Has the light dimmed on French cooking?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Because the discourse about Peter Hoffman’s quote in Adam Gopnik’s article on the decline of French cuisine was so spirited, both Steve S and Steve K suggested I begin a thread on the substantive part of the topic which Steve K describes as, has the light dimmed in France? Or as I might say it in my own Plotnicki-esque style, does the flame on the stove of a French kitchen burn less brightly these days?  Before I sat down to write this I imagined that the entire issue was a red herring. A subterfuge in order to have yet another subjective argument about food. But then I realized I wasn’t going to get sucked into a discussion about whether chefs like Alain Passard are as technically proficient as one like Paul Bocuse was in his heyday. Nor would I get into a discussion about whether the food today is as delicious as it was in the old days. To me the issue is distilled to its essence by asking only one question. Is the cooking in France today as relevant as it was in 1985? To me that is the heart of the issue. And the little examples we can point to, like the Pacaud use of curry just add weight to how relevant it is and why.

Since I like answering my own questions, (a neurotic Jew thing, it’s the forerunner of talking to yourself) I can say that I am clearly on the side of the less relevant argument. And to further fuel the flame, I think the curry example is good evidence of that. I think Gopnik’s article makes that point nicely and succinctly. I think chefs from outside of France still come to study in France to learn French cooking technique. But when they start practicing their craft on their own they turn to influences outside of France for creative inspiration. That is a phenomenon that only began 20 years ago. But it has spread like wildfire.

Does this mean that French cuisine is dying? Not in the technical sense. It is far too ingrained in Western culinary culture to be eliminated. But as I keep saying through the opera metaphor, it is becoming about as relevant to our everyday lives as opera is. It is for the few who know how to appreciate it. The rest of the world is now eating curry and sushi.

So do you agree with this? Have I placed French cuisine in a box that it doesn’t deserve to be in? Please don’t hesitate to say so. I can accept that I am wrong. I for one love French cuisine and I would love someone to show me what I am missing. But until then, please excuse me if I skip dining at the L’Esperances of the world because I know in advance exactly what they are going to serve me, even if I have never eaten there. Of course that is not the case in all such establishments. You would never see me turning down an invitation to Gagniare or Passard. But I am afraid if I went through the list of 3 star Michelin places in France, I would opt out of eating at at least half of them, maybe more.

[Jinmyo]

For relevant threads, please see

here

and

here.

As always, my thanks to Steve, Steve, Steve and to Suvir, Simon and all others who have and might participate in such interesting discussions.

(Dance, minions, dance for our amuuuusement. Ha ha ha ha haaaa)

[Suvir Saran]

Jinmyo.. I want to hear and know more about and from you... you seem very interesting.. And always provoking others for their thoughts.. Lets hear from you.. Please..

And thanks for your encouragement... do we really need more?  But it is always good.

I do not think that French cooking has had any drawbacks any more fatal than in other cuisines.  As the world comes closer as a global village, these boundaries that have existed in the many art forms will get more and more fuzzy.

No one cuisine will ever be the same.  And that is what can be very exciting about indulging in food today.  We may be a part of something that will be looked back as that critical moment in time when cuisine across the world changed forever.  

While we can argue as to who is doing a better job in dealing with the fusion that is happening, it is all deeply entrenched in our personal biases.  But that does not make one any better or worse than the other.  Certainly the pace and style and interpretation will vary, but it is all that need for this world to grow as a world and move on to its next level of existence.  

Now only if our politicians and religious leaders would take the cue from all the many art forms, if they too can walk this path of fusion, we would be a much safer people.

[Steve Klc]

For a while now, I had entertained developing some type of book discussion club within eGullet--where one title might be discussed and dissected over a period of time by anyone who saw fit.  I was originally thinking of either Patrick Kuh's wonderful "The Last Days of Haute Cuisine" or Leslie Brenner's "American Appetite," an irritating, underwhelming gloss.

Then Bux and Steve Plotnicki's close reading of Adam Gopnik's extremely well-written "Paris to the Moon" burst on our scene in two different threads--calling particular attention to one chapter--one essay--within the book.  (It must be genetic for the Gopniks, for Adam's brother is doing some of the best critical writing and thinking in the country at the moment for the Washington Post.)

