated in a collective manner.

Ruby -- Thanks for your thoughts.   Somewhat similar concerns have been raised by Simon M in the "Decline in UK Forum" thread under "United Kingdom and Ireland". If my posts have come off sounding pompous or unduly complex, I am sorry they have come across that way, for that is far from the intent.  I know that the absence of negative intent does not address the reality of what you have perceived.  However, it's difficult for a given thread to be everything for everybody, and I'm uncertain how to address that.

If you are interested in a bit of background, I have enjoyed participating in this thread for many reasons, including continuing dialogue with LML (with whom I have not always agreed, with all due respect to LML of course, on other occasions) as well as the substantive discussion.  I appreciated the dialogue with all posters relating to rural/metropolitan distinctions, the income- and class-related matters raised, the references to whether cuisine can be rooted in a particular region or be based on a chef's vision, the position of less talented chefs, chefs' aspirations, the impact of globalization, the possibility of a new generation of chefs in France, etc. Perhaps my listing of all these factors shows I am part of the problem from your perspective?  I thought I would try to put forth mine.

[Ruby]

When you call something pompous -- unless it is clearly intended in jest -- it must be taken as an insult by a reasonable speaker of the English language. Whether you call a person pompous, or you say the way a person says something is pompous, or you call a group of people pompous, or you call that group's dialog pompous, or you call an activity in which that group of people chooses to participate pompous, it's an insult all the same.

Insults can be true. For example, on eGullet it is always acceptable (encouraged, actually) to say Steve Plotnicki is pompous, or that Andy Lynes is feeble minded, or that Bux is a grouch, or that talking to Steve Klc is like talking to a herd of stampeding wildebeest, because we all know those things to be true. And I confess when I asked the question this thread wasn't what I had in mind. But I only asked the question. If I wanted to answer my own question, I wouldn't have asked it here. The direction of the thread got decided by those who bothered to participate. And I see no evidence of any pompous statements here.

The opinions that interest me the least are those of the people who read along but choose not to participate. I don't waste time trying to be telepathic. Let them participate if they have interesting opinions to share, and if they're not willing to share their opinions I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

With regard to the example you gave -- "It didn't matter if I didn't know a Chablis from a Chardonnay. I drank what I liked and kept it simple." -- I fundamentally disagree. Though it's possible to be distracted by technical knowledge, the reason we learn what Chardonnay is and what Chablis is (by the way isn't Chablis by definition Chardonnay?)  is to increase our appreciation and enjoyment of wine. I don't think complexity is a bad thing, if it's for a reason.

Steven, it was not my intent to insult any person or group on this thread since I was one of the first to participate in this thread after Suvir Saran responded to Lord Lewis. I actually said "what started out as a simple, straightforward post has IMHO turned into a complicated pompous high-sounding thread" yet you use the only the 'pompous' word which I guess you see as insulting. I don't.

I'm glad to know that only the opinions of those that choose to participate are the ones that interest you. Well, I participated and have what I believe are interesting opinions to share. Maybe others who lurk on the boards want to also share but are a bit intimidated or turned off by high falutin threads. Who knows? I'm not telepathic either just very intuitive and street smart.

The wine example I gave was to exaggerate a point about how technocrats and 'experts' in any area can intimidate a novice and take out the pleasure of a basic simple enjoyment like wine.  I guess you perceived my example in the most literal sense.

Again, if anyone is insulted by my post, I'm sorry. Since I participated, I guess I'm pompous too!  

[Wilfrid]

Ruby, I do know what you mean.  I am prepared to say that the post in which I analysed Michael Lewis's remark about Colombian families was quite pompous.  Since I strongly disagreed with his comment, I wanted to take it apart, analyse it, and show what I thought was wrong with it.  I find it hard to do that properly while maintaining a jaunty and rakish tone.

It's hard to know whether threads are going to turn out po-faced and long-winded, or light and cheeky - and there's not much any one contributor can do to guarantee the direction.  Happily, I think we have a generous mixture of both on eGullet.

[cabrales]

what started out as a simple, straightforward post . . .

Ruby -- Please don't mind if I am providing context of which you are already aware, but Steven's lead post might not be as simple a question in view of the concurrent discussions in other threads on the relevance of French cuisine, the utilization of flavors such as curry by French chefs like Pacaud, the meaning of curry in Indian cuisine, etc.  See "Has the light dimmed on French cooking?" under "General", "French and American Menus" under "France", "Fusion Food -- Profoundly Dishonest? Discuss" under "India", and "Indian Spices in Michelin 3 Star Kitchens" under "India".  

At least to me, the quote that began this thread ("Food is becoming less country-driven and more and more flavor-driven, with each chef interpreting his or her vision.") spoke of flavor and the crossing of country-related barriers, which brought to mind flavor- and spice-related discussions in the named threads.

[Steve Klc]

Thanks cabrales for reminding me of Steven's original question--to wit I'd answer "true" and it's a "good" thing.  Anyone else agree?

[Jinmyo]

I must be really dumb because I didn't notice Steve P or anyone else being pompous. I value his, cabrales', Steve S', Steve Klc's, Wilfrid's, and LML's posts among others because I have never eaten at the restaurants they have. I'm never going to have be disappointed nor will I be transported by a $500 meal. On the other hand, I strive for more than just perfection in my own culinary work and so read a great deal about that level of the thing. The various issues and perspectives on these issues are of interest to me and it is in my own best interest to allow people to express those perspectives as seems best to them.

[Ruby]

The various issues and perspectives on these issues are of interest to me and it is in my own best interest to allow people to express those perspectives as seems best to them.

Right you are! And I was expressing my perspective.

Anyway, since I made my point, I don't want this thread to turn bitchy so I'll move on to other posts. That's what's so nice about e-Gullet - there's something for everyone.  

Thanks also to Wilfrid and Cabrales for your responses.

[Jinmyo]

That's what's so nice about e-Gullet - there's something for everyone.  

So very true. I'm amazed by what and how much I learn here, and more than including just "including" from you, Ruby.

[Ruby]

That's what's so nice about e-Gullet - there's something for everyone.  

So very true. I'm amazed by what and how much I learn here, and more than including just "including" from you, Ruby.

I learn lots of stuff too. An interesting stimulating website like eGullet doesn't happen in a vacuum. It takes many voices, perspectives and opinions-never just one. Didn't an earlier post of yours say something about making grilled cheese sandwiches?

[Jinmyo]

Yes, Ruby. I was trying to bribe folk into playing nicely.