The Evolution Debate

[SobaAddict70]

A common saying is that "familiarity breeds contempt" and that probably isn't more true than in the case of chefs and the restaurant industry. The temptation to coast using a tried and true winning formula is especially great given that the restaurant world abounds with mountains of failure. Yet for every five Jean-Georges Vongerichtens, there is a Ferran Adria or a Grant Achatz lurking behind the scenes, doing his own thing and caring not a whit what the general population thinks.

How do you define whether a chef is successful or not? Does a chef such as Alain Ducasse need his cuisine to evolve? Is there a point at which a chef's cuisine stops evolving or is it a continual process? Is it better to be familiar and popular or unfamiliar and avant-garde?

Soba

[slkinsey]

This is an interesting topic for discussion, Stan, and I hope we see some dood debate here.

Certainly it is a fact that a chef's work normally has to evolve in order for that chef to continue to be current and currently great. I'm not sure that the underlying philosophy has to change, but the implementation of that idea has to grow.

It's much the same way with composers. Take Verdi, for example, he came up with one of the all-time best Italian operas ever, Rigoletto, fairly early on in 1851. Now, had he stuck with the style of Rigoletto for the rest of his compositional life (another 42 years!), the operas he was turning out in the late 19th century wouldn't be so interesting. This is not to say that Rigoletto wouldn't still be a great opera, or that Verdi wouldn't still have been one of the great composers of the 1850s -- but maybe he wouldn't be considered one of the great composers of the entire 19th century, or indeed of the entire classical tradition. Instead, he built on his underlying ideas about opera and drama and grew with them. Not only were his actual underlying ideas influenced by the overall changes in music and singing that were happening, but perhaps more importantly, the way he expressed those ideas in his compositions changed with the times. He continued to be relevant and current, while at the same time not changing his philosophies with every emerging trend.

This, in my opinion, is the kind of thing that a chef must do if he/she would like to continue to be great, to have relevancy and currency. A chef with unique and important ideas which are expressed a certain way in 1970 loses something if he continues to express his ideas through the same dishes in 1990. This is not to say that the 1970 dishes aren't still great... but they're not as great in 1990 as they were in 1970. To continue the example from above, if Verdi wrote an opera just like Rigoletto in 1871, it wouldn't be as great as it was in 1851.

So, looking at it that way, while is true that certain culinary philosophies have more long-term staying power than others, I am not sure that a chef's underlying philosophies have to evolve all that much. What does need to evolve is the expression of those philosophies. To make an example, one element of Batali's style is the glorification of offal and traditionally "poor" meats. This is a philosophy that can easily grow with the times, and can be just as current in ten years as it is right now. But, if the expression of his philosophy hasn't grown past the fennel-dusted sweetbreads, then I would say that his cuisine won't be as "successful" in 2014 as it is right now.

[Fat Guy]

Chefs who have identified successful restaurant formulae are under tremendous pressure from their customers and their investors not to change. Predictability and repetition are the dominant forces in the short-term.

The long-term problem is, if you refuse to update your formula, you will wind up with an aging customer base, a lack of media interest, an absence of buzz, and ultimately with food that is considered stodgy and boring. And in restaurant terms, this happens very quickly. At the top levels of the industry, even in France where things move slowly, the restaurant scene in 1990 and the restaurant scene today are radically different. Whatever was happening in 1970 is almost completely irrelevant now. And pre-1970s cuisine is only relevant now for technique (fundamental stocks, sauces, etc.) and for inspiration/homage/retro-type dishes.

[John Whiting]

You're talking about a very thin layer of cream floating on a vast sea of cuisine. There are those for whom it is an interesting question, but for the preponderance of cooks throughout history it is one which has no meaning. Most of them have been no more concerned with originality than, say, a folk singer or a journeyman potter. Aside from sustainance, their purpose was to give a certain predictable pleasure.

Modern chefs have of course every right to create whatever novel experiences their customers are prepared to pay for, but they have no right to label as "failure" those chefs who cooked a perfect cassoulet in the same manner for thirty years. What a diner finds "boring" depends entirely on expectation.

[Pan]

John, thanks for articulating something I was feeling while reading this thread and other articles where food was dissed just for being in a 1980s style or something.