So anyone joining this midstream--consider buying the book, read that one chapter, it's in paperback and readily available--and let's see if there is interest in delving deeper into Gopnik's essay here as well.  We will quote and excerpt, but you really should buy the book.  Or, if you find yourself in a bookstore, read the chapter over a latte.

This is by no means necessary--Steve has done a great job starting us off.

[Bux]

as I might say it in my own Plotnicki-esque style, does the flame on the stove of a French kitchen burn less brightly these days?

Or who's getting burned in the kitchen today. Update at eleven.

Is the cooking in France today as relevant as it was in 1985? To me that is the heart of the issue. And the little examples we can point to, like the Pacaud use of curry just add weight to how relevant it is and why.

Boy I just don't know where to start disagreeing with you.    Let's pick a new spot, this time. I think France may be more relevant than it was in 1985, or if not more relevant, at least stronger. I should start by asking if you mean to focus on haut cuisine and the influence France has on international cooking or at least western cuisine? There's also the France of the little small town bistro, cafe, local goatherd, cave cooperative winemakers, etc. France has undoubtedly lost an agricultural edge and there's a decline in produce. The international fast food empire has made tremendous inroads and appears to still be growing. Breton creperies now make pizza as well. In spite of all that and continuing trends, I have in recent years, seen some signs of a revival of interest in honest food. Neo bistros in Paris, micro breweries in Brittany and a general rise in the level of bread in Paris and maybe the provinces--and most of all it's not all white bread.

Haut cuisine has certainly become an international affair and no longer a French province. The French are aware of that. Berasategui and Adria will be mentioned as often as Passard and Ducasse by knowledgeable people who care about food at that level. Some years back I asked a French chef if his work in a top kitchen in NY would look good on his resume if he returned to France. He said it would be as if he did nothing for the time he was in the states. Some years later he was still in NY and we were talking about how his NY position gave him clout and how chefs came out to greet him when he ate in France. I mentioned our earlier conversation. "It's all different. It's changed" is what he had to say. This speaks to the loss of status for Frnace, but it also questions those who assume the French are beyond the ability to understand or react. On the France board I mentioned a conversation with a young French chef who chose to apprentice in the states. Not only was he able to make that decision with confidence, but his stage here gave him new confidence. France is not asleep or adrift.

The only red herring is rerferrence to statements about one chef's use of "curry powder." It is symbolic of nothing in regard to this topic.

Does this mean that French cuisine is dying? Not in the technical sense. It is far too ingrained in Western culinary culture to be eliminated.

It is the basic education of professional training in western cooking. Tastes may change and new techniques will join the training, but there's little likelihood that it can be eliminated without seeing a decline.

Much of anyone's view in all this may depend on his approach to creativity or "fusion" food. Creativity is very much of an attraction for me, but it's not a final goal. If the food is twice as creative as at the restaurant nearby, but only half as succesful in the basics, it's still half as good as the other one. creativity is what separates the best restaurants and what makes the mediocre inedible. Creativity will emphasize your strengths and weaknesses. Or at least they will to a sophisticated diner. I think there are a lot of diners out there who will support the latest "fusion" fad because the food is exciting and demands nothing in the way of understanding. I've yet to dine in a "fusion" restaurant that was both worth eating in and where the chef gladly claimed the title of fusion chef.

Suvir is correct, at least to the extent that he says food and cooking will always evolve and that boudaries are getting fuzzier. As France and other part of Europe move towards a union, there will be lots of cultural losses and gains. If there is a European cuisine that develops, it will be most influenced by French cuisine. The other posibility that I see is not a single culture in western Europe but the opportunity for local cultures that cross or ignore borders. A moving together of French and Spanish Basque cooking for instance. These would be interesting times, if we could stop killing each other.

[Steve Klc]

Also, while Steve mentions 1985 as a reference point--Gopnik actually moved to Paris in 1995 and is in essence focusing on more recent history--the last 5 years of the century.  So when  Gopnik refers to new, current or recent observations--"the new cooking in France" or the "lull in French cooking"--he's talking since 1995.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux-Well you speak to many different issues but none really to the point I raised. Which is, are French chefs as influential as they were 15 years ago and is French cooking technique as important as it was then too? Nowhere in my statement do I say that French chefs and technique aren't important. But I do ask what the relevence is to the modern diner of Passard's almost vegetarian, or Gagniare's cuisine laden with sheets of texture and taste. Who are they influencing in your home town?

