Why is Haute not Hot?

[zora]

So I was just eating some incredibly delicious leftovers from this great Indian place, Mina. And each bite was wonderfully distinct and balanced and perfectly textured and spiced...and HOT.

Which made me wonder, why is haute cuisine never hot? Is spiciness an irredeemable marker of "ethnic" food? Is this changing as chefs explore more world cuisines? (Rick Bayless? But then all the "nouveau" recipes in "Mexico: One Plate at a Time" are relatively mild...)

Or is it just a business decision: Most people with money to burn don't have a palate for hot stuff? Or do some four-star-restaurant-goers out there long for spice when they sit down at white tablecloths?

I'm dealing in stereotypes just to start a discussion...What do y'all think?

[ExtraMSG]

I think ethnic ingredients and preparations are sneaking in to lots of fine dining, including spiciness, at least New American fine dining.

I think it's just a matter of tradition. 1) fine dining stemming mostly from French doesn't have a strong tradition of using heat, 2) subtlety has often been a goal of fine dining, which heat is thought to destroy.

I also don't know how wine drinking plays into this. A lot of these places make a lot of money off of wine and I don't know how well (not being a wine drinker) most wines match up with spicy foods.

[Suzanne F]

I think ethnic ingredients and preparations are sneaking in to lots of fine dining, including spiciness, at least New American fine dining.

Absolutely. Look at restaurants like Tabla and now The Biltmore Room in NYC: three stars, and not timid in their spicing.

I think it's just a matter of tradition. 1) fine dining stemming mostly from French doesn't have a strong tradition of using heat, 2) subtlety has often been a goal of fine dining, which heat is thought to destroy.

Food can be both hot AND subtly flavored, it just takes a chef who really understands how to balance the flavors.

I also don't know how wine drinking plays into this.  A lot of these places make a lot of money off of wine and I don't know how well (not being a wine drinker) most wines match up with spicy foods.

While most wines may not match up, there are many that do. A wine director should know how to match wines with the restaurant's food. Whatever the food might be like. That's why even on its modest scale, Amma is such a joy: well-spiced, subtle, balanced food and wine suggestions that work.

[Fat Guy]

Heat and spice are really two different things, and French haute cuisine has been behind the curve with respect to both. There are a couple of practitioners, like Roellinger and Gagnaire, who have done a lot of work with a broad array of spices, but for the most part French cuisine -- both haute and popular -- is based on herbs and not spices, and certainly not capsicum peppers.

Elsewhere, however, there's no shortage of spice in haute cuisine. The fusion trend is so well established in the US that it's not even a trend -- it's old news. Jean-Georges Vongerichten, Gray Kunz, Nobu Matsuhisa . . . plenty of spice. Still not a lot of heat, however -- except in the case of some Nobu dishes.

I think the reasons you don't see many spices or any heat in traditional haute cuisine are mosty historical, but I think the reason you don't see heavy heat in any haute cuisine is that it's too overwhelming. A little heat as part of an overal complex blend of seasonings is one thing -- at that point it can be a flavor enhancer and can add balance to a dish -- but mouth-numbing heat makes fine ingredients pretty much a waste of time. Since so much of modern haute cuisine is focused on excellent ingredients and subtlety of flavor, it's hard to imagine high heat ever fitting into that matrix.

[Cynthia G]

I tend to like Pinot Noir or a big Zin with hot/spicy foods. Which I eat a lot of here in New Mexico.

[Pan]

Fat Guy, some of the dishes at Amma were too hot for my mother, but that doesn't make the fine ingredients in them a waste of time for those (like me) who enjoy a robust level of capsicum.

[ExtraMSG]

Heat and spice are really two different things, and French haute cuisine has been behind the curve with respect to both. There are a couple of practitioners, like Roellinger and Gagnaire, who have done a lot of work with a broad array of spices, but for the most part French cuisine -- both haute and popular -- is based on herbs and not spices, and certainly not capsicum peppers.

We do need to just start using better words than "heat" or "hot":

* This food is hot. It spilled and burned me.

* This food is hot. My lips and tongue are tingling.

* This food is hot. It's helping my digestion.

I like "hot" for the first one, "spicy" for the second, and "warming" for the third. But I'm sure we'll just keep on using "hot" for everything. "Spicy" even means both the second and third.

Elsewhere, however, there's no shortage of spice in haute cuisine. The fusion trend is so well established in the US that it's not even a trend -- it's old news. Jean-Georges Vongerichten, Gray Kunz, Nobu Matsuhisa . . . plenty of spice. Still not a lot of heat, however -- except in the case of some Nobu dishes.

