Has Jean-Georges Vongerichten Jumped the Shark?

[Bux]

As I understand it, the Fonz jumped the shark to provide some interest in the show. Can we say that Vongerichten opening a new restaurant is going to spark some interest in Jean Georges or any of his other restaurants? Is there a parallel? Does it spark renewed interest in the chef? Does it keep his name in the news and is that helpful?

[Bond Girl]

Here is my 2 cent, and it's coming from someone who happen to like Jean George personally. I think as a chef, JG is one of the most creative forces in modern cuisine. However, running a restaurant empire is quite different from being a great chef. JG has moved from being a great chef to being a great restauranteur, and sometimes profitability comes at a trade off and quite often it's creativity and care that is lost. And, when you have an empire that big, you start to have other problems that big empires have. Issues like staff retention, which is no big deal at little places, becomes huge issues in corporations because it becomes harder to keep up the consistency in quality.

I'm not sure if I agree with Fat Guy in that Asian fusion is out of sync with people's taste. May be I am wrong but people are going to like interesting food well executed no matter what kind of cuisine it is.

I ate at Vongs many years ago, and remember being very impressed with the food. Recently, I took a client out there and was terribly disappointed, not because what arrived on my plate was not creative and interest, but because it was so poorly executed.

I think without the Spice Market, 66 would have been slightly amusing. A place you would take business clients and out of town designer label friends to. With the Spice Market, you began to see a pattern of a formula being repeated. And, eating at a formularized restaurant is just a few notches above eating at a fast food chain.

[Felonius]

Recent meals I've had at Jean-Georges were fantastic, and I'd rate it as one of the top restaurants in NYC. Both the main dining room and Nougatine are consistently packed for lunch and dinner, and it appears that the demand for his cuisine is still strong. Perhaps the menu is less avante garde than it used to be ten years ago, but it's still damn good stuff! Whether it will drop off as a result of new competition across the street at the Time Warner center remains to be seen.

I've never been to any of JG's other restaurants. Are Jo Jo and/or Vong worthy contenders at their price points?

Edited March 1, 2004 by Felonius (log)

[Bond Girl]

I would say Jean Georges remains one of my favorite restaurants in the city, though I can't say much for Vongs, 66 and the Spice market. No desire the go to the Steak house though.

[slkinsey]

I've never been to any of JG's other restaurants. Are Jo Jo and/or Vong worthy contenders at their price points?

It's been a while for me, but as of 3 years ago I'd say they definitely were. Back then, though, JGV was running only three places, not 7 or however many it is now.

[Bond Girl]

I've never been to any of JG's other restaurants.  Are Jo Jo and/or Vong worthy contenders at their price points?

It's been a while for me, but as of 3 years ago I'd say they definitely were. Back then, though, JGV was running only three places, not 7 or however many it is now.

Try 16. He recently told me that he stopped counting how many rerstaurants he has.

[Fat Guy]

Recent meals I've had at Jean-Georges were fantastic, and I'd rate it as one of the top restaurants in NYC. Both the main dining room and Nougatine are consistently packed for lunch and dinner, and it appears that the demand for his cuisine is still strong. Perhaps the menu is less avante garde than it used to be ten years ago, but it's still damn good stuff! Whether it will drop off as a result of new competition across the street at the Time Warner center remains to be seen.

Time Warner may be across the street, but I don't necessarily see it as a question of competition across the street. What Jean Georges will have to compete against, going forward, is progress. Jean Georges isn't drawing a neighborhood crowd -- it's a destination restaurant and therefore competes with restaurants everywhere else in the city that have four and three stars. There's no question that it's still one of the top restaurants in the city, but the place has failed to improve or progress at all since its opening year.

New York has been in a restaurant rut since before 9/11, and the city is just starting to emerge. ADNY was the first hint of things to come, but it was lost on the media and much of the public. Mix too. But all you have to do, Felonius, is have a meal at Per Se and you'll realize that Jean Georges' several years of successful coasting have come to an end. And once Kunz and Trotter get into the game -- not to mention Delouvrier -- it's hard to imagine that Jean Georges (or Le Bernardin, Daniel, or Bouley) will be at the top anymore. Unless Vongerichten has some amazing tricks up his sleeve and can recapture the vitality his cooking used to have, he will indeed go the way of the dinosaurs before him. He may still be able to make a shitload of money on Jean Georges and his lesser places, and he'll no doubt have a decade of Zagat inertia, but he'll stop mattering to the top level of educated restaurant consumer.