Bistro cooking, brasseries, etc. are not part of my question. Of course they are relevent. We have copies of them right here in NYC. But we don't have copies here of any of the 3 star chefs. In fact, as Fat Guy points out, Ducasse had to come to NYC to bring the "3 star experience" here. Why didn't we have it before?

As for the French and their ability to react, geez, I guess you either disagree with the entire point of Gopnik's book or maybe you have just missed it. Which is to say, the French  have had their head up their asses for so long, thinking that their system of doing things is perfect (and it was once upon a time,) that the world has passed them by and now it is too late. So while you might want to frame this debate as one of creativity, as I said in my original post here, my goal is not to create a debate about subjective matters. So I have asked a simple question. Do 3 star chefs that are working today have influence on young chefs who are working outside of France? And if you say yes, name some and who they were influenced by. Or do you think that people like Adria and Nobu have more influence on young chefs than someone like Pacaud does?

[Tonyfinch]

The rest of the world ALWAYS ate curry and sushi,or whatever the equivalent of curry and sushi was in the past.Even today the majority of French people have never eaten in a two or three star restaurant.

99% of people in the world do not eat,have no interest in ,and have never had an interest in French food,let alone French haute cuisine.These restaurants run by the likes of Ducasse and Gagnaire and the others that Americans especially go on and on about do have a trickle down influence,but only to the point that it affects "fine dining" for those who have an interest,ie the overwhelming minority.

Top French cuisine IS opera in the sense that 99%  of people never go to the opera AND NEVER DID.There was no golden age when French haute cuisine was at the top a perch from which it is now perceived to have fallen.It was always food for the wealthy and privileged AND STILL IS.This doesn't mean it isn't brilliant food,just that it cannot have lost its relevance because for the overwhelming majority it never had any in the first place.

[Andy Lynes]

If you are interested in eating out and cooking, if you are a professional chef, or critic and are based in the west, then you must understand French food, you have to deal with that before you can move on to anything else. Thats as true now as it has ever been. If the light is dimming on French cuisine, where is it shining brighter?

I will be ordering the books mentioned on this thread and I think the idea of an eGullet book club is an excellent one.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony- You are wrong about French people and where they dine. If you have ever spent any time eating at starred restaurants in the provinces you will always find locals dining there for special occassions. You see the French have spent lots of energy making sure their population appreciates chefs the way the British appreciate football players. 3 star chefs in France are media stars. So it isn't unusual to travel a long distance to eat at a place like Troisgros only to find a family of of six locals taking papa out for his 60th birthday.

As for people who have no interest in fine food, you can't use them to make any point. This discussion isn't about people who have no use or interest in fine food, it is for people who care about it alot. That people in Afghanistan never heard of Alain Ducasse bears no weight on this discussion. Because if you did not already know that when I said "relevent," that I meant *for people who have cared about it in the past,* you know it now.

Steve KlC-I didn't pick 1985 on account of Gopnik. I know Gopnik moved in 1995 but at the time he wrote his article the "crisis" had been going on for some time already. 1985 is a date I picked because it is around the time that haute cuisine "peaked" in my opinion. Between then and maybe 1990. Now to try and move this conversation along, who do you think were among the first chefs who broke from French traditions? Wolfgang Puck is one that immediately comes to mind with his pizzas and his seared tuna dish. Paul Prudhrome and his blackened dishes may be another. Who else was around at that time that was doing it? Guys like Larry Forgione really practiced French technique if you ask me but used American ingredients. Forgione's Terrine of Three American Fish w Caviars was probably the most profound American dish of the time. But it was really French technique applied to local products.

[Jinmyo]

I too like Steve Klc's idea of a book club. I vote for "The Last Days of Haute Cuisine" (because I was planning on buying it anyway ).

edit full disclosure: I mispelled "I" and had to fix it. Really. I had typed "T". Sad, but true.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

A.) Or as I might say it in my own Plotnicki-esque style, does the flame on the stove of a French kitchen burn less brightly these days?

