Originality, copying and inspiration

[robert brown]

Steve, a little bit of my mentioning those old dishes was whimsical. To me they represent the demise of a certain kind of cooking more refined than what still survives as bistro food and a kind of domestic "cuisine de grandmere"; i.e. boeuf bourguignonne, coc au vin, blanquette de veau. Forty years ago the quenelles,etc. were what you would have at the luxury New York French restaurants. To me it would be if classical pianists no longer played Debussy or Ravel, or jazz musicians Charlie Parker or Tadd Dameron tunes. That these dishes are all but gone, but that "Bird Lives" in jazz is yet another reason that cuisine not one of the lively arts. A blanquette de veau offered in the home of a good amateur chef is hard to beat in most restaurants. Of course there is no reason why the old "haute cuisine" should, or should have to, appear on menus. If they did, there would certainly be a very accomplished chef in the kitchen unafraid to make a clearly-defined traditional dish without hiding behind a bunch of ersatz ingredients and gadgetry.

The Ducasse-Adria contrast is fascinating. I want to think about it more.

[John Whiting]

A blanquette de veau offered in the home of a good amateur chef is hard to beat in most restaurants.

Shaun Hill has gone so far as to insist that, because of the logistics and economics of restaurant cuisine, roast duck can only be properly prepared in a domestic kitchen. And Rowley Leigh's original title for his first recipe collection, subsequently modified, was "Better at Home".

[Steve Plotnicki]

Jaybee - My overall point here is that in business the legal burden of protecting oneself falls on the inventor/creator. But the public doesn't like that. They want the RCA's of the world to be fair with the Farnsworths of the world. Save to say the world doesn't work that way. Especially when you are talking about public companies that have no conscience. But the flipside is that the public doesn't really care one iota about inventors. When people saw a TV set for the first time they didn't give any thought as to how scrupulous the inventor/promoter was. And if you said to them that the price should be $5 a set higher to compensate the inventor they would say hell no. Their heartstrings are only as long as the length of their pocketbooks.

Let me give John Whiting some red meat here and say that one of the great dichotomies of Capitalism is that the market is self interested when the issue can be liquidated into a financial instrument that benefits them. But when the market doesn't have their own resources at stake they are willing to adopt the concerns of those who have allegedly been taken advantage of. I'll give you the perfect example. The music buying public is very anti-recording company and they believe the artists are ripped off. Yet, the public is perfectly willing to download Napster or MP3 files and not pay the artists any royalties for them.  Explain that one to me?

Robert B. - My question about old school cooking (and we were discussing this at Loulou if I recall correctly) was were those dishes ever any good in the first place? Or did we just know less at the time? Also, when you think of the Ducasse-Adria nexus, take into consideration how much percpetion plays into your conclusions. For instance, would you be more prone to thinking a dish was really modern and innovative if it came from Adria's kitchen and would the reverse be true from Ducasse? Are you open-minded enough to set the "big business" aspect of Ducasse aside and willing to fairly assess the food? It's a tough question for me and it says alot oabout personal biases. Because when I walk into Ducasse I'm not a blank slate. And neither would I be at El Bulli.

[John Whiting]

The music buying public is very anti-recording company and they believe the artists are ripped off. Yet, the public is perfectly willing to download Napster or MP3 files and not pay the artists any royalties for them.

I avoid this moral dilemma by listening to Bach on CDs I've paid for.  

[cabrales]

As for eating dishes that chefs copied, I much prefer to eat the original creation from the hand that made it. . . . It is only in the environment of Robuchon's restaurant that we can experience them as part of a complete experience, as part of a package of flavors that will give them secondary and tertiary meaning.

My sentiments exactly.    Not only do I doubt that copiers (or even successors executing an identical recipe) would necessarily be able to replicate the subtle balances in a signature dish, but also how would a diner know that the "copier" is being faithful to the original without sampling the original in its intended context?

I have to admit that I enjoy sampling copiers' dishes, but, significantly, not as a substitute for the original. More as a comparison of how different chefs might implement a concept or provide balance to the same ingredients. For example, taking butter poached lobster, it has to be taken at some point in time at T Keller's. I do like sampling the same dish at different restaurants, and comparing the different versions.

[John Whiting]

I ate luncheon at Robuchon's Jamin ten years ago, including his celebrated potato purée. I thought that the latter epitomized the entire meal: perfect, suave, rich, bland, unchallenging. It was rather like the manner in which one should address royalty. I'm sure that the vast majority of his well-heeled diners found it reassuring, but it made me yearn for a garlicky aligot.

