El Bulli--From wonderful to absurd

[mongo_jones]

We're not talking nuclear physics here

are you sure ferran adria knows that?

[MiguelCardoso]

I have to agree with vserna. Food is food. There's no way one can judge it without sitting down to it, several times, and consciously learning its ways and "caprices". Although we live in a gastro-porn environment, fuelled by lavishly illustrated magazines and unusually detailed resumées of what is served (and why) the basic rules still apply. I'm more conservative a critic than vserna - I refuse to write about a cook (or restaurant - not always the same thing) until I've got to leisurely know him or her; under pressure and, on mercifully slow days, entirely left to their own devices.

One problem I see, as a conservative, with eGullet, is that there's a simple "one or two visits" requirement. With good restaurants (the bad are easily dismissed at first gulp), one should spend a whole day there, from the moment it opens till the time it closes; day after day; until one has got the full measure of its personality and versatility.

I'm an extremist, however. I think cooking is related to friendship - love, even - and that tourism, however expert, is always a doomed experience. In reality, one has to live in the same place; know what's served all around; be familiar with all the possibilities and impossibilities. This is why I always recommend that visitors go to interesting restaurants with "habituées", so that they can experience what someone local, jaded and even bored can feel.

And even then it's difficult!

Gastronomy is all about a startling but comforting synthesis of familiarity; surprise; intimacy; contextual invention; cultural refreshment and, above all, unexpected enjoyment of what was erroneously taken for granted.

The one proviso is that you actually sit down and eat the food; several times (if you're appetite is whetted the first time). I truly think it's beyond the Pale to judge a restaurant or even a style of cooking before you've actually submitted yourself to it.

My basic strategy is to find a hotel near the restaurant I want to investigate and go there twice a day (alone is almost as good as going with local habituées) until I've got a handle on it. I find it tragic than one-time eating experiences count for experience among over-enthusiastic Americans. This is a question of life - not just food. :)

[vserna]

We're not talking nuclear physics here

are you sure ferran adria knows that?

I am.

[Boris_A]

never theorize on a restaurant and its place in the grand scheme of things until I can sit down and eat a proper meal in it.

Things are more complicated (as always).

In my "interpretation from a certain point of view" (sounds very harmless, doesn't it?) I've made reference to Carême and Escoffier. And I have to admit, I didn't eat their dishes. After a cooks dead, are we allowed to interpret his work without immediate experience? Immediately oder after a certain period?

I tried to reflect El Bulli in a (very modest) sociohistoric context. I treated the implementation of its cuisine as a black box. I relied on the many, many reports here about its dishes being very creative, very innovative and changing frequently. Am I wrong here? Do I really need to go there to check this out? Is it possible to understand these aspects without visiting El Bulli?

Another exmaple: I've seen pictures of apple caviar and heard of spagehttis made with parmigiano (right?). I think I've read once about a medieval practice to prepare food in disguise like presenting cooked animals with furs and feathers (pretendig they're still living) or to rearrange cooked chicken meat as a different animal. Do I need to go to ElBulli to see a similarity, meaningful or not?

But admittedly this statement: "Progress is our religion and Adria is the priest." is polemic. Let's forget it.

[russ parsons]

You have however hit on one of the main reasons why people want to go to El Bulli -- so they can join in these conversations without suffering supercilious put-downs like yours.

Yes Victor, shame on you. Imagine what would happen to this site--to the Internet in general!--if people only posted about the things they actually knew something about.

[vserna]

You're right, Russ. I now realize I had better leave this theoretical/rhetorical discussion. A chunk of manchego will help me survive this rough spot. Bit of wine, perhaps - I see an open flask of Di Majo Norante that promises a decent Spanish-Italian combination...

Edited December 3, 2003 by vserna (log)

[robyn]

<<I do not expect the "last meal on earth" experience every time we go out.>>

Neither do I. But a 3 star Michelin restaurant is supposed to be "worth a journey". Not a 5 block walk. Not a trip across town. Not dropping in when when you happen to be in town. But a journey. It's supposed to be "worth a journey". Which is what you did to get there. And what we've both done to go to other 3 star Michelin places. Not for 1 or 2 or 3 courses out of 25 - but for a complete meal. And perhaps rooms where you could stay after that meal. The rooms wouldn't be Four Seasons - they'd just be there so you wouldn't worry about having to get anywhere after a terrific meal.

So - your meal - and I don't doubt a word of your description of it - was a bust in terms of the Michelin expectation versus reality scale. Heck - if I did 25 courses - I might make 1 or 2 or 3 you found scrumptious too.

I have read this entire thread (at least as much as I could get through) - and it sounded exactly like art critics describing the latest "non-art" show (i.e., more time, effort and expertise was spent on the critique than the actual creation of the artwork).