I don't think it's very widespread, though. You name primarily NY references. Chicago does have Arun's, a Thai restaurant that attempts a haute dining experience. Trotter's and Tru both in Chicago both use fusion bits here and there, but I never got anything remotely spicy or picante there. Maybe Trotter's Cabo restaurant. The Mansion in Dallas does SW haute cuisine that has some spiciness. If you do a search in Mobil for four and five star restaurants they're almost all French and New American. (Even Italian rarely makes it and they've recently cut out some like Arun's from ****.)

I think one of the big problems is that ethnic food is so associated with low-cost food that it doesn't give those foods much of a chance to make it as haute cuisine.

eg, Cafe Azul here in Portland, the best Mexican food restaurant I've ever been to in the US (and better than most I've been to in Mexico) recently closed. I loved them, but people often complained because their entrees were $15-20 (second tier pricing in Portland; our highest places are only in the $20-$30 range, really). Mexican food, they would say, should only be $10 at the most. It didn't matter that she was making complex, wonderful moles and using fresh, high quality ingredients. Even wealthier people associated the food with its cheaper cousin.

I would love it if Indian, Thai, Sichuan, Mexican, etc, were allowed to attempt haute cuisine. But the market, especially as you move down to towns of only 200k or 100k and below, just doesn't support it.

I think the reasons you don't see many spices or any heat in traditional haute cuisine are mosty historical, but I think the reason you don't see heavy heat in any haute cuisine is that it's too overwhelming. A little heat as part of an overal complex blend of seasonings is one thing -- at that point it can be a flavor enhancer and can add balance to a dish -- but mouth-numbing heat makes fine ingredients pretty much a waste of time. Since so much of modern haute cuisine is focused on excellent ingredients and subtlety of flavor, it's hard to imagine high heat ever fitting into that matrix.

I think truly spicy food can be used if used with smart and creative menu and dish planning. eg, just like the contrast between hot and cold (temperature) on a plate, you can have spicy and taste-bud cooling items. So, you could have several slices of venison or elk or bison tenderloin cooked medium rare and infused with lemongrass and galangal sauced with a spicy green curry and a cooling sweet coconut milk sauce. Spicy foods may be a good excuse to use bolder flavors, such as game meats.

Likewise, if you're doing a chef's menu, the chef can create a progression of dishes. eg, he can increase the spiciness as the meal moves along. Or, he can alternate spicy and mouth-cooling dishes.

I think spiciness also often balances out flavors making a more subtle and complex product in the end. Thai curries are an excellent example because of their use of coconut milk. I think coconut milk has a very overwhelmingly uninteresting flavor by itself. Only with enough spice does its flavor get balanced, imo. And with the other strong and aromatic flavors of galangal, lemongrass, cilantro, fish sauce, lime juice, etc, you actually tone down these flavors with the spiciness and create a balance whole that takes an aware palate to distinguish. All the flavors are bold, but well-balanced they make a whole that has a type of subtlety.

But that does mean you have to use meats, fishes, and vegetables that are up to this overall bold creation. But what's wrong with that? There are a lot of great aggressive ingredients out there.

[Fat Guy]

We do need to just start using better words than "heat" or "hot":

* This food is hot. It spilled and burned me.

* This food is hot. My lips and tongue are tingling.

* This food is hot. It's helping my digestion.

I like "hot" for the first one, "spicy" for the second, and "warming" for the third. But I'm sure we'll just keep on using "hot" for everything. "Spicy" even means both the second and third.

What I'm saying is that spices aren't necessarily hot (as in piquant due to capsicum) at all: coriander, cumin, cinnamon, etc. Spicy food can be spicy food without any capsicum at all. And what I'm saying, further, is that the examples of spices (not capsicum, but spices) being used in haute cuisine are legion. You even see some of it in France, and here in the US you see it at most every contemporary haute restaurant -- you'll even see spice-rubbed lobster at Gramercy Tavern, etc. What you won't see in most any haute restaurant is use of capsicum beyond a very low level of application. Because in my opinion it does -- and here I disagree fundamentally with Pan -- mask the subtle flavors of the best ingredients. There's simply no point in acquiring the top grade of shrimp from the Gulf and then blowing them out with capsicum. And I think that opinion is shared by pretty much every haute cuisine chef, so even if it's wrong it's still the explanation!