B.) Since I like answering my own questions, (a neurotic Jew thing, it’s the forerunner of talking to yourself)

C.) So do you agree with this? Have I placed French cuisine in a box that it doesn’t deserve to be in? Please don’t hesitate to say so. I can accept that I am wrong.  

D.) But until then, please excuse me if I skip dining at the L’Esperances of the world because I know in advance exactly what they are going to serve me, even if I have never eaten there.

Regarding A.) & B.); be careful, coining neologisims from your own surname, like referring to youself in the third person, is the chronic stage that comes after self-answered questions. And is a point of no return for lonely megalomaniacs.

Regarding C.) the French certainly don't think so and I think they're best qualified to answer questions like this. French cuisine is exactly that, it's relevance in global terms is only important to people like you. in France it will no doubt retain it's hegemony for the forseeable future.

Regarding D.) How do you know 'exactly'?

[Steve Plotnicki]

LML - I do not worry about A & B. Actually it isn't a phrase I coined. Someone on one of the wine boards used it to describe my onscreen personas. But if ever the phrase Plotnicki-esque means as much as the term Runyonesque I kmow I will have accomplished something.

As for C & D. Well we all know the French don't think so. But I disagree with you. They are not the best qualified to answer that question. My original question is about the relevency of French cuisine *outside of France." How could the French be best suited to answer that question? I mean they are in France.

As for D, it isn't a statment of fact, it is a statment of what my perception is. Like I've said, I might be wrong about the place(s). But for my forthcoming trip in May, I am trying to book at Bras, when booking at L'Esperence or Cote St. Jacques would make my life, and travel schedule easier. I just don't have any strong desire to go to those places.

[Jinmyo]

I think I used "Plotnicki-esque" in several sentences today. When the people I was speaking to raised eyebrows or queried, I just sighed and rolled my eyes slightly. From the embarassed responses, I think they'll start using it too. The "plot" part makes it sound as if it means something meanigful, if you know what I mean.

So, we were saying something about whether or not the light has dimmed on French cooking?

[Tonyfinch]

We seem to have been here before,but the world is not divided up between people who are interested in fine food and Afghanis who have never heard of Ducasse.

The opera analogy is a good one.Top opera singers are world stars and earn fortunes.But most people don't go to the opera.They prefer pop music,or blues or jazz or whatever.They are just as interested in music as opera fans,but in different styles and types of music.They may even go to the opera once or twice as a special occasion ,but their true day to day tastes lie elswhere and always have done.

This has always been the case with French haute cuisine.Like opera it will always be there and it will survive as long as enough people enjoy it and can afford it.But young chefs ultimately will be influenced by what people want to eat.This has changed over the years as multi cultural influences and holidays abroad have broadened people's culinary horizons.Thus,at the top level,restaurants like Vong,Nobu,Nahm,The Sugar Club,would have been unforseeable in London,as would places like Zaika and Bombay Brasserie and even St.John.

Like opera,French haute cuisine does what it does brilliantly,but it has always been a minority taste(if only because of the expense) and its trickle down influence is strictly limited outside of France. Even in France,I still contend that the overwhelming majority will not have eaten in a 2 or 3 star restaurant,and even if they have it will be rarely,and for that special occasion only. In Britain there have always been more Italian restaurants than French ones,and still are.

So,no the light has not dimmed on French cooking.Its just that there was never a time when it burned as brightly as a lot of people seem to think it did.

[cabrales]

I can say that I am clearly on the side of the less relevant argument. ... But when they start practicing their craft on their own they turn to influences outside of France for creative inspiration....

But as I keep saying through the opera metaphor, it is becoming about as relevant to our everyday lives as opera is. It is for the few who know how to appreciate it. The rest of the world is now eating curry and sushi....

Steve -- In assessing the "relevance" of French cuisine, I see a difference between the marginal change in relevance (i.e., the increase in relevance over time, relative to other influences such as certain aspects of Asian cuisine or the so-called Spanish group), and the absolute level of relevance (which I consider preeminent, although I appreciate that other diners may not have the same assessment and respect that).  