Seems to me from what I've read of you that you've been around in terms of eating. So have I. I am used to the older French tradition - where chefs spent half a lifetime perfecting 4, 5, 6 incredible/sublime dishes that were worth a journey. And everything else was never less than very very good. So what do you think is going on today where you can go to a restaurant - and the chef feels compelled to offer 25 courses (which seems to me preposterous on its face - who can keep that many tastes distinct in one's mind - much less one's mouth) - and where only a few are good - and some are inedible. And where people seem to spend more time talking about the food than eating it and enjoying it? Sounds like it's time for Tom Wolfe to write a new book (he's done art - architecture - etc. - and it's about time he did cooking). Robyn

[Bux]

Robyn, there are people who read far more into artistic expression than may be deserved, and there are people who will always ascribe the the Emperor's New Clothes to that which they don't understand or that which doesn't meet their expectations. Art and all we know in the world, changes on the acceptance of ideas that were once thought revolutionary as well as evolutionary.

Those who break the rules successfully are the new leaders and the new sages. Those very impressionist paintings whose progeny now grace popular magazine covers and the walls of doctor's offices were, in their day, thought quite ugly and provocatively so. Dismissing trends because they don't meet the standards of the older tradition is not a valid argument, and it's always time for cynics. In every movement there's something to be found that one can be cynical about. Cynicism is not a vital path to truth it is merely a personal trait.

The reason it's too late to dismiss Adria, is that he's already the focus of too many chefs, not only in Spain, but in France and the US. If he were to die tomorrow and all that was written about him and by him were to disappear from the face of the earth, he'd remain a historical influence because he's in the minds of too many cooks of all ages and persuasions. One can play to the ultraconservative masses with a dismissal of El Bulli, but in enlightened circles, complete dismissal of an interest in what is being done at El Bulli displays little more than an intellectual dismissal of the culinary world. We are all entitled to know what we like without knowing anything about food.

Nevertheless, there's nothing Michelin has ever published that implies bedrooms are part of the Michelin three star experience. My experience with fine and multi-starred restaurants in the US and France indicates that a trend towards smaller and many more courses has been going on for decades. Moreover the art of small bites--as in tapas--has long been part of the Spanish culinary heritage. There's nothing shocking about El Bulli's multi-coursed menus by now. In fact, several years ago, he offered old fashioned a la carte menus, but even then, few ordered from them as they were not the best possible experience even for a repeat diner. By the way, in a thread that runs over 280 posts and started over a year and a half ago, I'm not sure whose meal you are referring to in your post.

[Bux]

You have however hit on one of the main reasons why people want to go to El Bulli -- so they can join in these conversations without suffering supercilious put-downs like yours.

Yes Victor, shame on you. Imagine what would happen to this site--to the Internet in general!--if people only posted about the things they actually knew something about.

Cynicism is rampant here as well as in the world at large. Imagine what would happen in the print media if people only wrote about the things they actually knew something about. There's nothing personal in this, neither towards Russ as I rarely read the LA Times, nor to Victor, because while my Spanish may serve me almost well enough in a restaurant, I can't understand as much as the weather forecast in a Spanish language newspaper. I do read an awful lot that I know is misstatement of fact in local newspapers however. More than a few books are written by crackpots as well.

Nevertheless, the Internet and newspapers should not be in direct competition nor should I make such a comparison perhaps. The simple fact is that by discussing what we don't know, we also educate ourselves. There are moments when I find Victor's insistence that one go eat at a restaurant before discussion the food, to be right on target. There have been on this thread alone, repetitions of hearsay that have offered no contribution. The opinions of ten people who like or dislike the meal they had, offer a kind of information. The opinion of one person repeated ten times by others offers no reinforcement of the first opinion. Then there are posts with suppositions about the food that tend to lead those who have eaten at the restaurant in question to guess that the poster has not eaten there himself. This might not be the thought that first occurs to those who themselves have only hearsay knowledge and thus we should be careful about what we say without firsthand knowledge.

None of that should imply that there is no room in the thread for those whose knowledge is purely from books and hearsay. I firmly believe we all form opinions and make decisions on what we read. I would hope that every newspaper writer understands that. While the most highly respected journalist has reason to report first hand, he's got to be aware that his first hand report will help form opinions by those who read what he writes and that the readers will synthesize their own opinion after reading many sources. While reports from those who have eaten at El Bulli will take on a greater significance than posts from those who haven't, it's no less reasonable for those who haven't been there to discuss the restaurant as it is for then to discuss food in ancient Rome. What doesn't change is the relative kind and amout of knowledge one can gather about any subject before offering an opinion in any group discussion. None of us needs to told we had no reason to enjoy the food we've enjoyed. What's interesting is to hear why others didn't enjoy that food, not that it there's some abstract reason the food is not worthy of enjoyment.

[russ parsons]

The simple fact is that by discussing what we don't know, we also educate ourselves.

Do you not see anything Orwellian in that? Are we to believe that somehow the act of discussion, regardless of actual knowledge, can somehow provide knowledge? I don't mean to be an old stick-in-the-mud about this, and purely intellectual arguments about food are good fun. But when people are making qualitative judgements (at quite some length and quite heatedly) about specific things without having ever experienced those things, that's a little scary.