[mongo_jones]

There's simply no point in acquiring the top grade of shrimp from the Gulf and then blowing them out with capsicum. And I think that opinion is shared by pretty much every haute cuisine chef, so even if it's wrong it's still the explanation!

oh man, i guess those haute cuisine chefs need to send memos to cooks in bengal and kerala in india who've been ruining top-grade shrimp and lobster for years now with their heat and pepper.

[foodie52]

Has haute cuisine been defined?

You can have two restaurants using the same ingredients and coming out with different dishes. We've got a wonderful restaurant here called Fonda San Miguel. The chef creates amazing Interior Mexican dishes, some of them quite spicy, using anchos, guajillos, chipotles...you name it. I consider his food "haute" cuisine because his flavors are so finely balanced that the spices never interfere with his featured ingredient. And he only uses the best. Presentation is also a key factor.

Meanwhile, down the road, a TexMex place is using the same ingredients...pork, chipotles, cheese...but coming up with a totally different cuisine. And it ain't haute!

[Suzanne F]

Let's look at this question from the colonizer/colonized dichotomy: In terms of straight culture, all colonizing nations attempt to impose their ideals on their colonies. When the British, Dutch -- and to a lesser degree, Spanish -- colonized areas, in addition to introducing the standards of the mother country, they also adopted some of the indigenous foods and incorporated them into their eating, albeit as total dishes rather than as a set of individual ingredients to play with separately. (Think Sunday curry lunches, rijstaffel, and such.) For those nations and their colonies, there has been a back-and-forth, culinarily.

The French, on the other hand, seem not to have been at all open to receiving much of anything from their colonies. It was THEY who exported their culture in all its supposed superiority, without generally incorporating foods from outside. In fact, it is a point of pride to many in former French colonies that they are culturally French, not so much African or Caribbean. (Think baguettes in Saigon.)

Which is all to say that the French, they are and have always been right, without anyone else's foodstuffs or other culture, thank you very much. And since haute cuisine is French, it can never be anything other than what it has always been.

However, that is NOT to say that wonderful, exciting, glorious food cannot be created using hot/spicy/strong-flavored ingredients. It can; it is -- but it can never be haute cuisine. The French don't think that way.

[ruthcooks]

Perhaps it's because "hot" is not a flavor but a physical response related to pain. Both capsicum and spices were first used to preserve food and to camouflage "off" flavors of foods.

When a person accustoms his taste buds to ever increasing amounts of capsicum heat, he loses the ability to appreciate subtle flavors. It's your choice. Years ago, I happened to eat curries fairly often and found that I had to add more and more spice as time went by to get the same kick. When I stopped eating curries, my taste buds reverted to normal.

Some famous chef--was it Julia?--said the proper amount of pepper was enough for you to feel warmth at the back of your mouth. I concur, and add heat when some food needs a little excitement due to lack of flavor.

[ExtraMSG]

What I'm saying is that spices aren't necessarily hot (as in piquant due to capsicum) at all: coriander, cumin, cinnamon, etc. Spicy food can be spicy food without any capsicum at all. And what I'm saying, further, is that the examples of spices (not capsicum, but spices) being used in haute cuisine are legion. You even see some of it in France, and here in the US you see it at most every contemporary haute restaurant -- you'll even see spice-rubbed lobster at Gramercy Tavern, etc.

I got it the first time. But Americans rarely use the term "spicy" to refer to merely food with spices. And even less do we use the term "hot" to refer to merely food with spices. Only when we get in a discussion of Indian and other southern Asian foods does the issue usually come up because we're trying to describe food that has so many spices that isn't necessarily piquant. I imagine it's a result of our heritage from a country that thought boiled meats were flavorful dishes. Maybe you easterners use the term "spicy" more for things like mild Indian. I'll qualify my statement by saying that we westerners rarely use the term "spicy" to describe food with lots of spices unless they are also piquant.

What you won't see in most any haute restaurant is use of capsicum beyond a very low level of application. Because in my opinion it does -- and here I disagree fundamentally with Pan -- mask the subtle flavors of the best ingredients. There's simply no point in acquiring the top grade of shrimp from the Gulf and then blowing them out with capsicum. And I think that opinion is shared by pretty much every haute cuisine chef, so even if it's wrong it's still the explanation!

I don't know if it's wrong so much as not always right. Capsicum can be used to balance and bring out other flavors and create a new, more interesting whole. I just don't think most classicly trained chefs know what they're doing with chiles. I watched the Master Chef exam at the CIA on FoodTV a while back and was amazed by how out of the loop most of the chefs were when it came to non-European lineage cooking.