[robyn]

The J-G tasting was probably the best expensive meal I've ever had in NYC, but, yeah, I thought the decor was awful...  Way worse than, say, Bouley.

Guess one size doesn't fit all. I'm not from NYC - and I really disliked the meal we had at JG a few years ago (not to mention that the $100+ bottle of wine that was recommended was lousy). But I really loved the room. That's not a sufficient reason to go back though (after all - it's a restaurant - not an architectural tour). Robyn

[Fat Guy]

I like the food and the room -- I guess I'm an optimist -- and would go as far as saying Jean Georges has one of the most attractive dining rooms in the USA. Especially at lunchtime, when the light pours in those windows, the room really works for me. I didn't always buy into Adam Tihany's design -- my eye takes awhile to accept modernist architecture -- but over time the lines, the colors, the chairs, the way the booths fit into the walls, the light fixtures, and even that checkerboard carpet have won me over.

I've got no problem with the food as such -- I just think there's a point at which, if you don't progress, you get left behind. Eventually, people are going to get bored of young garlic soup and scallops with cauliflower and raisin-caper emulsion.

[robyn]

I've got no problem with the food as such -- I just think there's a point at which, if you don't progress, you get left behind. Eventually, people are going to get bored of young garlic soup and scallops with cauliflower and raisin-caper emulsion.

You mean the same old boring winner ?

I never tire of a great dish. I'm probably not unique in that I've never thrown away a recipe I really like and cook well. Might only prepare it once or twice a year - but I won't throw it away because it's not trendy anymore. Why do some people think we have to throw away restaurants (not that I was particularly impressed with this one - I'm just talking in general)? Robyn

[Fat Guy]

We don't have to throw them away. Something like 99.9% of restaurants will always serve derivative dishes and their menus will never demonstrate significant evolution.

What we're talking about here is the special case of four-star dining at the apex of the American restaurant market. At that level, there is a premium placed on ongoing creativity and progress. Restaurants at this level are no longer about signature dishes -- they are about cuisine at a higher level of abstraction. Four-star restaurants that create a few great dishes and serve them for a decade will eventually find themselves in the three-star category. Look at Le Cirque and Chanterelle. Jean Georges can either progress or become the Chanterelle of 2006.

[robyn]

as mrs. tommy is fond of saying, i'm becoming "no fun" to eat with, because i expect so much from restaurants. to be young and naive again.

You're just being rational. If you can eat in a restaurant that's ok and costs X - or a restaurant that's somewhat better (usually with much zippier decor) that costs 3X - or a wonderful restaurant - top of the line - that costs 5X - what are you going to do? Spend most of your time in the X or 5X restaurants - or eat at home (unless you're on the road).

My husband and I are quite a bit older than you and and your wife - but we don't eat at the 3X places anymore - unless they're the only game in town. It's either a (hopefully) good little deal place - or a great place. Why on earth would I go to a city like New York or Chicago or London or LA and eat at a second tier place instead of interesting local places - or world class places? I really can't help but notice how many 20 and 30 somethings eat in those 3X places. But you seem precocious . Robyn

[Pan]

Eventually, people are going to get bored of young garlic soup and scallops with cauliflower and raisin-caper emulsion.

That sounds pretty damn good to me!

Then again, I haven't had it once yet, let alone umpteen times.

[JMayer]

At that level, there is a premium placed on ongoing creativity and progress.

I've got no problem with the food as such -- I just think there's a point at which, if you don't progress, you get left behind. Eventually, people are going to get bored of young garlic soup and scallops with cauliflower and raisin-caper emulsion.

Fatguy, where do you exactly see cuisine progressing towards? Or is this more of an issue of execution. At least to me it seem chefs such as Keller, Trotter, etc are not necessarily doing the most cutting edge dishes, rather they are executing them better. How do you explain Alain Ducasse, last I checked his dishes were not cutting edge. Also, how much of JG has to do with image? It seems that in the gourmand circle that JG has lost some of his zest and chefs like Keller are hot (Trotter and Bayless seem to be losing steam in Chicago food circles). Why JG has lost his zest is debatable. I don't know, maybe JG is losing popularity because his cuisine lacks newfound creativity and progress. However, I think one must also consider execution and image.