This reminds me of the proverb of the seven blind men describing the elephant, except that it's at one remove. What we're actually describing are other people's descriptions of the beast--unreliability squared.

Furthermore, I'm a little confused by your comparison between the Internet and newspapers in this regard. Are you actually suggesting that restaurant critics could write their reviews just as well without ever having gone to the restaurant? If they merely polled a few strangers as to what they thought, would that carry the same weight?

In this specific case, I've never been to El Bulli. And, quite frankly, it sounds like a place I might not like very much, based just on what I've heard. I have friends who are great cooks and who have great palates and they seem to be divided about it. I do have some general background on the restaurant based on having read the cookbook--I know, or I think I know, what the philosophy and techniques are. But before I put in print an opinion as to the actual restaurant, I would certainly have to visit it.

I think this goes doubly in the case of El Bulli, which is--as Bux so rightly points out--breaking new ground in the way the impressionist painters were doing a century ago. But unlike paintings, which can be easily reproduced, a restaurant experience is nearly always unique (in the literal, not fabulist, sense of the word).

I'm certainly not arguing for an end to discussion of El Bulli or other restaurants, but merely an acknowledgement that absent actual knowledge, our discussions are unreliable. When someone who has actually been to the restaurant--and more than once--speaks up, we should pay a little deference.

[Bux]

Russ, I don't think we're saying things that are so different. My effort was largely to point out that the world is full of grey areas there are few blanket blacks and whites. My comparsion beteen between the Interet and the press is only to point out that voices lacking experience are often published in both. You seemed to be saying it was a problem unique to the Internet. Had you said imagine what would happen to media if people only wrote about the things they actually knew something about, I'd not taken offense.

Actually, we don't learn by simply discussing what we don't know, it requires the input of others who do know to correct us. The fault of message boards is perhaps that even posts that are rearead before posting are not reread once more at liesure. It's as if every post has an immediate dealine and suffers for that. My thoughts on this issue woud have been more correctly expressed by a comment about learning from the responses made to comments about what we don't know.

The story about seven blind men (actually I thought it was five) and an elephant (we agree on one) is probably even less telling than Roshomon, where I believe the various eye witnesses were not deprived of a sense, but nevertheless had different stories to tell. One might possible draw a picture of an elephant by compiling the different parts, but how does one reconcile several wholes? Although I'm not sure the answer is germane here.

What may be lost in all this is that one has to form an opinion before one goes to El Bulli. It's not the kind of restaurant and that comes up and hits you in the face. Even if one chooses to vacation in Roses, and truthfully enough, Roses didn't strike me as the sort of town that would generally appeal to fans of Adria, El Bulli is not likely to come to your attention. People don't go to El Bulli unless they've decided to go there and that requires them to have an opinion. Do I go to El Bulli, or do I not? In fact, one has to decide if that's even worth thinking about. I'm not sure that one of the functions of a place such as eGullet is to serve as a sounding board. People offer opinions in the hope they will be reinforced or shot down. Either way they closer to making the big decision.

I think I addressed the issue of qualitative judgements in my earlier post. I am with you and Victor on this. I may find it less upsetting or scary, but no more useful.

[Jonathan Day]

Bux, in reply to Robyn:

By the way, in a thread that runs over 280 posts and started over a year and a half ago, I'm not sure whose meal you are referring to in your post.

Robyn's quote was a bit out of context. Here's the paragraph from which it was taken:

I do not expect the "last meal on earth" experience every time we go out. Instead I so appreciate the effort of both the front and back of the house that I think this sense of "I am ready to enjoy myself and truly love what is served" conveys itself to the staff. Because we are so willing to let ourselves be willing participants in a restaurant, the restaurant willingly tries to give us their best.

The poster was describing her attitude toward a repeat visit to el Bulli, one at which, unlike her earlier visit which she found delightful, was a disappointment. But note the generous spirit in which she approached the restaraurant.

It's equally out of context to go from a bad experience with el Bulli to a blanket statement that only a few of Adria's course are good, and some inedible. Many have had a very different experience, including the quoted poster on her earlier visits to el Bulli, which she described as "the world's greatest". Nor does it follow that 25 courses invariably lead to a confusion of tastes -- classical French court menus often had more courses than this, and I can assure you that, in my experience of el Bulli, there was no confusion of flavours at all. The small courses made the meal a pleasure.

I agree with Russ: judgements based on second party reports are of little value. At least let's not take the secondary sources out of context.

Robyn, the QUOTE button will let other posters know whose post you are quoting and when it went onto the thread.

[Bux]

Bux, in reply to Robyn:

By the way, in a thread that runs over 280 posts and started over a year and a half ago, I'm not sure whose meal you are referring to in your post.

Robyn's quote was a bit out of context. Here's the paragraph from which it was taken:

Right. I didn't scroll back that far.