Personally, I think wine (and truly almost anything but water) and hot (as in temperature) foods mask as much or more of the subtle flavors of foods as capsicum. But those are traditional ways of eating food in the west so it's okay and we even come up with ways of describing how they enhance a meal and a dish. Or we go out of our ways to use ingredients that are appropriate. I don't see that capsicum couldn't be thought of any differently. I imagine it will as the people who have grown up on spicy Mexican and Thai and Firey Pringles, etc, start eating out at nicer restaurants. There's already a certain critical mass, I think, of people who like piquant foods even among the wealthy.

[foodie52]

So, by definition, haute cuisine can only be French.

[Pan]

Suzanne, you make a lot of sense (as usual), but I do think the French have brought back a taste of merguez and couscous from North Africa.

Ruth, I disagree that people who like hot pepper can't appreciate subtle flavors. I think it's a matter of preference. Many people find subtlety tasteless and many people find a bit of capsicum intolerable, but there are those who are able to appreciate both. I'd have to think I'm one of them. My lunch at Grand Vefour in the summer of 2002 was one of the greatest dining experiences of my life, and I didn't think for one second about the absense of capsicum while I was there, yet I like hot pepper very much.

Also, hot peppers do have flavor, not just hotness, and different varieties of hot pepper have different flavors.

[ExtraMSG]

However, that is NOT to say that wonderful, exciting, glorious food cannot be created using hot/spicy/strong-flavored ingredients. It can; it is -- but it can never be haute cuisine. The French don't think that way.

But that's not exactly how we use "haute cuisine". "Haute cuisine" means more than just French high cooking. Sure, the word derives from that, and it certainly can mean that, but we use the term "haute cuisine" to refer to all high cooking, I think. It's largely that same as "fine dining" except the emphasis might be on the quality of the food. So, the way we use the term generally in America, I think, haute cuisine can be American, Italian, French, and so on. It just happens that French and New American most often gets the designation.

A bigger question, off-topic, is probably what the minimum threshold is for haute cuisine. Some would probably insist that only the very highest level of cooking, maybe 20 restaurants in all of the United States, eg, be called such. While some might expand this designation (and I've seen it done in reviews) to most places that have a wine list and make some effort at presentation and fancy ingredients.

I do think there's a bias against non-French tradition food. All five star Mobil restaurants are New American or French. Most 3 star Michelin restaurants are French. If a place like Arun's in Chicago that does a wonderful multi-course fixed-price Thai dinner in a beautiful restaurant with a brigade system for service can't maintain four stars, there's a bias in the ratings, imo.

I have a hard time believing that people immersed in spicy food cultures think they're ruining the flavor of quality ingredients. It'd be interesting to hear from a Sichuan, Indian, or Thai chef used to using expensive ingredients.

[zora]

Good point way back about the challenge of matching wines. Cynthia, I'm from NM, so I know the foods of which you speak! Hot foods are so often "beer" foods--because they taste good of course, and because it's so often at a downmarket place...

I do think heat can be used as an element to balance a dish--I mean, Thai cooking hinges on this completely. I recently had some roast suckling pig at Prune, which is blessedly served with a side of pickled tomatoes with thin slices of jalapeño. The acidity of the tomatoes alone helps balance the rich meat, but the jalapeños really cut through perfectly, leaving my mouth feeling clean, not all coated with fat. It wasn't crazy hot, but it was the only memorably hot thing I've been served at a $20-and-up-mains place...

I didn't want this to be a French-bashing thread, but it is sort of weird that they've _still_ got a lock on what's considered cuisine worth paying big bucks for. French technique is still the underpinning for every spicier ritzy resto--JGV places, Tabla, etc. Other cuisines should be taken on their own terms, not French-ified. Cooking school students should be interning in Shanghai, not Provence.

And re: chile numbing out your tastebuds, I disagree. I eat a lot of hot food, but I don't miss the heat when I'm eating a good roast chicken. I _do_ miss the heat when I'm paying $20 for a so-so "Indian" duck breast with mango-pickle reduction or whatever the hell.

[mongo_jones]

Good point way back about the challenge of matching wines. Cynthia, I'm from NM, so I know the foods of which you speak! Hot foods are so often "beer" foods--because they taste good of course, and because it's so often at a downmarket place...

I do think heat can be used as an element to balance a dish--I mean, Thai cooking hinges on this completely. I recently had some roast suckling pig at Prune, which is blessedly served with a side of pickled tomatoes with thin slices of jalapeño. The acidity of the tomatoes alone helps balance the rich meat, but the jalapeños really cut through perfectly, leaving my mouth feeling clean, not all coated with fat. It wasn't crazy hot, but it was the only memorably hot thing I've been served at a $20-and-up-mains place...