I'll include a quote that might be relevant to this discussion:

this is from Sifton's April 9, 2004 "Diner's Journal" article on Landmarc, a restaurant in TriBeCa (=Triangle Below Canal St., Manhattan, New York):

Nothing new, really, not even close.

But so what if it tastes good, if it leaves diners grinning on the corner, saying something goofy about a grilled pork chop with sautéed spinach, caramelized onions and apples? It's a terrific pork chop. Sometimes you don't want the new stuff. Sometimes a band's best album is labeled Greatest Hits.

Sam, I see your point about Verdi, but part of my question is to what extent great chefs are more analogous to great performers (interpreters or reinterpreters, if you like) than great composers. Do we stop performing Verdi because it's "so 19th-century"? But let's say a great chef is more analogous to a great composer or, say, a sculptor. It just so happens I went to a show of scupltures today. I really liked the show. (You can see some reproductions here, if you like.) It had a writeup in the New York Times and several pieces have already sold. Close to half of the sculptures were interpretations of paintings by masters like Poussin, Piero della Francesca, and Matisse, and titled as such, while others were not. Of course, the homages were in no way exact copies of the paintings they were inspired by, nor were they intended to be. Instead, they were the artist's take on those earlier works. But the point is that something doesn't have to be (or seem) totally new to be worthwhile, and I can't see any reason why "irrelevant" periods in cuisine can't be made relevant again if there is an inspired interpreter of those classic dishes who finds a clientele.

[FistFullaRoux]

I almost hate to use the example of Emeril Lagasse, since he has almost turned into a caracature of himself. But he is one chef who is operating at a high level, in a number of concepts, using different cuisines, and doing most of them well. At least enough to stay popular and keep the doors open. Those places do mature and evolve independently of each other. I know he's not stirring every pot in every restaurant. But the chefs who are running each place are doing a great job. There is something to be said for that. Emeril (As much as he pisses me off sometimes) did not get where he is by cooking badly and unimaginatively.

He's not traditional, but he's popular. Which is more important? Is it better to have good old dishes, or good new dishes?

There's room for both, as there will be guys making Coc Au Vin using the same recipe until they can't put their hat on by themselves anymore. Meanwhile, there is some kid in culinary school or watching his mom cook right now who will try turn the whole thing upside down. Which is better?

[Pan]

Which is more important? Is it better to have good old dishes, or good new dishes?

There's room for both

That about sums it up for me.

[John Whiting]

It's worth remembering that most cooks in history cooked for people who lived within walking distance.

EDIT: We have hard-wired into our brains an expectation of the familiar.

Edited April 11, 2004 by John Whiting (log)

[mongo_jones]

the analogy with a composer or a writer isn't exact because verdi didn't have to re-write "aida" every night; nor did manjit bawa have to paint the same thing over and over again (though critics of his work might wonder). a chef's work is more performative--dance might be a more appropriate art-form to compare it to.

i am reminded of an anecdote about the rolling stones going to a club in new york to take in the early tony williams lifetime (this was on the "let it bleed" tour if i recall my apocryphal material correctly): a reporter or someone surprised to see them there asked watts what he thought of williams' so very different style and approach. watts replied to the effect that: "it is nothing i want to play but i like to go hear it sometimes". now if anyone wants to say that charlie watts is a boring drummer or that tony willliams was overly experimental, they'll have to go through me.

[balex]

Boy, a big question. I think the analogy with composers is completely wrong. If cooks are anything they are performers; pianists rather than composers. Sometimes they play pieces of their own composition, but I am happy to hear them play pieces by those old dead guys.

Some people crave originality; some people don't. The meals I have enjoyed most in the last ten years have been very unoriginal, but I've never been to el Bulli.

I think originality clearly has an importance in very media driven restaurant cities like London and New York. For a chef to get media attention and manipulate it to his advantage, he needs to produce 'news'. This means change: new restaurants, dishes, ideas and so on. It isn't clear that this serves the interests of the consumer.

[John Whiting]

I think originality clearly has an importance in very media driven restaurant cities like London and New York. For a chef to get media attention and manipulate it to his advantage, he needs to produce 'news'. This means change: new restaurants, dishes, ideas and so on.  It isn't clear that this serves the interests of the consumer.