[russ parsons]

I learned this lesson very early. In the early '80s when I was restaurant critic at the Albuquerque Tribune, a friend sent a menu from this place in LA called St. Estephe, which was doing a French take on New Mexican cooking. The menu looked hilarious and I couldn't wait to make fun of it. Fortunately, another columnist at the paper got it before I did. I say fortunately because several years later, after I moved to LA, I actually at the restaurant and realized that what John Sedlar was doing--despite all of the painted dishes, etc--was capturing and purifying the essential flavors of New Mexican food. What seemed ridiculous on paper and from description, was actually a quite transcendent experience. I still remember a posole he made that was essentially a clear broth with a few hominy kernels floating in it. But that consomme held all the complexity of the best home-cooked versions. Taste before you leap.

[Bux]

I have to agree with vserna.  Food is food.  There's no way one can judge it without sitting down to it, several times, and consciously learning its ways and "caprices".  Although we live in a gastro-porn environment, fuelled by lavishly illustrated magazines and unusually detailed resumées of what is served (and why) the basic rules still apply.  I'm more conservative a critic than vserna - I refuse to write about a cook (or restaurant - not always the same thing) until I've got to leisurely know him or her; under pressure and, on mercifully slow days, entirely left to their own devices.

One problem I see, as a conservative, with eGullet, is that there's a simple "one or two visits" requirement.  With good restaurants (the bad are easily dismissed at first gulp), one should spend a whole day there, from the moment it opens till the time it closes; day after day; until one has got the full measure of its personality and versatility.

I'm an extremist, however.  I think cooking is related to friendship - love, even - and that tourism, however expert, is always a doomed experience.  In reality, one has to live in the same place; know what's served all around; be familiar with all the possibilities and impossibilities.  This is why I always recommend that visitors go to interesting restaurants with "habituées", so that they can experience what someone local, jaded and even bored can feel.

And even then it's difficult!

Gastronomy is all about a startling but comforting synthesis of familiarity; surprise; intimacy; contextual invention; cultural refreshment and, above all, unexpected enjoyment of what was erroneously taken for granted.

The one proviso is that you actually sit down and eat the food; several times (if you're appetite is whetted the first time).  I truly think it's beyond the Pale to judge a restaurant or even a style of cooking before you've actually submitted yourself to it.

My basic strategy is to find a hotel near the restaurant I want to investigate and go there twice a day (alone is almost as good as going with local habituées) until I've got a handle on it.  I find it tragic than one-time eating experiences count for experience among over-enthusiastic Americans.  This is a question of life - not just food. :)

I didn't mean to over look Miguel's post. It actually had the most meat in it, or food for thought, for me, of the recent posts. Judging food is not the ultimate reason for posting on eGullet. It may, in fact, be one of the very lesser reasons. I rarely post to make judgments and no more often am I looking for other people's judgments on restaurants. Victor's opinion that a restaurant is worthy of my interest is far more important than knowing whether or not he actually likes the food. Though I suppose deeming it worth knowing is also a judgment call.

There is no minimum visit requirement for discussing a restaurant and certainly not one for asking questions. I'm more than willing to visit four restaurants and tell you which one I like best, or tell you if I had a good meal at any of them. In no way should this be interpreted as a critical review of the restaurant or the chef. It's a snapshot opinion of a single meal and more often will I rave about what I liked than dismiss a restaurant for a meal I didn't enjoy. I come to eGullet to discuss culinary matters. Particular restaurants are often the least interesting part of what's here and when I'm looking for restaurants to include in my itinerary, I much prefer to hear about meals that excite and inspire diners. I don't even understand why a diner would rant on and on about a meal he didn't like.

Gastronomy can be about a whole lot of things and about different things to different people. For my wife and I, it's about travel as much as anything else. Dining out at restaurants is something we do on a daily basis when we travel and not something we do at home with the same regularity. Early in our travels, we found we enjoyed those days and those places where we enjoyed our meals the most. There's something in our collective nature that allowed us to laugh at all the day's problems. The flat tires, the lost luggage, the stolen souvenirs, the rude shopkeeper, the lost money, etc. all became stories for another day and part of the experiences that made us better people when mulled over at a good table. Those same things festered when I didn't enjoy my meal. Our choices were simple. Stop traveling as those things were just part of the package, or learn to choose our restaurants wisely. At any rate, you can't keep on eating well without refining your tastes and without learning a lot about food and restaurants. You also learn how to use them wisely without making it such a chore that one has to bed down with the chef to appreciate a good meal. I arrive at a restaurant determined to have a good meal. I may discuss the food ad infinitum with my wife and some may feel I over intellectualize my meals (Miguel is the first to imply I don't take then seriously enough) but our discussion has but one goal and that's to enjoy ourselves, not to better pass judgment on the meal or the restaurant. It's not my job, no one pays me to do it. I do like to pass on what I learn and thus recommend the places I've enjoyed and recommend the dishes I've liked as well as any observations I've had that will enable others to make the most of there meals.