The *direct* increases in the *spread* of French influence might be reduced in recent years, because French haute cuisine was already at a miraculous level at certain limited establishments to begin with and had already spread. But, when indirect influences (baseline techniques and flavor combinations) are taken into account, I would not even concede that there has been a reduction in the spread of French influence in recent years. Chefs inside and outside of France may be bringing non-French ingredients and sensibilities (including with respect to technique) to bear, but those aspects are not necessarily incompatible with the resulting cuisine remaining French with respect to chefs talented enough to integrate the new seamlessly into their cuisine.  True, the chefs able to manage such integration are hard to come by, but, for me, even before such integration, magical cuisine is hard to come by.

On appreciation of French cuisine by a large or small group of persons in the world, diners choose things that appeal to them (subject to meeting lower level needs, such as shelter, basic nutrition, etc.). French cuisine, to be done properly, can be labor intensive, product influenced and time-consuming. It is not surprising that, depending on the sensibilities of the diners of the world and their lifestyles and subjective preferences and economic means, many communities may not emphasize it.

[Simon Majumdar]

Steve

An interesting thread

Here  FWIW is my take on it

French food is the single most influential cuisine in Western History  and by "french" food I mean the whole gamut from rustic regional to the finest chefs who worked their way through L'ecole. The terms we use, the style with which things are cooked and the ingredients we buy are all a result of "french" cookery.  

In the east, far near and middle ( India, China, Iran and a host of others, excluding those where France based its empire ) French cooking meant little or nothing.  Each area developed its own cuisine and while there were intertwinings because of population migration, no one style dominated a region in the same way French food did Western Europe

Because of it's dominance, Cooking is France has been slower to develop.  Rather than expand, it has been running around in increasingly frenzied decreasing circles.  

At the same time its dominance of world kitchens is declining.  TV, travel and better education have opened up cookery, both at home and in the restaurant, to a huge number of new stimulators from outside the classical tradition.  We can source ingredients in this country from all over the world and, I guess because we have little culinary identity of our own, we are open to use them.  Perhaps sometimes we are like children grabbing every new ingredient we find and using it without thought and dexterity ( one of the reasons I dislike "fusion" cookery so much ) but it does give a breadth of offering that you would not find in France.

From my limited knowledge of French kithcens, they seem much more rooted in their classical traditions to the point that using new ingredients is a challenge.  They cling too closely to their past rather than using the superb skills they have to bounce forward.

There will always be a level at which French food will dominate, that is at the very high end.  We have had this discussion on the Michelin thread.  High end excellence has become synonymous with Michelin and Michelin by its nature is a judge of restaurants by French standards.  However, like all cuisines it will need to move forward or die

S

[Jinmyo]

The infamous Michelin thread can be found

here

while a less infamous thread can be found

here.

[Tonyfinch]

But how much influence has French cuisine REALLY had,even in Western Europe? When you travel round Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece discernible French influence is,in my opinion,pretty hard to detect in the vast majority of places,even "high end" places.

In fact its probably only in Britain and the US and parts of Canada where you find a substantial number of French restaurants outside of France and where French cuisine can be said to have any substantial influence at all. Admittedly those are pretty big, affluent markets but the burning influence of French cuisine outside of those is a myth.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony-You keep changing the demographic group my question is pointed at in order to bolster your argument that French cuisine was never really relevent. I don't know how to explain it any better. My question is directed at people who did, do, or would find it relevent. Secondly, you are wrong about opera, in fact, classical music was always an important part of European popular culture although it has waned in recent years. In fact during the 19th century opera arias were the pop hits of their day in many countries. Finally, opera and other forms of high art formed the basis for many of todays popular recordings. A simple example are Andrew Lloyd Weber's famous songs. They are constructed in the manner of opera arias. And there are countless pop songs which have been  inspired either harmonically or structurally by classical music, if not ones that quote passages directly.

Cabrales-You have pointed to a major reason why French cuisine has lost some relevence to people. Sticking with my musical analogies, the difference between French cuisine and many other cuisines is both a matter of taste combinations and cooking technique. It is like music that is based on scales that do not exist in Western culture, often using instruments that do not exist either which means the technique one has to apply to those instruments is foreign. Looking at it in that light, the loss of relevence isn't a function of poor cooking on the part of France, it is a function of new and different culinary cultures being available to the western palate. That I believe was Simon's point. Your next point about compatability is the issue which started this string of debates which was in the infamous curry example. Was the curry compatible or not? Aside from the subjective nature of the question, along with the various subjective responses we have gotten so far, putting it in that light makes it easy to see why the curry is at the edge of the line on both sides.

