El Bulli--From wonderful to absurd

[Andy Lynes]

Matthew Grant who, for all of his elistist aristrocratic tendencies

Thats exactly what I thought about Matthew when he insisted on drinking bottles of Bud in the pub. "What the hell is wrong with pints you elitist aristocrat?" I inwardly fumed.

[Elissa]

I inwardly fumed.

a new way to prepare organ meat?

[Andy Lynes]

A new and very uncomfortable way.

[Jonathan Day]

Apparently Matthew had a less than ideal experience at El Bulli. I understand that Steve Plotnicki, who dined there the same evening, also failed to find merit in his meal. I hope that the two negative opinions were reached independently.

There have been many eGullet posts and other writeups praising El Bulli to the skies. There have been others that were unenthusiastic. The same is true for almost any restaurant, including the French Laundry -- see, for example, Robert's post from last year (click here), from which I will quote a few paragraphs.

If there was one dish that pointed out what we recognized by this point as a certain lack of integrity in the operation was the unexciting cheese course described as “St.Nectaire, Savoy Cabbage ‘Cole Slaw’ and Grain Mustard Vinaigrette”. Its inclusion in the meal raised a few interesting questions: Why was there no “plateau des fromages” offered on a $135.00 menu? Why did Keller use a sliver of a variety of French cheese whose superior raw-milk, “fermier” version is not allowed in the United States, but nonetheless proceed to overwhelm it with cabbage and mustard?; And why was there no recognition of any of the dedicated cheese makers from the Napa Valley region who are making many interesting varieties and collectively could comprise a noteworthy, indeed a knowledge-imparting, cheese tray?...

What disappointed me more than, or beyond, the food and the uneven service were the implications for the state of American chefs and cuisine that emanate from what arguably is this country’s most talked about and influential chef and restaurant. I was unable to detect or ascertain what the French Laundry was doing to advance the cause of restaurant gastronomy in America. Unlike Keller’s compatriot a bit further south, Alice Waters, I saw no overt championing of local or regional produce, at least in terms of putting together names and places. In the execution of the dishes, I could not sense a feeling for “gourmandness” or the love of eating. The tiny portions that drive the conception of each dish preclude the grandiosity and the bringing to the table (often with special skill) of the whole product. ...

More off-putting, however, is that these effete, precious little “menu” creations first give off the impression of not being adroitly cooked but manhandled and assembled; second, are based on a hoped-for fortuitous meshing of disparate ingredients instead of drawing out profound flavor from the principle ingredient; and, third, are built from the top down as opposed to the bottom up.

After the salmon tartar cones and the Oysters and Pearls, nothing tasted as if it came from anywhere beyond the imagination of a chef having, charitably speaking, an off night. (In fact, Keller was off that night to Anaheim for the second game of the World Series. But so what, I figured: Once work starts on his New York French Laundry, the clients in Yountville will not be seeing him for very many nights either). The food was, to put it another way, cuisine’s adaptation of Gertrude Stein’s “There is no there there.”

I think Michael Lewis's point was simply that we need to consider several possibilities when one group of diners enjoys a restaurant and another does not. The restaurant may in fact be a weak performer. It may have been off its usual form that evening. Or one group's palate or insight may have been deficient.

I am reminded of the story of the American dowager on her first visit to the Louvre. She marched from painting to painting, saying, in a strident voice, "I like this one ... I don't like that one ... I like that one." Finally the museum guard spoke up: "Madame, it is not the paintings that are on trial here."

[Bux]

I wouldn't say taste is culturally dependent, as biologists know that constraints exist on what humans will find edible or not.  Taste experts know that most humans are born capable of appreciating any flavor within a range of culturally acceptable flavors (i.e., those that are commonly eaten for nutritive purposes).  It is primarly food phobias and dislikes that are "programmed" in the social or psychological sense.  But the rest of your arguments are still very much appreciated.

Again, just because people don't like Adria's cuisine it doesn't mean it wasn't well-prepared.  There's no accounting for taste.  There's no way I could prepare an onion that would make it acceptable to my girlfriend.