Just this past October we spent several days in Donostia. Each day we had lunch at a different restaurant. I found it rough enough to narrow my choice to four restaurants. Had I felt a need to take four meals in one restaurant, I think I would have just given up choosing and stayed home. I'd have had a much deeper appreciation for that restaurant than I do for the four I patronized, but appreciation doesn't live in a vacuum. I think the sum of my experiences was greater in the four restaurants than it would have been with four meals in one restaurant. I did return to two or three bars on a second night, but I had the luxury of being able to enjoy a number of bars and a number of dishes in a couple of bars on different nights.

I tend to move around a lot when I travel, but I don't tend to move very far. It's not a way of traveling I recommend often to other people, but it works for us. There are those who like to stay in one spot, while others tend to want to cover too much ground, but it's all subjective.

[robyn]

Bux, in reply to Robyn:

By the way, in a thread that runs over 280 posts and started over a year and a half ago, I'm not sure whose meal you are referring to in your post.

Robyn's quote was a bit out of context. Here's the paragraph from which it was taken:

I do not expect the "last meal on earth" experience every time we go out. Instead I so appreciate the effort of both the front and back of the house that I think this sense of "I am ready to enjoy myself and truly love what is served" conveys itself to the staff. Because we are so willing to let ourselves be willing participants in a restaurant, the restaurant willingly tries to give us their best.

The poster was describing her attitude toward a repeat visit to el Bulli, one at which, unlike her earlier visit which she found delightful, was a disappointment. But note the generous spirit in which she approached the restaraurant.

It's equally out of context to go from a bad experience with el Bulli to a blanket statement that only a few of Adria's course are good, and some inedible. Many have had a very different experience, including the quoted poster on her earlier visits to el Bulli, which she described as "the world's greatest". Nor does it follow that 25 courses invariably lead to a confusion of tastes -- classical French court menus often had more courses than this, and I can assure you that, in my experience of el Bulli, there was no confusion of flavours at all. The small courses made the meal a pleasure.

I agree with Russ: judgements based on second party reports are of little value. At least let's not take the secondary sources out of context.

Robyn, the QUOTE button will let other posters know whose post you are quoting and when it went onto the thread.

Sometimes the quotes get too long. I assumed - erroneously in retrospect - that the people who were talking in the thread had been following it since its inception. Robyn

[MiguelCardoso]

Bux, I deeply respect and depend on adventurous attitudes like yours - people like you are the discoverers, testers and communicators in the best sense. Thanks so much for your thoughts and the valuable insight into your - this will sound pretentious but it's probably the right word - methodology.

Only the police, however, will drag me away from a restaurant, once I've found it. When travelling, I want to get to know it as well as possible, as you would someone you'd just met and liked. My theory - brilliant, very individualistic chefs apart - is that one gets to know more about a particular gastronomic culture by fully exploring one kitchen than by hopping about. One shares in the daily selection of supplies; observes its relationship to the markets (something I'd say was essential) and, by chatting to the staff and showing real interest in them and their work, learns a lot about the constraints and possibilities that preside over what they offer and how they serve it.

The problem with new restaurants is that, once you've finally assembled a wide range of establishments where you're well known and well received (which is crucial in Portugal, as preferential treatment is finely but unmistakably graded and meted out), you lose these privileges if you're away too long. Owners and employees will assume you're taking your custom elsewhere or found a new favourite and, when you do return, yearning for some perfect dish you know you can't get anywhere else, they'll probably go out of their way to ruin it for you, signalling their displeasure at being scorned.

Despite a wealth of excuses (being ill, on a diet, abroad), people here in Lisbon know where're you've been dining. Only yesterday I got ticked off in an old-fashioned restaurant I've been going to since I was a child and was scolded for what was seen as my excessive visits to my favourite sushi house. One waiter instantly said to another as I sat down at the "barra": "Oh, look - Dr.Cardoso must have some stomach complaint from all that raw fish he's been having and now he probably expects us to put it right with our "canja" (chicken broth)" This was said in acid tones and I wearily realized it would take a few more regular visits to square my custom and build back some of the good will they'd so dramatically withdrawn.

If you're serious and fussy about eating out here, you really have to maintain your lunching and dining network - this often means going to places you don't really feel like visiting, just because it's been a long time. Regular visits are fundamental for keeping up and keeping in with the staff. Whenever a good new restaurant is found (I only try one a week), it's almost inevitable that one of the older ones will be sacrificed, as breaking in a new place - we privately and arrogantly call it "grooming"! - takes a lot of effort, as you get to know them and, more importantly, get them to know you.

Some older friends of mine will even keep going to a well-loved restaurant when it's going through hard times and serving well below its best, to reap the (enormous) loyalty rewards that accrue when it gets back on its feet. They eat in the almost empty room, haunted by the ghosts of remembered glory, and lie through their teeth about the non-excellence of the food. It's a funny thing - but related to the conservative culture - that it's quite rare for a restaurant to close here, no matter how awful it gets.