Simon-Part of the "crisis" the French are having today is that their refusal to be english speakers has left their culinary stars unable to communicate with the rest of the western world. It is interesting that the cooks who were media heros in the both the States and Britain were housewives, not professional chefs. We had Julia Child and you had Delia Smith. And that isn't to overlook Betty Crocker and Mrs. Beaton from earlier eras. The French media stars were 3 star chefs. But the reason we didn't end up with Paul Bocuse on TV is that he can't speak to us.

Tony hit on this point in one of the other threads (lingua franca) though he hit on it from the traditional outsider's perspective which is, when you visit France the people won't speak English to you. Now that might have an effect on a tourist from Hartfordshire who might be asking some surly French waiter what the meaning of Gigot is. But the French miscalculated and were unprepared for the type of competition that globalization created for the hearts and minds of consumers. They didn't need to speak English to make my life easier in France, they needed to learn it because their competition was coming into my home country speaking English and was competing for the consumer purchase dollars they were used to getting for themselves. Nowhere is this more evident than in the wine business where exports of French wine are slipping in favor of sales of U.S. and Australian wines.

I wonder if a culture that has looked inward for so long can learn new tricks and begin to look outward in order to reinvent itself. For some reason that question is making me think about Club Gascon. And I guess the point isn't lost on me that Pascal went to London to do it. Not Paris.

[cabrales]

Looking at it in that light, the loss of relevence isn't a function of poor cooking on the part of France, it is a function of new and different culinary cultures being available to the western palate. That I believe was Simon's point....

Steve & Simon -- I would agree that there are greater non-French opportunities now available to the Western palate. However, for me, and with all due respect to the existence of alternative viewpoints, the availability of greater alternatives does not detract from the primacy of French cuisine when the latter is at its very best.  "Relevance" must mean more than prevalence and widespread acceptance taking the world as a whole. For example, French cuisine is less prevalent in China or Africa, and for their billions of people, because, among other things in the case of China, (1) traditionally many Chinese did not have the capability (legal authorization, economic means, gastronomic information) to travel, and (2) many Chinese believe in their own cuisine, which is filled with local subcategories and subtleties. Now, it might be the case that French cuisine simply does not suit Chinese tastes, but I doubt that most Chinese people ordinarily living in China have sampled French haute cuisine in France. The same for peoples based out of Africa or many regions in South America.

"Relevance" should have an aspect of qualitative dominance as well. The French appropriately look inward with respect to technique and style (if not with respect to ingredients) because they understand their own cuisine best, and they appreciate how elevated it can (note not in many instances, but can) be. That an item (like dazzling French cuisine) is scarce does not make it less relevant; if it is sufficiently stunning, a cuisine can be highly relevant, if not highly prevalent. Also, that stunning cuisine by a given chef may be difficult for other chefs to replicate (and therefore be difficult to "spread" through imitation or inspiration) could merely bolster how special that chef's cuisine is.  Interestingly, certain Japanese diners appreciate French cuisine in France, a point that suggests the glories of French cuisine are appreciated by persons with non-white backgrounds and by persons whose own cuisine is quite evolved.  

This is going to get us back to whether French cuisine is intrinsically "better" than other cuisines. I admit I consider that it is  , even if it is only because of a limited number of stellar restaurants that that is the case.

[Simon Majumdar]

Calabres - I would never question the relevance of French cookery but I will leave superiority to a discussion on semantics.  It is entirely down to tastes and occasions.

Steve - I think the example of Club Gascon is an excellent one.  Would such a place exist without French influence?  Of course not.  The whole menu is rooted in French style and ingredients.  Would such a restaurant exist in France?  Once again, of course not, the way in which the food is served and ( quite frankly ) the prices would be alien to most French diners.  Could such a restaurant have come to be outside London ( even in NYC ) I doubt it.  It is  gimmicky and hype driven ( or certainly was when it opened 3 or so years ago ) in a way that NYC has grown out of and that Paris would not be able to cope with .  The lucky ( or well judged ) thing in this case is that the gimmicks and hype are overtaken by the excellence of the food.