[Bux]

As for Ducasse and your assessment of his role in his business, not every chef has found it necessary to become a brand in order to make themselves famous. Look at Ferran Adria. He isn't a tireless self promoter who has licensed himself out to third parties. His fame has come as a result of the unique technique he created.

As a result of Adria's fame however, he's also in the business of hiring himself out as a consultant chef to restaurants and at least one hotel chain. Ducasse was a famous chef when he had one restaurant. He didn't become famous because he had a string of restaurants. He was able to open the second, third and fourth restaurants on the strength of his first restaurant, or we could say on the strength of his cooking. Is Adria's capitalizing on his reputation so different. Is there something inherently bad about expanding and does it matter if you consult or franchise, as  long as you do it well and improve the breed.

[John Whiting]

I am biased towards Small is Beautiful (which is why I avoid looking in mirrors   ) I love the woods when the newly green leaves have not yet reached maturity. I seek out undiscovered villages. I drive slowly along narrow roads. And I especially enjoy eating at small back-street restaurants where the chef is still too busy cooking to write books, give interviews, appear on TV, or sell his opinions to the ambitiously imitative.

I did say it was a bias. I can't defend it, only affirm it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Ducasse was a famous chef when he had one restaurant. He didn't become famous because he had a string of restaurants.

Bux - There's a huge difference between Ducasse and Adria. Adria has his foaming, his jellies and his freezing. Tell me what is Ducasse's culinary legacy? I can't think of a single thing Ducasse has contributed to the culinary playbook other than efficiencies in running three star establishments. When Ducasse first opened in Monte Carlo, he was cooking Northern Italian cuisine. His big thing was making risotto. But Ducasse was fortunate (smart?) in that he opened in a high profile location and was able to create a huge PR campaign around it. Had his first restaurant been in lower Slobovia, I doubt he would have the empire he currently has. There were articles everywhere that spoke of Ducasse "finding" these Italian treasures. Hard to compare any of that with a simple place in Roses.

"Is there something inherently bad about expanding and does it matter if you consult or franchise, as  long as you do it well and improve the breed."

I have nothing against chefs capitalizing on their reputation/ability. But what is important to me is being able to eat a meal from the chef's own hand. I'm quite happy that Ducasse can open ten restaurants but what I'm really interested in doing is experiencing *his* cooking. But I can't really do that. I can only get a meal prepared by his entity. While that meal might be excellent, it probably has lost the type of individuality I look for when eating a three star meal. In fact I think that as a general rule that at three star establishments one eats better when the name chef is

standing at the head of the line inspecting each dish. And at El Bulli that is what happens because despite his fame and (possible) fortune including his ongoing business opportunities, Adria is in the kitchen cooking every night.

[John Whiting]

Chefs can get away with playing hooky because they're out of sight. So many dishes should be labeled "from the school of ...", although the comparison does a disservice to Rubens, inasmuch as he personally touched up and passed what went out in his name. These kitchens deserted by their masters call to mind pop stars who put in proxies for recording sessions, except that the latter are frequently better musicians than the celebrities who hire them.  

[Bux]

I would like my Italian renaissance paintings to be from the artist's own hand, but few historians are willing to certify that many are. So few of us are willing to grant the term artist to a chef, but we demand to eat work directly from his hand.

I should hot key the line from William Echikson's Burgundy Stars where Loiseau introduces his sous chef by saying he "cooks Loiseau better than I do." In the 21st century, restaurants are too big and the food is too complex for anyone to assume the chef's own hand is invovled, even when he's in the restaurant,  he's not "standing at the head of the line inspecting each dish." If it's a general rule that one eats better when the chef is in residence, it still wouldn't prove it's necessary for all chefs in all locations and one cannot make a justifiable case against any single chef by holding him to a standard that's a "general rule." I think you have to dintinguish between when you are talking about generalities and when you are talking about individuals, especially when you refer to individuals who are certainly at the head of the class.

When Regis Marcon was carving and serving our lamb en croute he wasn't in the kitchen overseeing anything. I may fool myself thinking he had overseen the cooking of my dish and the serving, but others had arrived after us and their food was still being prepared. I might assume I was the most important diner that evening, had I not seen him carve other diner's lamb while my order was being fired.

John, my guess is that some of the great artists, never touched up a work, although they may have had sous maitres artistes do that.

Steve, you said:

Quote (Steve Plotnicki @ May 26 2002, 07:59)

[bux:] "Ducasse was a famous chef when he had one restaurant. He didn't become famous because he had a string of restaurants.