The English language has its faults. "Taste" is the sense we use to perceive flavor. In another "sense," "taste" is a word we use to describe our preferences in clothing, books, sex and other things besides food.

When I spoke of cultural dependency in regard to taste I was thinking of a few thngs. Gather a few people together and discuss where to eat and you will observe peoples' preferences. Most will be willing to go to an old fashioned American restaurant. Probably an equal number will accept an Italian restaurant. There may, or may not, be a falling off when it comes to a French restaurant, but as you get into Asian foods, the likelihood grows. Suggest an Ethiopian restaurant and the chances of getting negative reaction grows even further. I'm speaking of a random group of Americans and not our sophisticated friends, of course. The phobia things are related but a bit different.

I am impressed with the civility with which you make your points, by the way.

[robert brown]

While there is not enough data now to make a valid finding, it is nonetheless interesting to note in a tantalizing way the backgrounds and interests of those who have posted favorable opinions about Ferran Adria and meals at El Bulli. In this group are a contributor to the El Bulli threads who is clearly well-read and educated and highly-informed about gastronomy in Spain; a well-traveled gastronome who is an architect and sculptor; an expatriate who is in possession of three advanced degrees; a professor at one of the nation's leading state universities; and an art world professional who grew up among works of the New York School and the documents of Dada and Surrealism.

I may have mentioned in the discussion linked to the Daily Gullet El Bulli story that Adria is gripped by the notion of sensibility, most likely because this is what is overriding in his approach to creativity, and what he expects (or hopes) the consumers of his dishes will bring to the table as a prerequisite for understanding the essence of his cuisine and restaurant. That his detractors remain obsessed with discussing the food weeks after they have eaten it speaks volumes about the nature of Adria's work and place in contemporary gastronomy.

[Chef/Writer Spencer]

That his detractors remain obsessed with discussing the food weeks after they have eaten it speaks volumes about the nature of Adria's work and place in contemporary gastronomy.

We're still talking about 911 and it's been almost two years. I find that theory flawed, but the rest of your arguement useful and focused in the right direction. I still think, as a chef, to expect your audience to come into the dining room with some kind of intellectual zen is pretentious. What, he only wants thinkers eating there? This is the restaurant biz after all. I bet he wants all kinds of people to experience his ingenuity and metier. I know what you're saying but I can't agree. I'm a chef, one who's been cooking high end stuff for 12 years, and I'd much rather turn a sixteen year old kid on to my food than get butt smootched by one of you thinkers out there. Because in reality, it sounds like you wouldn't find my intrinsic value in my metier anyhow.

And with that I'm gone.

[robert brown]

Where are you going?

[Mark Sommelier]

2 years ago I was talking to Jean-Louis Palladin ( I worked for 6 years at JL's place at the Watergate) about his dinner at El Bulli with Roberto Donna. He told me "I had the best dish of my life and the worst dish of my life in the same meal". The dish he loved was the chicken gelatin fettucine alfredo, the dish he hated was some sort of fish tartare that reminded me of Dan Aykroyds Bass-o-Matic routine from Saturday Night Live.

[Jonathan Day]

Mark's comment makes a lot of sense to me.

A look at both of Adria's books shows that he has constantly taken risks and tried new ideas. This is about as far from "safe" cooking as you could imagine. I wouldn't expect that every dish would appeal to every diner. In our dinner of 30 courses, most were delicious, one or two were so-so, none were unpleasant. Even if El Bulli doesn't hit that level every night, the restaurant is doing well if, say, 25 of the 30 were good, even if a few actively displeased some diners. When he does "connect", his food is surpassingly delicious, as well as intellectually intriguing. My sense is that this happens far more often that it doesn't.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

That his detractors remain obsessed with discussing the food weeks after they have eaten it speaks volumes about the nature of Adria's work and place in contemporary gastronomy.