That's why, when travelling, I no longer try to fit in all the restaurants that interest me. As soon as I find one that "fills my measures" ("que me enche as medidas"), I stay put. If I do go elsewhere, it will be with the recommendation (or at least reluctant consent) of the head waiter, cook or knowledgeable member of staff. After a third visit, wherever you might be - if only to show openness and good taste - they'll gladly offer suggestions among the competition. As long as you come back and say "Yeah...not bad...!"

I'm sorry I took so long to explain my position but I didn't want you to misjudge what I said. Perhaps it's related to my being far more interested in local, regional and national gastronomic cultures and their everyday production, enactment and ritual, than in the culinary masterpieces that are the result of personal vision and talent and that, apart from the obvious context, are more properly seen as international.

In any case, one or two visits do provide very interesting accounts - and these experiences have their own form of "truth" and integrity. But it gets more interesting (to me) the better and longer you know an establishment; following the months, the seasons and the years!

Why does reading eGullet always make me so damn hungry? :)

[robyn]

Robyn, there are people who read far more into artistic expression than may be deserved, and there are people who will always ascribe the the Emperor's New Clothes to that which they don't understand or that which doesn't meet their expectations. Art and all we know in the world, changes on the acceptance of ideas that were once thought revolutionary as well as evolutionary.

Those who break the rules successfully are the new leaders and the new sages. Those very impressionist paintings whose progeny now grace popular magazine covers and the walls of doctor's offices were, in their day, thought quite ugly and provocatively so. Dismissing trends because they don't meet the standards of the older tradition is not a valid argument, and it's always time for cynics. In every movement there's something to be found that one can be cynical about. Cynicism is not a vital path to truth it is merely a personal trait.

The reason it's too late to dismiss Adria, is that he's already the focus of too many chefs, not only in Spain, but in France and the US. If he were to die tomorrow and all that was written about him and by him were to disappear from the face of the earth, he'd remain a historical influence because he's in the minds of too many cooks of all ages and persuasions. One can play to the ultraconservative masses with a dismissal of El Bulli, but in enlightened circles, complete dismissal of an interest in what is being done at El Bulli displays little more than an intellectual dismissal of the culinary world. We are all entitled to know what we like without knowing anything about food.

Nevertheless, there's nothing Michelin has ever published that implies bedrooms are part of the Michelin three star experience. My experience with fine and multi-starred restaurants in the US and France indicates that a trend towards smaller and many more courses has been going on for decades. Moreover the art of small bites--as in tapas--has long been part of the Spanish culinary heritage. There's nothing shocking about El Bulli's multi-coursed menus by now. In fact, several years ago, he offered old fashioned a la carte menus, but even then, few ordered from them as they were not the best possible experience even for a repeat diner. By the way, in a thread that runs over 280 posts and started over a year and a half ago, I'm not sure whose meal you are referring to in your post.

Sounds like there's more than a fair amount of cultural relativism in your post. I don't buy it in food - I don't buy it in art - I don't buy it in politics - and I don't buy it in life in general. If everything you hold dear in based on cultural relativisim - then we really don't have anything to discuss - because you're looking at the world through eyes that are totally different than mine.

On the other hand - if your cultural relativism is less than absolute - then I have this to say about restaurants (won't bore you with my views about art - politics - or life in general). A great *chef* can make great food. A *great* restaurant turns out *great* food *consistently*. It's not a question if I go on April 12 2001 - the food is great - but if I go on January 27 2002 it's inedible. That is why the Michelin star system makes a lot of sense. A restaurant which sometimes has great food but sometimes has inedible food doesn't in my opinion even warrant one star. I'd rather go to the one "knife and fork" place in town. The food won't be great - but it will almost always be good regional food.

There is a big difference between art and food. If I go to an exhibition I don't like -I can just take a quick "look-see" and walk out. Most exhibitions are in museums which have other things to see. And if the museum is terrible - I go can shopping <smile>. If I go to a restaurant - I'm stuck - unless I am so aggrieved that I simply walk out midway through a meal (haven't done that often - but I have on occasion). Walking out on a meal - or a reservation for a second meal - or simply coming away unhappy from a meal - isn't awful if you're in your home town and the restaurant isn't that pricey. It isn't awful if you're on a trip and your expectations of the place were low to start with - and you didn't spend a lot of money. It is awful if you've taken a couple of days out of your life - and spent 500 bucks or more (used to be able to do 3 stars for 200-300 or less - but 500 is more like it these days) - on a meal that isn't wonderful. And that *wonderful* has to be consistent.

The impressionists are a bad analogy. When they were new - they could be had for a song - and most didn't sell at all. We're not talking about restaurants which are charging peanuts for their meals. We're talking about restaurants with world class pretentions which are charging world class prices. If a restaurant is worthy of world class prices - it will deliver consistently delicious meals to everyone who dines there. And no I don't care if the chef has a headache on the day my journey takes me to his establishment.

That said - I haven't eaten at El Bulli. Probably never will. I don't much like Spain for a number of reasons and will probably never go there again. The closest I will probably get to this school of cooking is La Broche in Miami. I was simply responding to the original poster's (Lizlilee's <sp>?) experiences there (one good and one bad).