I wonder how many modestly successful bistro-type restaurants there may be in NYC that survive by serving undramatic but competantly prepared cuisine of whatever genre to a core of loyal supporters. They're not "newsworthy", so you wouldn't read about them in the NYT (although John Hess, when he was restaurant reviewer, made an effort to search them out).

[Pan]

I know some, and Asimov covered one recently: An Italian restaurant called Col Legno. It hasn't changed much at all in the 13-some-odd years it's been open, and that's just fine with me.

Whatever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

[John Whiting]

Whatever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

Built-in obsolescence.

[Fat Guy]

If we're talking about most restaurants and chefs, then evolution is not particularly an issue.

But if we're talking about the leaders at the high end of the profession -- the top chefs and restaurants in the world -- then creativity and progress are essential. On the whole, I think cuisine is in its infancy, and virtually none of the top chefs in the world are cooking primarily from the repertoire. Maybe in a few decades or centuries things will level off and cuisine will be more like opera, with the connoisseurs focusing on subtle variations of the canon and the introduction of new material a rarity. But right now cuisine is in full-blown growth mode. The evolution just in the past 40 years has been staggering, and the inputs that give rise to such evolution are continuing to press and accumulate: ingredients, methods of cookery, tastes, transmittal of information, cultural exchange . . . there are so many things going on that make change the norm right now. I think a chef at the top level commits himself to being left behind if he ignores change.

[balex]

This is the sort of rhetoric that I profoundly disagree with. It assumes that progress/change is good in itself, that there is a train leaving the station and if we all don't leap onto it, we will be left behind .... Only a problem if where the train is going is better than where we are now. You have to argue that point on its merits and not just assume it.

In England we suffer from this rhetorical trick a lot in the context of European integration, so I am maybe over sensitive.

Back to the food: you can make a good argument that the quest for novelty results in less succesful dishes since there is obviously less development time for each dish. And to be concrete, l'Ambroisie has the most accurate and perfect cooking of all the 3-stars in Paris I have been to, and it is very conservative, though not unoriginal. The menu changes quite slowly, and the range of dishes is quite small.

[Fat Guy]

Evolution is not the same as a quest for novelty. As for the merits of the point, all you have to do is look at what fine-dining restaurants were serving 40 years ago. Unless there is some unique reason to believe that in 2004 everything has clicked, the overwhelming likelihood is that 40 years from now cuisine at the high end will be as different as the cuisine of 2004 is from that of 1964. Sure, there's always room for a few classicists who focus on refinement over inventiveness (although at some level that refinement can be a form of inventiveness), and there's always room for a few chefs who hit upon a formula and just keep working it, but as the leading edge moves forward it is inevitable that the context in which the stationary chefs are viewed will change. And for chefs who in the first place made their names by being different and creative, that change in context can be particularly challenging.

[balex]

I think your last point is indisputable. If you make your name by being an innovator, and then stop innovating, then this is very bad for your reputation.

But you are focusing on a narrow range of cooking -- high-end, fine-dining, leaders, leading-edge etc. -- in a few cities or countries. I agree that fine dining in London and New York has changed a lot in 40 years, and will change again. What about Tokyo and Bangkok? Or Naples? All cities where you can eat very well indeed. All we can conclude is that there are some culinary cultures where change and innovation are important, and others where novelty is mistrusted. And I think just as one can justly criticise some cities for being too faddish, one can criticise Rome, for example, for being overly conservative.

Secondly, very little "innovation" is true innovation. Saying that Batali's use of offal is an innovation is a bit like saying the Strokes are original. The innovation is only an innovation in a very narrow context. Similarly Ducasse's championing of terroir and Italian food can only be considered original in the context of the narrow frame of reference of French haute cuisine in 1990.

The molecular gastronomy appears to be a genuine innovation -- but it is one based on scientific innovation rather than aesthetic innovation, and that works on a different basis.

(Sorry this is a bit rambling -- I am cooking some pizza bianca according to Steingarten's recipe and I am a bit over-excited)

[John Whiting]

. . . the overwhelming likelihood is that 40 years from now cuisine at the high end will be as different as the cuisine of 2004 is from that of 1964.

The cutting edge of scientific gastronomy has barely begun to slice away our culinary norms. It's no longer quixotic science fiction to consider the possibility of accessing the nervous system so as to produce multi-sensory complexes of tastes -- let alone sights, smells and sounds -- that will make Adria's creations look naive. Just plug into the medula oblongata and turn on the juice.