To praise invention exclusively is to force the majority of chefs, incapable one and all of inventing, in the neglecting of traditions. Hence, on the one hand, they abandon all tradition and, on the other hand, they do not really create anything

Jean-Francois Revel

Cheers,

Justin

Edited March 2, 2004 by JMayer (log)

[Katherine]

I've got no problem with the food as such -- I just think there's a point at which, if you don't progress, you get left behind. Eventually, people are going to get bored of young garlic soup and scallops with cauliflower and raisin-caper emulsion.

You mean the same old boring winner ?

I never tire of a great dish. I'm probably not unique in that I've never thrown away a recipe I really like and cook well. Might only prepare it once or twice a year - but I won't throw it away because it's not trendy anymore. Why do some people think we have to throw away restaurants (not that I was particularly impressed with this one - I'm just talking in general)? Robyn

This argument has been done to death, but that was before your time here, Robyn.

It's all a matter of worldview: how does a person view the term 'evolution' - merely a series of changes, or as progress towards some assumed goal of 'perfection' - and where do food, cooking, cuisine, and restaurants fit into the picture?

Clearly food in general is in a state of flux in our culture. In many other cultures and culinary traditions, your view - that a dish, once perfected, is always perfect - is predominant. I have not traveled as much as you, but I have observed this more than not. Go to Quebec City and see small restaurants striving to duplicate classics of French cooking. Go to Spain and enjoy the simplicity of traditional foods in their glory in small everyday venues.

Unfortunately, we have no "national cuisine" of our own, as this country has been in the "throw the bathwater out, damn the baby - progress must be made" mode for at least a century. So we fixate on change - is it changing? No? Then it's old, tired, yesterday, sooo nineties. Do something, even if it's wrong! The moneyed cognoscenti have set their own jaded palates as the only criteria for goodness in food. Expensive restaurants are where food is happening, and anthing else is barely edible, doesn't count. To this type of eater, the goal of "home cooking" is not to feed the family with healthy, economical, soul-satisfying food, but to precisely duplicate specific restaurant meals.

So when these diners travel, they spend all or almost all their time and money visiting culinary "theme parks", leaving little or no time to explore the culture of the places they passed through.

At the bottom of the ladder, people seek merely the newest junk food and fast food - they don't have the kind I liked last time, but this one's new, so it must be better.

[Fat Guy]

Fatguy, where do you exactly see cuisine progressing towards? Or is this more of an issue of execution. At least to me it seem chefs such as Keller, Trotter, etc are not necessarily doing the most cutting edge dishes, rather they are executing them better. How do you explain Alain Ducasse, last I checked his dishes were not cutting edge.

We don't always know where progress will take us; that's why there will always be a risktaking element to forward motion. But that's what makes for great new cuisine: Vongerichten took a risk when he was in his invention phase, and he was rewarded with recognition as one of the most influential chefs of his era. Now it seems he has settled back into a risk-averse posture, and unless he wakes up and reestablishes some momentum he'll get left behind.

Remember, Vongerichten made his reputation through inventiveness. On his own terms, his restaurants will be failures if they don't continue to invent. For other chefs, the rules they've set for themselves may be different. Ducasse, for example, is about a different kind of progress: striving for the ideal of every ingredient, preparation, and dish. Keller is more about culinary whimsy combined with his unique brand of perfectionism -- and I do believe he will need to offer some more progressive cuisine if he is to succeed in New York (and I think he will). Trotter has, I think, maintained a lot of his inventiveness over the years -- he is constantly exploring new culinary frontiers. I don't always agree with his newfound obsessions, but I support his commitment to restless creativity.