Bux - There's a huge difference between Ducasse and Adria. Adria has his foaming, his jellies and his freezing. Tell me what is Ducasse's culinary legacy? I can't think of a single thing

But my remark was made not in reference to legacies but to the order of the horse and cart in regard to Ducasse when you said:

Quote (Steve Plotnicki @ May 24 2002,17:42)

As for Ducasse and your assessment of his role in his business, not every chef has found it necessary to become a brand in order to make themselves famous. Look at Ferran Adria. He isn't a tireless self promoter who has licensed himself out to third parties. His fame has come as a result of the unique technique he created.

Even if you're satisfied that Adria's fame is based on the unique technique he's created (and I believe that's still debatable, but one might first have to debate the definition of "fame") there's the point I made that Ducasse was able to brand himself because he was famous and did not find it necessary to become a brand to make himself famous, as you suggest. It matters little if you respect his food or if he was unjustly famous for copying Italian dishes. His fame enabled him to brand himself.

[John Whiting]

John, my guess is that some of the great artists, never touched up a work, although they may have had sous maitres artistes do that.

Don't tell me that; I'm an incurable romantic.  

But seriously, it's not that I don't believe a chef can run an establishment which ticks over properly without his constant supervision, it's just that I prefer the atmosphere of a modest bistro, or a fine restaurant on that sort of scale, like l'Astrance.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"I should hot key the line from William Echikson's Burgundy Stars where Loiseau introduces his sous chef by saying he "cooks Loiseau better than I do."

Bux - If that is the case, then why is Loisseau's restaurant in the shitter now? He opened his Paris bistros and La Cote d'Or turned to crap. If his sous chef was that good, why the decline? How about Jardin des Sens? As soon as they took over Maison Blanche in Paris people said it declined. You see if it was as easy as you are portraying it to be, every sous chef in France would have his own three star place. Obviously that isn't the case. As for the rest, you are taking what I said literally. It is just meant to say that when the chef is in the restaurant keeping an eye on things, then the odds are that your meal will be better. Or do you think you are better off when you are in Lagioule and Michel Bras is in Flint, Michigan?

"Even if you're satisfied that Adria's fame is based on the unique technique he's created (and I believe that's still debatable, but one might first have to debate the definition of "fame") "

Satisfied? It isn't questionable what his fame is based on. It's based on his unique technique. That's what he is famous for.

Why else is he famous? And you've taken what I said about Ducasse and twisted it around. While Ducasse has promoted himself as a serious chef, I cannot think of a single dish he is famous for. As far as I can tell, he has added nothing to the haute cuisine repetoire.

[robert brown]

Steve, it seems to me that the haut cuisine repetoire is now a matter of adapting approaches or techniques rather than several haut-cuisine chefs making the same dish. It used to be a sign of comaraderie and solidarity that chefs would prepare or make available dishes made famous by other chefs; i.e. Bocuse would make Troigros' salmon in sorrel, or Michel Guerard would make Bocuses's Soupe de Truffe VGD. Now if a chef trys it, he doesn't credit it, and he gets criticized by those who can claim they recognize plagarism. The end result is that there are fewer and fewer recent classic dishes than there were 15-30 years ago. If you believe that the legitimacy and importance of an era in a creative field is measured by the classics it produces, where does that leave today's haute cuisine? That today's most visible serious chef can not produce a classic dish says what?

[Bux]

Bux - If that is the case, then why is Loisseau's restaurant in the shitter now? He opened his Paris bistros and La Cote d'Or turned to crap. If his sous chef was that good, why the decline? How about Jardin des Sens? As soon as they took over Maison Blanche in Paris people said it declined. You see if it was as easy as you are portraying it to be, every sous chef in France would have his own three star place. Obviously that isn't the case. As for the rest, you are taking what I said literally. It is just meant to say that when the chef is in the restaurant keeping an eye on things, then the odds are that your meal will be better. Or do you think you are better off when you are in Lagioule and Michel Bras is in Flint, Michigan?

"Even if you're satisfied that Adria's fame is based on the unique technique he's created (and I believe that's still debatable, but one might first have to debate the definition of "fame") "

Satisfied? It isn't questionable what his fame is based on. It's based on his unique technique. That's what he is famous for.

Why else is he famous? And you've taken what I said about Ducasse and twisted it around. While Ducasse has promoted himself as a serious chef, I cannot think of a single dish he is famous for. As far as I can tell, he has added nothing to the haute cuisine repetoire.