As for 25 courses - I don't know how big you guys are - but I am a small woman - and the most I can do (while leaving some room for dessert - I love desserts and I always assume until proven otherwise that there's a great pastry chef in the kitchen) is perhaps 5-7 courses with tasting menu size portions. So instead of doing 25 courses - perhaps the chef should just just pick his 5-7-10 best and run with those. I find it interesting that a lot of people eating these 25 course extravaganzas have to refer to notes and sometimes photos to remember what was good - and what wasn't. Sometimes they have to refer back to remember exactly what they've eaten. On my part - I remember every memorable dish/meal I've ever eaten for the last 30 years. Except one. Because I dined at Alain Ducasse on 9/10/2001 - which happened to be my 30th anniversary. Only time I've had a total blackout. I'll have to go back sometime to recapture my memories. Robyn

P.S. With regard to restaurants with rooms - agreed there's no Michelin requirement - but they're nice. You don't have to worry about driving after dark in a strange place after too much food and too much wine. Not to mention trying to navigate in a foreign language - or going down 1 1/2 lane roads with high walls on both sides. Sometimes the rooms are an afterthought - a place to crash - sometimes they're a little weird - done up in color schemes that were fashionable 25 years ago - and sometimes they're snazzy and expensive. No matter what they're like - I appreciate stumbling up the stairs instead of trying to navigate a multi-mile drive back to where I'm staying after a great meal.

[robyn]

...Only the police, however, will drag me away from a restaurant, once I've found it. When travelling, I want to get to know it as well as possible, as you would someone you'd just met and liked. My theory - brilliant, very individualistic chefs apart - is that one gets to know more about a particular gastronomic culture by fully exploring one kitchen than by hopping about...

Agreed - but sometimes it is very difficult to do when traveling. I don't know about you - but there's only so much food I can eat. On the other hand - last time we hit an excellent restaurant while traveling - we canceled dinner reservations at another place for the second night - and dined there again. I just let it be known that I would prefer lighter dishes the second night - and the staff obliged with recommendations. They even left me with enough room for dessert <smile>. Robyn

[mongo_jones]

this post is in response not to the most recent set of posts from robyn and others but to those from vserna, miguelcardoso and russ parsons (and others) in which they posted their takes on the earlier "theoretical" discussion of el bulli and ferran adria. i am not quoting from all their posts since my response is not to specific things they said but to the tenor of parts of their argument.

with that preamble out of the way:

i can't help but read a certain amount of turf-delineation in some of the not-quite condescending takes on the discussion in question.

let's take a look at this for example:

One problem I see, as a conservative, with eGullet, is that there's a simple "one or two visits" requirement. With good restaurants (the bad are easily dismissed at first gulp), one should spend a whole day there, from the moment it opens till the time it closes; day after day; until one has got the full measure of its personality and versatility.

I'm an extremist, however. I think cooking is related to friendship - love, even - and that tourism, however expert, is always a doomed experience. In reality, one has to live in the same place; know what's served all around; be familiar with all the possibilities and impossibilities. This is why I always recommend that visitors go to interesting restaurants with "habituées", so that they can experience what someone local, jaded and even bored can feel.

And even then it's difficult!

Gastronomy is all about a startling but comforting synthesis of familiarity; surprise; intimacy; contextual invention; cultural refreshment and, above all, unexpected enjoyment of what was erroneously taken for granted.

The one proviso is that you actually sit down and eat the food; several times (if you're appetite is whetted the first time). I truly think it's beyond the Pale to judge a restaurant or even a style of cooking before you've actually submitted yourself to it.

My basic strategy is to find a hotel near the restaurant I want to investigate and go there twice a day (alone is almost as good as going with local habituées) until I've got a handle on it.

the terms on which a "real" critique of a restaurant can be made turn out, not surprisingly, to be ones on which only very few can operate. say nothing of us parvenus who have not actually eaten at el bulli (or some place else); those who've visited once or twice (the food tourists) get a little bit of approval but they too are dilettantes; it is only the heavyweight--the one who stays a while and eats everyday--who truly can write about the food. there is something to this, of course, even if the logical end, the only true authority, is someone who sleeps in the restaurant every day and then dies there (presumably choking on the day's special). all of this may or may not be intended to dishearten the non-specialist, but i can't see how it doesn't.

at least that's my take on it.

in any event, what comrades serna and parsons seem to miss in their more than not-quite condescending takes on posts made by me, boris_a and others is that we are quite clearly not talking about the food at el bulli. in fact, this is made quite clear in many of the posts. what we were discussing/attempting to understand was aspects of adria's theory and philosophy of food and relating it to larger cultural narratives. i don't quite get what the problem with such discussions is or why they need to be predicated on prior ingestion, digestion and excretion of the actual food at el bulli. adria is a food theorist. people are presumably buying his books for more than the pretty pictures. are you suggesting that this aspect of his work is not to be taken seriously? that really he's just a hyper creative chef who likes to spin fancy theses on what he's doing to enchant the easily impressed? if so, it is possible that you are not taking him seriously enough. or are you saying that you can't discuss the theory without eating the food? of course the actual experience of the food will have a profound impact on the reception of the theory, but the two can be separated as well (if only provisionally), just as adria's approach to his food can, and has, influence(d) profoundly chefs who've never actually eaten his food. all we're doing here is discussing things anyway--no one is claiming to have hit upon the authoritative understanding of adria or el bulli without having been there (which seems to be the underlying accusation).