I didn't want this to be a French-bashing thread, but it is sort of weird that they've _still_ got a lock on what's considered cuisine worth paying big bucks for. French technique is still the underpinning for every spicier ritzy resto--JGV places, Tabla, etc. Other cuisines should be taken on their own terms, not French-ified. Cooking school students should be interning in Shanghai, not Provence.

And re: chile numbing out your tastebuds, I disagree. I eat a lot of hot food, but I don't miss the heat when I'm eating a good roast chicken. I _do_ miss the heat when I'm paying $20 for a so-so "Indian" duck breast with mango-pickle reduction or whatever the hell.

amen!

i guess this is my signature theme on egullet. rather than repeat it, i'll just point to another recent thread where this has come up obliquely:

http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=36699

and an older one from the india forum:

http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=27631

[beans]

I didn't want this to be a French-bashing thread, but it is sort of weird that they've _still_ got a lock on what's considered cuisine worth paying big bucks for. French technique is still the underpinning for every spicier ritzy resto--JGV places, Tabla, etc.  Other cuisines should be taken on their own terms, not French-ified.  Cooking school students should be interning in Shanghai, not Provence.

:shivers:

I agree students should learn about [fill in the blank] food history/culture and preparations, but to bypass the classics of the French culinary masters? Really?????

Yes, send me to Provence!!!!!

edit: underline fix --I so rarely underline -- I almost forgot how

Edited February 7, 2004 by beans (log)

[ExtraMSG]

Exactly, zora and pan.

However, it should be known that capsicum can destroy, I believe, taste buds, but they grow back in a couple weeks, I think. But it's not like any amount of capsicum does that. It's just like if you drank some coffee that was too hot.

Beans, what we probably need are more students who are willing to go learn at [fill in culinary tradition here]. More diversity from culinary students. French culinary masters aren't the only masters. There are many cuisines that have long and illustrious food traditions.

Edited February 7, 2004 by ExtraMSG (log)

[Pan]

I didn't want this to be a French-bashing thread, but it is sort of weird that they've _still_ got a lock on what's considered cuisine worth paying big bucks for. French technique is still the underpinning for every spicier ritzy resto--JGV places, Tabla, etc.  Other cuisines should be taken on their own terms, not French-ified.  Cooking school students should be interning in Shanghai, not Provence.

:shivers:

I agree students should learn about [fill in the blank] food history/culture and preparations, but to bypass the classics of the French culinary masters? Really?????

Yes, send me to Provence!!!!!

Agreed, beans.

What's more, Provencal cuisine is quite different from cuisine in other parts of France and very worthwhile on its own terms.

I love Chinese food but would never compare French food unfavorably to Chinese food, and would consider it absurd to denigrate French food at its highest levels. Both cuisines are great, in the right hands.

I do tend to agree with zora on this, however:

Other cuisines should be taken on their own terms, not French-ified.

Except that French-influenced Moroccan restaurants can be a lot of fun, etc. It's really all about how tasty things are, in the end.

[mongo_jones]

this discussion of how "haute" may be defined and/or freed from its french roots is an interesting one.

since i don't know how to point to specific posts within a thread i'm going to take the liberty of adding excerpts of posts i've made to an older related thread to this newer discussion:

both excerpts are from http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=27631 -- a thread on the subject of wine and indian cuisine.

1) "my bigger problem is with the mindset that often drives these wine-indian food discussions (and i'm not accusing anyone here of having it). there's a certain eurocentric way of defining good cuisine that i think is easy to fall into (for chefs, foodies, critics, and restaurant patrons alike): indian cuisine can't be haute if it isn't plated and served a certain way, or if it can't be paired up with wine. in a more insidious form there is sometimes an evolutionary narrative that creeps in, in which indian cuisine can only be seen as "developing", "growing" if that change is mapped onto high-western approaches. or new dishes are seen as innovative only if they are articulated in a western idiom. why can't indian food, in all its heterogeneity, be taken on its own terms? do japanese restaurateurs or critics worry about which wine will go best with their food? "

2) "to pick up the thread from my earlier post in this thread: part of the reason i think indians have been less inclined to develop indigenous spirits, and why some indian gourmands sometime get caught up in these convoluted narratives and dubious histories about wine etc. is the high-colonial heritage of the expensive spirit drinking classes. this doesn't play out just in the world of alcohol but also in the arts: indian writers who win the booker or other international awards are more celebrated than those who don't. there's a certain cultural investment in the signposts of english/european and more lately, american distinction. and of course class has a lot to do with why feni is often considered just another country liquor.