We're still talking about 911 and it's been almost two years. I find that theory flawed, but the rest of your arguement useful and focused in the right direction. I still think, as a chef, to expect your audience to come into the dining room with some kind of intellectual zen is pretentious. What, he only wants thinkers eating there? This is the restaurant biz after all. I bet he wants all kinds of people to experience his ingenuity and metier. I know what you're saying but I can't agree. I'm a chef, one who's been cooking high end stuff for 12 years, and I'd much rather turn a sixteen year old kid on to my food than get butt smootched by one of you thinkers out there. Because in reality, it sounds like you wouldn't find my intrinsic value in my metier anyhow.

And with that I'm gone.

There are good reasons why some effort needs to be made on behalf of the diner:

To return to the Rothko; there are those who say, "My two year old could have painted that". And no doubt they're right. But the reason the Rothko is in the Tate Gallery, is not exclusively due to the superficial form and visual elements of the work. There is a wealth of background to it. Rothko moved from social realism, through surrealism to abstract impressionism. At the same time there were many other artists doing other things and all of them had their place in the continuum known as Art History. Rothko was trying to solve a problem. The glib father of the two year old doesn't see the context, and thus doesn't perceive the artistic problem that the painting addresses. Therfore his comments are extremely arrogant or extremely stupid.

I think a similar treatment of Adria is also necessary in order to understand what he's doing. An evaluation of the food is only the first step in what should be a rewarding investigation. If you think that's pretentious, there's not a great deal to say because you're clearly mired in your own prejudice.

It's not only the what but the why that is interesting.

Edited June 1, 2003 by Lord Michael Lewis (log)

[Matthew Grant]

Just to comment on a few things in this thread:

Spencer : I don't believe I have too many aristocratic tendancies, I'm 32 live in South London, sport skinhead hairstyle, drive a Ford Fiesta 1.4 on an 'M' plate. I live in a terraced house and work shifts, drink Budweiser or MGD straight form the bottle and spend all my spare time cooking, thinking about food, reading eGullet or saving up for meals out. Nearly penny I earn goes towards food and the occasional holiday. Last year I spent 7 months unemployed and now I'm working again, I'm making up for it big time. That is not me in my Avatar

Otherwise thanks for your support on this matter!

My position is dirt dug and clear. If it tastes like shit then what worth does it have. It's food, not art, not something to be intellectualized into favor.

That was almost my point. The food looked OK but I don't want to eat concepts or art, I want taste and flavour. I didn't want Lamb with beansprouts and a soy sauce dressing because of some 'concept' that Adria had come up with. I think food can be art but only if it tastes good first.

Just to clarify something, I don't think the food tasted bad, it just wasn't amazing. I ate everything put in front of me, nothing tasted offensive.

I don't know why we are trying to make this so intellectual, at the end of the day, I went to this restaurant to have an outstanding meal and left desperately disappointed. I went along full of expectation and I certainly didn't expect to leave feeling the way I did. Before we left on this trip my girlfriend read Robert and Jonathans review and knowing that we had several other restaurants booked for later in the trip she said "the holidays going to peak on the first night isn't it?" and I remember agreeing with her, how wrong we were.

Can't we all agree that it is possible that Adria has had an off year, maybe development of the dishes didn't go well over the winter. How difficult must it be to create so many new dishes every year? Maybe this year he failed? Maybe next year will be amazing? Maybe this year was amazing and I didn't get it (along with the rest of the dining room judging by their faces). Maybe, Maybe Maybe (with apologies to Rhona Cameron)

Me and my girlfriend had drawn our conclusions regarding the meal long before we spoke to Steve, I only met him briefly towards the end of our meal and he gave me the impression he was a little disappointed as well, I have yet to read his conclusions.

[=Mark]

There are good reasons why some effort needs to be made on behalf of the diner:

To return to the Rothko; there are those who say, "My two year old could have painted that". And no doubt they're right. But the reason the Rothko is in the Tate Gallery, is not exclusively due to the superficial form and visual elements of the work. There is a wealth of background to it. Rothko moved from social realism, through surrealism to abstract impressionism. At the same time there were many other artists doing other things and all of them had their place in the continuum known as Art History. Rothko was trying to solve a problem. The glib father of the two year old doesn't see the context, and thus doesn't perceive the artistic problem that the painting addresses. Therfore his comments are extremely arrogant or extremely stupid.