Never mind the arguments as to whether such manipulations should be allowed. History demonstrates that if a thing can be done, it will be done. And it is likely to include thought control as well as sensory control -- the experiments actually being carried out surface from time and time and then resubmerge.

But never mind -- in 2044 you'll be able to order one hell of a meal!

[Fat Guy]

I am indeed only talking about a narrow category of chefs and restaurants.

[balex]

How narrow?

[slkinsey]

I'll address a few points here...

First, one does have to make a distinction between the "composer" and the "performer" in the kitchen. There are some people who conceive the food, and others who execute it. As I think most people understand by now, Alain Ducasse, etc. do not do all that much cooking, if any, in their restaurant kitchens. So, understanding that, being able to execute the "classics" at a reasonably high level makes one a competent cook, but not exactly a creative force in the kitchen. These individuals are not likely to be the titans of the restaurant world in any country.

This is the sense in which I think it is appropriate to compare a top restaurant chef with a composer rather than a performer. So, Mongo, your point was not well made with respect to Verdi not having to recompose Aida every night. Alain Ducasse doesn't have to reconceive the dishes at AD/NY every night either. He concieved them once, and thereafter supervised his staff in the execution of those conceptions -- in fact, as we know, most of the time he doesn't even do that. So, to a certain extent post-conception supervision also contributes to the chef's legacy, but the conception has to be there first. Performance ability in the kitchen is a distant third. Perhaps in this sense a chef at this level might be more similar to a composer like Rossini, who supervised and conducted productions of his own compositions, occasionally making changes and additions to suit the resources at his disposal we well as changes in contemporary tastes. The rare top-level chef who actually does significant cooking might be compared to Mozart, who performed certain of his own compositions numerous times.

Now, when making this comparison, we are not talking about the scores of competent chefs who turn out excellent examples of tried-and-true dishes, following trends rather than setting them. These chefs might be more accurately compared to a Salieri or Paisiello -- excellent composer/performers in their own way, but whose efforts were ultimately overshadowed by those of Mozart and Rossini.

Balex, I think most anyone would tell you that the food is quite different in Naples today compared to 40 years ago. I can't necessarily speak for Tokyo or Bangkok (although I would be very surprized were it not true for Tokyo, and most likely it is true for both in the highest restaurants), but I think it's important to note that we're talking about Western cooking and a largely Western restaurant culture.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that a program of innovation for the sake of innovation is important. But, to be a chef of any importance and influence, it's important to develop one's own voice. Otherwise, you're just another one of those guys we've never heard of who sounded kind-of-but-not-quite-like Mozart.

[balex]

I have not been very good at explaining myself.

Let me try to show where we differ by picking on one of your phrases:

But, to be a chef of any importance and influence, it's important to develop one's own voice.

This seems reasonable -- but you use words like importance and influence, rather than words like excellence and brilliance. The words you use relate to recognition and fame rather than achievement and quality. I agree that originality is probably important for the former. But consider Rachmaninoff (or even J. S. Bach!) -- both old-fashioned in some sense, and critics have in the past given them a hard time. But both great composers.

Consider great performers like Alfred Brendel. What he has composed is not, to me, of any great interest. This is not a criticism of him as a performer.

When you consider a chef as a performer, he is normally like a conductor of an orchestra; sometimes one can conduct from the piano, but generally the conductor doesn't play an instrument. A conductor is a performer, so I don't agree with your argument that Ducasse is not a performer.

You can be a great performer without being massively original. Maybe Pollini is a better example here, if we stick to classical pianists. Most opera singers have not composed at a high level.

I also don't think it is an insult to be compared to Pollini, rather than Beethoven, or to be compared to Callas rather than Bellini. I assume you don't either

Thus, I think one can be a great chef without creating new dishes. And some of my greatest meals have been prepared by such people. They are rarely famous; often one never knows their names. There are a few exceptions: chefs who have become famous for cooking very traditional food.

I have never eaten Batali's food, but he sounds like he might be an example. Or Fergus Henderson in London.

But if all you are talking about is famous chefs in expensive restaurants in NY and London; and your criteria are fame, money and column inches, then I agree -- originality is a key factor. But no one would disagree.