in the end i think this and the discussion of net vs. paper comes back once again to the question of who gets to talk about food, and more to the point, who gets to talk seriously about food. part of the power of the internet is it allows a certain democratization of conversation (well, at least among people who own computers and internet connections). sure, this creates a lot more static but it also undermines the authority of the old experts who no longer get to monopolize the conversation. this may explain the condescension that many in the old media have for information on the internet.

all in all, however, this has been, and continues to be, a very illuminating discussion--in more ways than one.

[robert brown]

I like all the people who put forth the various analyses of how fine cuisine has changed over the years, usually in the phrase "the trend towards this" and "the trend towards that"; the end of haute cuisine; the mixing of various cuisines; dishes that purport to show that cooking is art; tasting menus with small portions; 15 teensy courses; and on and on. The biggest change, however, is that the food that great restaurants threw out 15 years ago was that which the kitchen never used versus today's garbage, which is the food the customer didn't finish. One day soon everyone will realize that change in how we dine is determined at its roots by economic considerations. This is why there are fewer great chefs that many experienced eaters have a curiosity in (and Adria leads in that department, at least for me) and why they are often just as happy to dine in an "old-fashion" restaurant where the cooking bears some resemblance to evocations that are more than a chef's "statement". To me, tapas are, and should remain, bar food. It is unfortunate that they now do service as the meal itself. I can see their appeal to chefs, however. They can be prepared ahead of time and they create less waste. The worst, however, is that too many high-profile chefs have taken all the challenge and the romance out of high-end dining. It is becoming increasingly more a matter of "you eat and drink what I tell you, or tough luck".

I have to disagree with Miguel about discovering the qualities of a restaurant. I like to go in as wet behind the ears as possible at a restaurant I have never visited. The cleaner the slate your present, the better notion you will have of how a restaurant handles its general clientele. In fact, I find my analytical powers compromised even if I go with people who know the waiters and chef or have some kind of a leg-up on a place. I know that if the staff is kind and generous to me, it is because of some combination of how they perceive me and how forthcoming they are.

[MiguelCardoso]

Well said - and true, mongo jones.

However, I don't think there's any turf-delineation (good term, that!) involved. I'd say it was the other way round. Spaniards and Portuguese are very loving hosts and our main preoccupation is that our foreign friends enjoy the same meals we do. It's much more like showing off; I assure you. We want you to notice us and love us - this is a very Latin thing; probably universal.

That said, you have no idea how much being an interested tourist can help you secure a wonderful meal. Foreigners are warmly welcomed and staff will go out of their way to impress, if they detect genuine interest and (this is very important) humility and open-mindedness. The best strategy, imho, is surrendering all choice. You don't even have to speak the language - just helplessly open your hands and say "Quero provar tudo!"

And go back the next day! That is the minimum sign of commitment; without which (at least in Portugal) nothing truly extraordinary can be achieved. Nothing is as depressing to a proud restaurant as putting on a good show (though the real treasures lie in wait) and then having to say: "Well, they never came back..." :)

[MiguelCardoso]

I forgot to add that "foreign friends" includes everyone who lives, oh, at least 30 miles away from where we do.

[Bux]

Miguel, thank you for your elolquent reply. I had forgotten, for the moment, your other post on the importance of restaurant loyalty in Portugal. Everywhere around the world one can improve one's meal by demonstrating one's appreciation even after the meal begins and certainly an introduction by a friend of the house never hurts. But Portugal seems a world apart in the way loyalty is rewarded and in the way it is required. This is a subject we could explore at great length and perhaps in this forum, but it's not particularly germane to this thread. I'll only add that in NY, chefs and restaurants expect you to eat elsewhere. My favorite chefs have even offered to help me get reservations and they'll ask my opinion about other places even in NY. Portugal seems unique.

[mongo_jones]

Well said - and true, mongo jones.

However, I don't think there's any turf-delineation (good term, that!) involved. I'd say it was the other way round. Spaniards and Portuguese are very loving hosts and our main preoccupation is that our foreign friends enjoy the same meals we do. It's much more like showing off; I assure you. We want you to notice us and love us - this is a very Latin thing; probably universal.

miguel,

bu turf-delineation i didn't mean that i thought you were saying only locals could truly appreciate a cuisine; the turf i was referring to is that of the gourmand and the food-writer.

certain egullet conversations suggest a belief in an implicit gastronomic evolutionary cycle to me; with the underlying assumption being that people in the next higher level always trump those in the lower. presumably, established food writer is the pinnacle.

regards,

mongo