To praise invention exclusively is to force the majority of chefs, incapable one and all of inventing, in the neglecting of traditions. Hence, on the one hand, they abandon all tradition and, on the other hand, they do not really create anything

Jean-Francois Revel

Those who don't invent or progress shouldn't be disparaged. Reproduction of the classics is a very worthy pursuit. But those who devote themselves to cooking the same few dishes forever shouldn't have four stars and be considered the greatest chefs in the land. They're not. Even in France, where culinary traditions are far more powerful and compelling than they are here, it is intellectually untenable to continue to give three Michelin stars to Paul Bocuse and Georges Blanc. Eventually, Michelin will have to leave those restaurants behind or get left behind itself. Which isn't to say I don't love Georges Blanc. I can even see defending it as a species of three-star restaurant -- I used to see it that way, just because I so enjoyed eating there. But the top rating needs to be preserved for the chefs who are operating at the highest level right now.

[JMayer]

Fatguy,

As always well stated. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I look forward to future posts.

Cheers,

Justin

[Felonius]

I like the food and the room -- I guess I'm an optimist -- and would go as far as saying Jean Georges has one of the most attractive dining rooms in the USA. Especially at lunchtime, when the light pours in those windows, the room really works for me. I didn't always buy into Adam Tihany's design -- my eye takes awhile to accept modernist architecture -- but over time the lines, the colors, the chairs, the way the booths fit into the walls, the light fixtures, and even that checkerboard carpet have won me over.

I've got no problem with the food as such -- I just think there's a point at which, if you don't progress, you get left behind. Eventually, people are going to get bored of young garlic soup and scallops with cauliflower and raisin-caper emulsion.

I too like the open and airy feeling of the room. It's modern style feels less stuffy than a place like Daniel or Le Bernardin.

I also agree with Fat Guy about the food losing some of its inventiveness. It seems to me that during the four years I've been dining at JG, the menu has remained pretty much the same. There are the old standards such as the scallops with raisin caper emulsion, and then a larger list of items that seem to rotate in and out seasonally, only to reappear next year. I don't eat there often enough to say this definitively, only that it does seem the same themes and ingredient combinations are being recycled, rather than new culinary horizons being explored.

[kurl]

I should, perhaps, give the room the benefit of the doubt and say that since my visit was after dark (8:30ish?) I didn't at all feel its "openness."

[robyn]

What we're talking about here is the special case of four-star dining at the apex of the American restaurant market. At that level, there is a premium placed on ongoing creativity and progress. Restaurants at this level are no longer about signature dishes -- they are about cuisine at a higher level of abstraction. Four-star restaurants that create a few great dishes and serve them for a decade will eventually find themselves in the three-star category. Look at Le Cirque and Chanterelle. Jean Georges can either progress or become the Chanterelle of 2006.

Forget about the restaurants. What about the patrons - the local ones - not the out of town patrons like me? If someone's an upper middle class person - or beer and pretzels rich - how many times a year does that person dine in these places? So - even in a city like New York - isn't there a premium placed on being new and trendy? If you're only going to go to a 4 star 2 or 4 or 6 times a year - isn't it better to go to the ones with the current buzz - as opposed to the older more established ones - so you'll have something to talk about at cocktail parties? Sometimes I think that there's so much emphasis on this week's restaurant of the year that a lot of new places never have the opportunity to get their sea-legs.

BTW - I've never been to Chanterelle. Have been to Le Cirque 2000. What's wrong with Le Cirque 2000? Robyn

[robyn]

Even in France, where culinary traditions are far more powerful and compelling than they are here, it is intellectually untenable to continue to give three Michelin stars to Paul Bocuse and Georges Blanc. Eventually, Michelin will have to leave those restaurants behind or get left behind itself. Which isn't to say I don't love Georges Blanc. I can even see defending it as a species of three-star restaurant -- I used to see it that way, just because I so enjoyed eating there. But the top rating needs to be preserved for the chefs who are operating at the highest level right now.

I went to La Mere Blanc a long time ago. Based on what I've read - the town is more like a Blanc theme park these days than the home of a great restaurant. I can't say based on personal experience. But - if it's true - I don't think I'd like it - and the place might not warrant 3 stars. Robyn

[robyn]

Unfortunately, we have no "national cuisine" of our own, as this country has been in the "throw the bathwater out, damn the baby - progress must be made" mode for at least a century. So we fixate on change - is it changing? No? Then it's old, tired, yesterday, sooo nineties. Do something, even if it's wrong! The moneyed cognoscenti have set their own jaded palates as the only criteria for goodness in food. Expensive restaurants are where food is happening, and anthing else is barely edible, doesn't count. To this type of eater, the goal of "home cooking" is not to feed the family with healthy, economical, soul-satisfying food, but to precisely duplicate specific restaurant meals.