[slkinsey]

When you consider a chef as a performer, he is normally like a conductor of an orchestra; sometimes one can conduct from the piano, but generally the conductor doesn't play an instrument. A conductor is a performer, so I don't agree with your argument that Ducasse is not a performer.

The question is which is more significant, the composing or the conducting. I would suggest that the composing is more important. Plenty of great composers also conducted their works, some were even great conductors. Mahler comes to mind as a composer who was also a great conductor. But, ultimately, Mahler's greater contribution to Music and Art, and greater genius, is found in his composition. Similarly, I would argue that the "conductor" aspect of Ducasse's cuisine is not as important as the creative aspect. To be sure, he has to have certain managerial skills in order to arrange for his conceptions to be executed at a certain level. But without the genius of the compositions, all the execution in the world doesn't really equal brilliance so much as it does competence.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. There is a difference between brilliantly executed food and brilliantly concieved food. One needs the former to appreciate the former, but the former alone is not necessarily something that says "top of the world chef" to me -- and it is this class of chef of which we are talking here. A brilliantly executed old-style recipe can be great, but ultimately the chef isn't creating anything. It's like someone today writing a brilliantly-executed composition "in the style of Mozart." I mean, it's nice and all that the piece is in the style of Mozart, and maybe it sounds nice too, but in the final analysis it's just not significant and it's not a musical or artistic achievement of any importance. The 21st century composer who builds his career writing pieces "in the style of Mozart" will not be considered one of the top composers.

Even though I am a performer (some would saym an "interpretive artist") myself, I have always felt that the creative act was more significant than the interpretive act. Similarly, I don't think a chef-performer is as significant as a chef-composer.

I also don't think it is an insult to be compared to Pollini, rather than Beethoven, or to be compared to Callas rather than Bellini. I assume you don't either

Actually, if I were a composer and someone said, "you write as well as Callas" --yes, I would consider it an insult.

[Fat Guy]

May I suggest that we don't need analogies to music here? Indeed, I think they are somewhat unhelpful. It seems to me that we can more easily settle this by looking at cuisine on its own terms.

[robert brown]

When I was dining full-tilt in France in the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s and had the chance to visit some chefs on average every couple of years, I was easily aware of the notion of style or change in the cooking of the chefs in the upper-echelons. You have to realize that these restaurants were chef-owned, and while there may have been outstanding bank loans, these chefs seemed otherwise unencumbered and free to do what they wanted. To me, most of them got better, at least for a while, but I would call this a result not so much stylistic, but of growing experience as manifested by realizing more what did and did not work. There were, however, exceptions. Pierre Gagnaire in St. Etienne did amazing technical feats of daring which I only got to experiences twice; After Jean Troisgros died in 1982, the restaurant began introducing Asian ingredients as did Louis Outhier at L’Oasis outside of Cannes. Michel Guerard invented a whole new cuisine, Cuisine Minceur, in the 1970s, while Alain Chapel evolved from preparing the ultimate manifestations of Lyonnais cuisine to make more personal creations without changing the sources of his ingredients. I believe, however that unlike the plastic or “seven lively” arts, cuisine doesn’t generally lend itself easily to the notion of style. It’s usually more a matter of approach and what a chef is capable of doing. Most chefs don’t have the training or technique to have a style in an artistic sense, and those that do are often hamstrung by commercial considerations or not being in the position to be their own man. I don’t eat out at a frenetic pace in New York, but it seems to me that other than Wylie Dufresne (and he has backers he has to deal with), there aren’t a lot of other chefs trying constantly to evolve in a formal way. Some chefs are so talented that they can shift the way they cook in sudden and drastic ways. Marc Veyrat and Alain Lorca (who just acquired Le Moulin de Mougins from Roger Verge) come to mind. The best one can say is that finding immense talent in a permissive environment makes for a culinary notion of style that bears some resemblance to style in what Europeans call “free art”. Chefs have so many different considerations than do the solitary artist or the subsidized ones that the notion of style or stylistic evolution usually isn’t critical.

It is fortunate for this discussion that eGullet is having a roundtable and Q&A the last week of April with a Maitre Cuisinier Francais who has been during five decades in the top echelons of the culinary scene in France and America and knows these concerns first-hand. His opinions should be interesting.