Tony - to say that French food has had no influence on Spain, Portugal etc is to forget the history of the 18th & 19th Century.  Napoleon boasted at one time that all the countries of Europe ( Britain included ) were French because all the royal houses had French chefs.

S

[Steve Plotnicki]

Cabrales - Let me rein you in a little here. Although it was entirely appropraite to do so, you have used a definition of relevence that has led us down the intrinsically better path. That wasn't the intent of my question when I asked it. I am using the concept of relevence in order to probe whether French cooking technique and creativity are still having the same impact on chefs, cooking styles, cooking techniques and any other important aspect of fine dining outside of France. What I'm really looking for are chefs outside of France who are copying what todays roster of 3 star French chefs are doing. For example, if New York menus were replete with copies of Guy Savoy's artichoke and truffle soup that we had, that would be an example with much merit to it. Or if there were variations on Passard's tomato cropping up everywhere. I want to know if the body of knowledge that we can define as French cuisine is spreading to the rest of the world the same way it spread in the old days. Not the classical aspect of the cuisine. The contemporary portion. And although the question implies a comparison with the impact other cuisines and chefs are having, let's put a pin in that one for amoment as well. Strip away whether the likes of Nobu, Testuya. Floyd Cardoz etc. are having any impact on fine dining. Are the most recent wave of top French chefs having any current relevent impact on what we eat at top restaurants outside France these days and if so what is it?

[Steve Klc]

"I am using the concept of relevence in order to probe whether French cooking technique and creativity are still having the same impact on chefs, cooking styles, cooking techniques and any other important aspect of fine dining outside of France. What I'm really looking for are chefs outside of France who are copying what todays roster of 3 star French chefs are doing."

This very concise and to the point Steve P.  I get what you mean and do agree that the landscape has changed and that the French are no longer clearly dominant culinarily speaking.  That isn't necessarily the same thing as saying they still should be--or that they aren't as relevant--but we don't want to get too bogged down, too diverted.  It's undeniable the situation is different now than in 1985; it is less clear, however, if you only consider what has happened since 1995, which is why I raised that point.

Your point about language--and French stubborness in maintaining their language--is very well taken.  With globalization, new media, print media taking off--there are hardly any secrets anymore within the kitchen--and certainly less mystique.  And to other chefs--we see this French rigidity to form--this sense of superioirty--that things are supposed to be done a certain way, that flavors are supposed to be combined in a certain way, look a certain way--the French way.  To me, this point is inarguable.  It is an old way of thinking that even French chefs working within France will tell you.

But, let's not forget that in the ensuing years since 1985--alot of French chefs came to the US to make their mark and make a name for themselves.  They brought French culinary dominance here.  In the late 80's you had some of best young chefs in France coming here--when Jacques Torres arrived he was considered the best pastry chef in all of Europe.  But he was French, and worked French, and gradually adapted.

Also, let's not discount Robert Brown's point, expressed on other threads, that the worsening depression and economic conditions in France may have mitigated a lessening of their culinary dominance--which really doesn't have anything to do with the technique itself.  Since 1985 culinary schools have opened in the US, too, by French-trained chefs teaching French methods.  It became easier not to have to go to France anymore--you could go to school or work under talented French chefs here. (Granted, certain food writers still feel that there is value in getting a housewife-style culinary degree from a foreign French-sounding cooking school.)

Of course, the most over-riding factor may be that the American media has allowed chefs to bypass the traditional route of working in France with Michelin-starred chefs--and that is no longer necessary for fame.  Fame now has many suitors in the American media.  How much this has dimmed the leading lights of France I am not sure.

Also, while the French had this elitist/protectionist/insular attitude--so too did an anti-French attitude develop since 1985.  How much this backlash has to do with nationalism--versus culinary techniques--is debatable.

Clearly Steve, you're trying to go beyond even this sober assessment--you're getting to whether the French are still ahead of the curve or has the curve gotten ahead of them and eroded their influence among chefs in the know?