Steve, things change. Restaurants with chefs who have never left the kitchen decline too. How would Loiseau's sous chef affect Jardin des Sens? I don't know that they ever had a sous chef in Montpellier. There were two brothers and I heard things were not going smoothly at le Jardin des Sens before they opened in Paris. The one thing I haven't said is that it's easy. On that subject I will say it's very hard to find a sous chef of such capabilites and harder yet to have him work the way you want. That's why I consider it such an accomplishment to have a restaurant that can function so well when the chef is halfway around the world. The real point of my Loiseau statement perhaps is to say that a great three star kitchen these days is rarely a one man show, but an almost corporate effort. This is not something I applaud or favor, it just is that way.

Every sous chef is not capable of running the restaurant while the chef is away. Second, those that are may not be in a position to open a restaurant. Understand as well that I am giving the chef great credit for being an executive, I am not necessarily giving the sous chef the same credit unless he has found and trained someone to take the reins while he is gone.

Clearly if I'm implying that with a great chef who's also a great executive, it shouldn't matter much or at all if the chef is in Michigan and I'm eating at his restaurant in France, it cannot be taken that I mean you're better off. I've also not claimed Bras is the executive Ducasse is. It's also true that when a chef does what Ducasse has done, he becomes a restaurateur as much as, or more than, a chef. Perhaps that supports your views.

Do you mean Adria is famous for "a" technique, or for his technical ability? My understanding of Adria's fame is that in appreciative circles, it's based on his exploratory creativity and that the technique is merely a means to an end. I'd love to hear what Klc has to say about the basis of Adria's fame. It's entirely possible his fame is based on different things in different circles.

On Ducasse's fame, I take issue with your statement that I've twisted what you've said. I tried to be careful inquoting your words, or so I thought, and questioned your statment about branding on the basis of what you said. I don't know that Adria is a greater chef than Ducasse, but he's a different kind of chef.

If the standard by which all chefs are to be judged is originality how can one chef leave a legacy of dishes that other chefs will use? Adria has given the world some techniques, but I don't believe that's his claim to being a great chef. Ducasse's greatness is in his finesse and perfection, which can't be copied, but can be emulated. It's a more abstract legacy and it it's not influential, it's cooking's loss.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Do you mean Adria is famous for "a" technique, or for his technical ability?"

Bux - If we can stop parsing the words, Adria invented new cooking techniques. Ducasse did not. And while that doesn't mean that Ducasse isn't/wasn't a great chef, his legacy is not related to any culinary invention other than the three star chain restaurant. Ducasse is a PR machine. His finesse and perfection have added nothing to the artform, only to the experience. They are not abstract in the slightest. They are concrete.

"If the standard by which all chefs are to be judged is originality how can one chef leave a legacy of dishes that other chefs will use? "

Being an original voice is the standard used in any art or craft. Do people copy originators? Sure, at the risk of not being considered as great.

"That today's most visible serious chef can not produce a classic dish says what? "

Robert B. - It says the same thing that it says when young tenor sax players can't make a jazz recording that will be considered a classic and stand the test of time. It means the artform is dying. If it wasn't, how could a chef like Ducasse thrive? If inventive young chefs were popping up everywhere, who would want to go eat at Ducasse? As for classic dishes, to me it's the great dishes that make it all worthwhile. It's like in jazz you can listen to any Coltrane solo and they're all good, but then again there's Giant Steps. That's what other tenor saxophonists are measured by. The peaks, not the average.

I think another reason that there is less credit given these days is that the newer chefs aren't as famous/don't make enough money. In the old days, there were countless promotional meals cooked by "the old crew" and there was a sense of cameraderie that I don't think exists today. I think that plays a part in the Trama/Rostaing incident. In the old days, the chefs in the provinces really just ran a bunch of small hotels. These days it's big business and like anything else where business plays a big part, it's far more competitive.

[Wilfrid]

Steve, it seems to me that the haut cuisine repetoire is now a matter of adapting approaches or techniques rather than several haut-cuisine chefs making the same dish. It used to be a sign of comaraderie and solidarity that chefs would prepare or make available dishes made famous by other chefs...

I am sure that what Robert describes happened, but wasn't it more the case, for much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, that chefs in the French haute cuisine tradition would expect to - and would be expected to - prepare dishes from a quite closely codified repertoire?  For a chef to make many additions to the repertoire was surely quite uncommon below the level of an Escoffier.  Chefs would, rather, be famed for the perfection to which they brought the classic dishes.  

Maybe my take on culinary history is wrong, but what I tried to say above - clumsily I think - was that I regret the fact that young chefs today either can't or won't produce dishes from the classic repertoire (and I am not suggesting they should have mastered the whole of the Guide Culinaire, just that they should have some of those dishes at their fingertips.  Especially if their own "new" "creations" turn out to be insubstantial, ill-thought-out or unpalatable.)