as for my second point, that innovation in indian cuisine is only acknowledged if it is articulated in a western idiom it too is of a piece with a larger cultural pattern. here in the west cultural hybridity is only recognized and celebrated if it directly involves the west. thus, to take a very simple example, baz luhrmann is credited with hybridizing bollywood and hollywood film conventions when in fact bollywood is already an amazing hybridization of hollywood and indian film/theater conventions. similar things seem to be happening with food.

of course in the indian context little of this anxiety probably holds true (i hope)--indian chefs, restaurants, homes probably continue to develop, innovate with little regard to or thought of whether this would be recognized as innovation by western foodies (including many snobs on our own egullet, though of course none of us ourselves )"

[fifi]

Have any of you eaten at Topolobampo, Rick Bayless's high end restaurant in Chicago? If that isn't haute cuisine I don't know what is. And... shhhhh... don't tell anybody... It isn't FRENCH. No, he has not applied French technique to his cooking to "elevate it". Mexican cuisine is all about techniques that are peculiar to Mexican cooking, from the most casual snack to an artfully plated masterpiece. What's funny is, Mexico is one place where French influence is lightly felt even though they had the pleasure of putting up with Maximillian for a while. Bolillos are probably a hold over. But, for the most part, they have just kept on toasting, roasting, grinding, griddling, sauce frying and clay pot simmering through the centuries.

What I do find fascinating is that the typical Mexican techniques have a more in common with Indian and various Southeast Asian cuisines than other traditions.

[ExtraMSG]

I've eaten at both Topolo and Frontera. I think you're wrong, though. He has applied French techniques at Topolo and to a lesser extent Frontera. Presentations are certainly enhanced and much more New American or French than Mexican. But that's not substantive.

He does use and cook cuts of meats, eg, in ways or with dishes that they wouldn't traditionally be served. It's actually one of my complaints about his restaurants. I think he tries to make his customers feel like they're getting what they're used to as upscale food. And in that process, he does compromise traditional Mexican to some degree.

eg, at Frontera I had a *wonderful* pozole verde with stewed pork. But then he felt it necessary to plop some sliced pork tenderloin (overcooked, too, the bigger sin) on top of it. I'm not going to complain about extra food, but the way it was handled just felt like there was a disconnect.

But I guess this is all beside the true point. But it does remind us that traditional ethnic foods do need to be hauted up for the average fine diner to deem them worth the extra dough. Some stupid vegetable terrine draws higher dollars than a mole or curry. Ridiculous.

Cafe Azul, here in Portland, did a much better job of remaining faithful to the tradition while providing dishes using high quality ingredients and impeccable preparations. But they went out of business recently after several years of success, including allegedly being Diana Kennedy's favorite Mexican restaurant in the US and making Gourmet's top 50 restaurants and being named on every local critic's favorites list. I think ultimately people didn't associate a mole with upscale food. I certainly talked with enough people who complained about how expensive it was relative to other Mexican places (the entrees ranged from $15-20).

[fifi]

I've eaten at both Topolo and Frontera. I think you're wrong, though. He has applied French techniques at Topolo and to a lesser extent Frontera. Presentations are certainly enhanced and much more New American or French than Mexican. But that's not substantive.

I dunno about that. I have eaten in many upscale restaurants in Mexico City, Monterrey, Guadalajara. There is a long tradition of upscale dining that does not compromise the basic techniques. A Phd anthropologist that I was lucky enough to dine with in Mexico City, informed me that the upper classes and royalty in pre-Columbian times were very formalized in their artful presentation of food and paid a lot of attention to quality of ingredients. They had runners that would bring fresh shrimp and shellfish into Teotihuacan from the Pacific and Gulf coasts. Those delicacies are enshrined in the sculptures there. Yes, French and New American plating and presentation may be influencing Bayless but there is a long tradition in Mexico for the same thing, so who knows where it comes from.

Unfortunately, ethnic cuisines seem to have this stigma of a pile of glop or stew on a plate and anything more than that is credited to the French, or these days, New American cuisine. That just isn't true.

If you want an extreme example, look at royal Thai food presentation. That is food ART!

All I am saying is that what we connect to high style food in presentation and ingredients is not the exclusive domain of the French, New Americans or whoever. After all, it took a Hapsburg to teach the French how to cook.