To this I will answer as a pastry chef--I think a fairly savvy, knowing one.  There is no doubt that the global fine dining pastry curve--albeit an elite, technical one--has passed by the French and is now being surfed by the Adria brothers and bent to their will.  However, in the flavor curve, also at least as influential since 1995 have been the French--especially two French pastry chefs working in France--Herme and Conticini.  Their books have been very "influential" among working pastry chefs all over the world at the elite end (it is silly to divert discussion of this from the high end.) All have been published since 1995--again, why I mention the date--and all are leading edge flavor-wise.  I'd add another title--Au coeur des Saveurs--by Frederic Bau, too, publishd in 1998.  All of these French books have been published in Spanish, Italian, English and have been terribly influential--at the high end.  Especially in NYC--much more so than Adria, which is only recently influential.

On another thread in Canada, Lesley Chesterman relayed a comment from a visiting Parisian pastry chef who said the biggest trend in Paris now is desserts served up in glassware.  And who started all that?  Conticini years ago, though now that he has been "recognized" by Thuries magazine within all of France and his creations in wineglasses et al--some of that innovation, freedom to explore and stretch has already filtered out to others.  And flavorwise--Conticini is operating on a plane above even the Adrias when it comes to dessert; it will be years before his true influence will be felt with force, a force I suspect will be a gale wind.

So there have been those in France fighting against the rigidity of form and flavor and the evidence is that those bonds are breaking again--perhaps to be constrained for the last time.

So, I wonder how much of this supposed decline is a media-created perception--a lack of awareness--rather than an accurate assessment of what chefs are actually doing?  I think this gets to one of Gopnik's themes--that of being Francophobic versus Franco-ignorant.

[cabrales]

I am using the concept of relevence in order to probe whether French cooking technique and creativity are still having the same impact on chefs, cooking styles, cooking techniques and any other important aspect of fine dining outside of France. What I'm really looking for are chefs outside of France who are copying what todays roster of 3 star French chefs are doing.

Steve -- Without suggesting necessarily imitation or any other form of flattery, I note the following US chefs and samples from the menus currently on their Website:

1. L'Orangerie, L.A.: "Cremeux de Crabe a L'Anis Etoilee, Avocat et Tomate" (Creamy King Crab with Star Anise, Avocado, Tomato and Almond Oil) -- The use of avocado, crab and almond oil brings to mind a certain dish with the same ingredients at L'Astrance.  P Wells' description of this dish is as follows: "My favorite dish on the entire menu is the glorious crab and avocado 'ravioli.' In place of pasta we have paper-thin, round slices of the ripest green avocado, flanking mounds of sweet, brilliant pink crab. All is accompanied by perfectly salty mounds of almonds and anointed with just a touch of sweet almond oil. It can't get much better, much simpler than this."

http://www.patriciawells.com/reviews/iht/2001/2601.htm

It is entirely possible Lefebvre, who, like L'Astrance's Pascal Barbot, worked in the same great kitchen in Paris, came up with the crab/avocado/almond oil combination on his own. I don't know whether Lefebvre had this item on his menu before L'Astrance started up in 4Q 2000, and there are differences in the apparent creaminess of the crab and the utilization of star anise.

Here's the L'Orangerie menu link:

http://www.orangerie.com/menuor.htm

2. L'Orangerie -- "Tomate Legerement Confite, Macedoine de Legumes, Gelee d'Eau de Tomate a L'Anis, Salade d'Herbes" (Whole Confite Tomato, Vegetable Macedoine Style,

Tomato Water Jelly with Star Anise, Herb Salad).  Note the confit tomato, which needs no reference, and the gelee of tomato jus.  

3. L'Orangerie -- "Carre d'Agneau Roti, Caviar d'Aubergines a la Menthe Fraiche, Pomme de Terre Fondante, Artichauts Vieux, Vinaigre et Romarin" (Roasted Rack of Lamb, Eggplant Caviar with Fresh Mint, Potato, "Fondante", Artichoke, Aged Vinegar and Rosemary).  Note the vinegar and rosemary combination.  Does that remind you of a dish you have reported on with respect to a certain Paris restaurant?

4. Aureole, New York -- Jerusalem Artichoke and Preserved Lemon Soup, Extra virgin Argan oil.  The use of argan oil is arguably an influence from France.

http://64.225.79.246/aureole/dinner.asp