So, what you're saying is that diners at this restaurant should have dined there every day in order to have a clear context as to his progression that would lead to an appreciation of his current preparations? I don't think so. Patrons should not be required to take courses in "Adria History" in order to enjoy or "understand" a meal, whatever that's supposed to mean.

I could understand the cultural aspects of the cuisines of other countries where there are differences in the perceptions of the flavor or textural aspects, but I can't see that applying here as from what I've read this guy is just making it up as he goes along. He seems to have suffered the results of believing the extent of his own relevance and became a caricature of his own style.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

So, what you're saying is that diners at this restaurant should have dined there every day in order to have a clear context as to his progression that would lead to an appreciation of his current preparations?  I don't think so.  Patrons should not be required to take courses in "Adria History" in order to enjoy or "understand" a meal, whatever that's supposed to mean. 

I could understand the cultural aspects of the cuisines of other countries where there are differences in the perceptions of the flavor or textural aspects, but I can't see that applying here as from what I've read this guy is just making it up as he goes along.  He seems to have suffered the results of believing the extent of his own relevance and became a caricature of his own style.

No, that's what you're saying. I'm saying that Adria is importantly different and it may be enriching to make the effort to judge him on his terms. To do this would involve trying to understand why he does things, and not just basing an evaluation on individual experience.

Having dined there several times, I think Adria deserves to have his food seen in context. Even if I didn't 'like' what he was doing I would still say this, because I am intrigued by his vision. In many respects this vision has become obfuscated by debates like these, but first eating there in '96 was a revelation for me and as it's so rare to see someone trying to do something genuine in this business, I have every intention of putting down the weaker arguments against his work.

[Bux]

I still think, as a chef, to expect your audience to come into the dining room with some kind of intellectual zen is pretentious.  What, he only wants thinkers eating there?  This is the restaurant biz after all.  I bet he wants all kinds of people to experience his ingenuity and metier.  I know what you're saying but I can't agree.  I'm a chef, one who's been cooking high end stuff for 12 years, and I'd much rather turn a sixteen year old kid on to my food than get butt smootched by one of you thinkers out there.

I don't think Adria sets up any conditions and that he welcomes any diner with an open mind. It's often the diner who's never eaten classic French cuisine or at a three star restaurant who is most able to approach the table with the fewest prejudices of how food should taste.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

It's often the diner who's never eaten classic French cuisine or at a three star restaurant who is most able to approach the table with the fewest prejudices of how food should taste.

Eating is pretty egalitarian, and consequently so are food prejudices. Those who haven't in a three star establishment will be just as prejudiced as those who have, the only difference will be the substance of their prejudice.

[thelastsupper]

I still think, as a chef, to expect your audience to come into the dining room with some kind of intellectual zen is pretentious.  What, he only wants thinkers eating there? This is the restaurant biz after all.  I bet he wants all kinds of people to experience his ingenuity and metier.

Adriá isn't really concerned with the "restaurant biz" anymore. El Bulli certainly isn't wanting for customers. I have the idea that Adriá is attempting (and succeeding at) something that has stepped outside of the traditional culinary understandings of "craft" or "technique." --Almost as though he has seized the (rather alchemical) metaphor of cooking as transformation or transmutation and is using the dining room, the restaurant, the meal as setting for an exploration of the act of transformation: the relationship between manipulator and manipulated, with the viewer/spectator/diner as interpreter of the manipulated object (in this case, food, especially traditional Spanish/Catalan understandings of what food is or signifies--).

That said, I think Matthew Grant does well to criticize the formal aspects of the meal, or at least that he calls them to attention (even if by cynicism). Flavor is certainly a formal aspect and can be evaluated, but these evaluations will certainly vary person to person as has been noted. I suspect, as perhaps LML does, that Matthew has dismissed too readily his own questions such as: why call a trick with bean sprouts a 'false chip'? Why add numerous steps to eat what turns out essentially to be crunchy peanut butter on toast? Again all formal aspects: why did A. make these choices? What doe he accomplish by making the person paying for the meal become aware of the fact that he is being manipulated (or even duped)? I wonder if this is not what the meal is "about," these questions.