So when these diners travel, they spend all or almost all their time and money visiting culinary "theme parks", leaving little or no time to explore the culture of the places they passed through.

At the bottom of the ladder, people seek merely the newest junk food and fast food - they don't have the kind I liked last time, but this one's new, so it must be better.

Well - fashions in food do tend to come into and go out of style - and then - years later - some fashions return. But while I can keep something in my closet for 20 years knowing I'll wear it again someday - a restaurant whose food has become unfashionable will go out of business long before its style of cooking becomes trendy again.

Although what you're talking about probably exists in most metropolitan areas - it's probably most prevalent in cities like New York. When I was making restaurant reservations in Miami last week - I was surprised how many higher end restaurants that were there when I lived there almost a decade ago are still there.

By the way - I don't know how much money you're talking about when you're talking of "moneyed". I have met some really rich people over the years - just a few. The kind who have personal chefs. Seems that most of their home cooking was devoted to special diets - like Pritikin years ago - and I guess Atkins would be popular today. Of course - most of these people were older - and they were always concerned about their health. Robyn

[tommy]

Forget about the restaurants. What about the patrons - the local ones - not the out of town patrons like me? If someone's an upper middle class person - or beer and pretzels rich - how many times a year does that person dine in these places? So - even in a city like New York - isn't there a premium placed on being new and trendy? If you're only going to go to a 4 star 2 or 4 or 6 times a year - isn't it better to go to the ones with the current buzz - as opposed to the older more established ones - so you'll have something to talk about at cocktail parties?

valid point. there are certainly younger people who prefer to not dine where their uncle or parents do. if i didn't think Jean Georges was so good, it would certainly fall into the "old and stodgy" category for me. and whether it is old and stodgy isn't the point.

[slkinsey]

Forget about the restaurants.  What about the patrons - the local ones - not the out of town patrons like me?  If someone's an upper middle class person - or beer and pretzels rich - how many times a year does that person dine in these places?  So - even in a city like New York - isn't there a premium placed on being new and trendy?  If you're only going to go to a 4 star 2 or 4 or 6 times a year - isn't it better to go to the ones with the current buzz - as opposed to the older more established ones - so you'll have something to talk about at cocktail parties?

I think that's probably true of a certain set of people in New York. But, in a city of this size, I don't think one can overestimate the number of fabulously wealthy people who live here. There are plenty of people in NYC who eat out at three and four star restaurants 5 to 8 times a week. Certainly it is not unusual for a wealthy businessperson to eat lunch at a top-tier restaurant (perhaps even the same top-tier restaurant) every day during the work week. I know relatively young people in big money-making careers who eat at a three or four star place on at least a weekly basis. For these people, I don't know that trendiness and newness makes a big difference.

Now, I certainly do know a whole crowd of people for whom getting their early or (preferably) first while the scene is still hot is a major big deal. For example, I have friends who would much rather have gone to Per Se in the opening week than 6 months later when the restaurant had really started to hum -- and it's not like going both times was financially possible. Besides, Per Se won't be the hip, new "scene place" in six months. But, I don't think these are the diners that keep a restaurant alive and vital, and these are not the diners who are going back to AD/NY and Mix, Daniel and Cafe Boulud again and again.

[Felonius]

if i didn't think Jean Georges was so good, it would certainly fall into the "old and stodgy" category for me. and whether it is old and stodgy isn't the point.

Interesting. I'm only 35 and I've never considered Jean-Georges to be in the "old and stodgy" category. Places like Lutece, La Cote Basque and La Grenouille are the stodgy archetypes (probably a major reason the first two are now closed). ADNY, Daniel, Le Bernardin and Cafe Boulud I certainly see as somewhat older and stodgy - though I love all three for their food and service. To me Jean Georges has always seemed the least stodgy of the NYC top tier, probably due to the modern architecture/decor and the slightly more adventurous cuisine. I'd take younger dates to a place like Jean Georges (especially the more casual Nougatine side), Mix or DB Bistro before tackling the others listed above.