I am reminded of Brecht's development of "alienation" techniques within the theater. For example, a mother is weeping onstage, the audience is moved by her situation. A mime sneaks up behind her on the stage, aping her grief grotesquely and mocking the audience. Quite suddenly the spectator is put into a very uncomfortable situation with the confrontation that the "mother" is simply an actress, the emotion is "faked," the mime is responsible for this unveiling, etc. Maybe not directly applicable, but I think it may illuminate the idea that people do not necessarily seek the pleasurable or harmonious.

Dissonance usually has its reasons.

[Chef/Writer Spencer]

I am reminded of Brecht's development of "alienation" techniques within the theater. For example, a mother is weeping onstage, the audience is moved by her situation. A mime sneaks up behind her on the stage, aping her grief grotesquely and mocking the audience. Quite suddenly the spectator is put into a very uncomfortable situation with the confrontation that the "mother" is simply an actress, the emotion is "faked," the mime is responsible for this unveiling, etc. Maybe not directly applicable, but I think it may illuminate the idea that people do not necessarily seek the pleasurable or harmonious.

Dissonance usually has its reasons.

Talk about overintellectualization. Brecht? This is food for god's sake, NOT THEATRE, NOT ART. IT'S GOT TO TASTE GOOD.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Talk about overintellectualization.  Brecht?  This is food for god's sake, NOT THEATRE, NOT ART.  IT'S GOT TO TASTE GOOD.

Talk about over-simplification. Food? This is Art for God's sake, NOT BURGERS, NOT 'HIGH END'. IT'S GOT TO MEAN SOMETHING.

[Matthew Grant]

Talk about overintellectualization.  Brecht?  This is food for god's sake, NOT THEATRE, NOT ART.  IT'S GOT TO TASTE GOOD.

Thank you Spencer, thank you.

I don't buy into all this stuff about it being art, maybe that is how Adria perceives it but then maybe that should be explained to a customer making a booking if that is the case. How many people do you think they would have waiting to book then if they made a disclaimer that you would not be eating dinner but experiencing an experiment in art?

The main reason El Bulli has thousands of customers waiting to book a table is that they are expecting an amazing meal in the food sense not the artistic sense. They expect to be tantalized with incredible flavours and innovative combinations combined with miraculous technique. They do not expect to have to be philosophers, artists or intellectuals to get anything out of the meal.

Also, what is all this shit about Ferran Adria being the only chef in the world that controls the diners environment. How does he control the diner any more than any other chef? He cooks food, we choose whether to eat it or not.

[thelastsupper]

He isn't the only chef that controls the experience of eating, obviously. But he is one of the most aware of the uses and limits of that control.

If you have a cold and cannot taste correctly, a great portion of your dining experience is removed. It is not necessary to be

philosophers, artists or intellectuals to get anything out of the meal[,]

but to deny that level of involvement is to excuse yourself from what may be the underlying point of the meal.

I think most people know that they will be participating in an "experiment" when they make reservations at El Bulli. That is part of its gimmick: it is sensational; it is play; it is theatre. Check out the website-- words like: "magic," "singular/unique." People know they will be sucking through straws and eating eggs wrapped in caramel and being tricked. And if they don't, as you claim, who cares? El Bulli instantly fills up for its entire season, and will for quite a long time.

This spirit of experimentation, new formalism, design and sensationalism is very much in the Catalan tradition. Look at Dalí, at Miró, at Gaudi. They did things very differently from anyone else in their line of craft. They broke the rules and people were upset. In retrospect is their work "painting" or "architecture?" Probably, but their aims were new, you needed new tools to understand the work on the aritst's terms. Is the Casa Batlló really an apartment building anymore?

Casa Batlló

It has rooms and furniture and people can live there, so, yes, but is that all? To deny certain of its formal elements, its innovations, its monstrosity would be to simplify and dull its maker's intention. I am sure there are people who walk past it everyday on their way to work and don't give it a thought. You could too. But if you made a trip specifically to experience Gaudí on his own terms, it would be foolish and limiting to overlook what he was doing.

And I'm sorry, cooking is always theatre. Particularly restaurant cooking.

Edited June 3, 2003 by thelastsupper (log)

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Very well put LastSupper. I would just add that anyone is entitled to enjoy any meal on whatever level(s) they wish. Nevertheless, I find Chef/Writer and Matthew's refusal to accept that the meal could be enjoyed on other levels, or seen from perspectives other than their own, both unhelpful and frustratingly narrow-minded.

Matthew ridicules the 'false chip'. That is his right. Had I eaten it, I may or may not have been wowed by its formal elements, but I would certainly been curious about, and enjoyed discovering, its provenence. How can anyone deny me that pleasure? Let's not forget that for several months of R&D are involved in putting El Bulli's menu together, so one imagines that a certain amount of thought and testing went into the dish. This is thus a part of the dish. If this fails to impress or interest you, then clearly El Bulli is not your type of restaurant. I think Matthew's testimony and attitude bears this out.

[Jonathan Day]

And let me add that I (and many other diners the night we dined) found the food not only intriguing but also delicious. I am prepared to believe that the restaurant may have had an "off" night when Matthew visited; the wine service as described seems completely at odds with the service we received which was as good as any wine service I can recall.

If Adria's dishes were intellectually interesting but otherwise consistently unpalatable, I might join in the critique. But that isn't how I experienced them.

I would add that for some diners there may be a "mind over palate" effect (a felicitous expression coined by Robert Brown) at work. The dishes at El Bulli do look strange, and they consistently violate our expectations about what will look like and taste like what. Some people look at a dish or read its description and mentally rule it out, so that no matter how delicious it would be if they tasted it without first seeing it or reading about it, they cannot tolerate it.

Matthew dismissed the orange peel tempura, writing "my God it was pieces of orange peel fried in batter". We didn't have an orange peel tempura, but we did have a lemon peel tempura, which was superb: light and crisp, a perfect foil for the spiced apple it was served with. Perhaps Matthew's didn't measure up. It sounds as though his dinner, and the wine service especially, were unacceptable. But those who have not dined there should not assume that this is consistently true of El Bulli. It isn't.

Edited June 3, 2003 by Jonathan Day (log)

[Bux]

The main reason El Bulli has thousands of customers waiting to book a table is that they are expecting an amazing meal in the food sense not the artistic sense. They expect to be tantalized with incredible flavours and innovative combinations combined with miraculous technique. They do not expect to have to be philosophers, artists or intellectuals to get anything out of the meal.

I doubt that most of those who dine there do not perceive an amazing meal in the food sense, but most reviewers have been careful to describe the nature of a meal there. Some who rely on the three stars awarded by Michelin may be misled, but it's hard to believe that many diners are lured to this rather remote restaurant on that basis alone. Most people who frequent three star restaurants read about food. This is what I wrote earlier in this thread.

I can say I've been very cautious in recommending El Bulli to anyone. I have been since before I ever ate there. From what I had read from Adria's fans and from those puzzled by the food, it was obvious it was not for every diner.

I'm sorry Matthew was one of those who probably shoudn't have gone. From the dissappointment expressed, I have to wonder if he read what's been written here about the meals rather than the unimportant part about whether anyone liked his meal or not. A lot of Adria's food is not to "my taste," but I am eager to return a third time because I am impressed by what he is doing.

[Chef/Writer Spencer]

Very well put LastSupper. I would just add that anyone is entitled to enjoy any meal on whatever level(s) they wish. Nevertheless, I find Chef/Writer and Matthew's refusal to accept that the meal could be enjoyed on other levels, or seen from perspectives other than their own, both unhelpful and frustratingly narrow-minded.

Hey Lord,

First of all I never professed to being a broad minded guy.

I think you can enjoy the intellectual aspects if you've got flavor backing them up. If the food tastes like a donkey dick but it can pop your popcorn while squirting fryer hot grape jelly in the back of your throat then I think it's a joke. I am not condemning Adria though. I'm condemning creativity for creativity's sake. You seem like a fairly smart guy, I'm surprised you couldn't figure that out.