Personal Taste

[Priscilla]

While excoriating ignorant Americans or others is fine sport (and oh my but couldn't I, were I of such a mind, conjure examples of distressing food-related behavior crossing multiple country-of-origin and socio-economic lines--and Adam, I know you have been careful to say multi-times COULD HAVE BEEN ANYONE), I think this has more to do with responsibility, rather than unearned or unconditional and at the least ill-understood "rights."

I see it as the cook's responsibility to make food that people want to eat, without compromising whatever idea of personal integrity said cook carries. The attendant responsibility of consumers, or travelers, or certainly guests in the home, for God's sake, is to use decent manners, although this responsibility is both less important and more nebulous than that of the cook.

Exercising this benign psycheout is one of the privileges of being a cook. But then, there are all sorts of cooks.

[Jonathan Day]

This same theme (subjectivity/objectivity, well done steak, mint jelly on roast lamb, etc.) has appeared in several threads.

So I won't go on about these themes or whether dish has standing to sue the diner (in the European Court of Gastronomic Rights, of course). However for further information see Bistecca #120821 v Diner #23234993 (Queen's Bench, 2002, page 2309...)

I will say that more than a few waiters could learn something about how to persuade a customer to learn new eating habits. At a dinner at Tante Claire a few years ago, a colleague asked that her rack of lamb be cooked well done. "The chef does not agree to do this, madam," said the waiter, in a haughty tone. "Why not?" asked my colleague. "Because he will not associate himself or the restaurant with an inferior dish," said the waiter, even more icily.

There followed a squabble, as my colleague and the waiter each became more positional about the issue. Finally he stomped off to the kitchen. They torched the lamb. It looked like leather. My colleague ate it with gusto. She, by the way, is British, highly educated, and deeply sophisticated in music and theatre.

Well of course the waiter was "right" in a certain sense. But how much better it might have been if he had taken a more diplomatic tone, or suggested a different dish (mutton!!) or even offered to have it cooked medium well, or suggest that the customer try it the chef's way and offered a refund or a replacement dish if she didn't care for it. Perhaps she would have expanded her horizons.

It doesn't bother me that others want their meat cooked well done. I don't feel responsible for their palates or their enjoyment. I can offer a better way, but why insist on it?

I would also observe that it seems difficult in many restaurants, especially where French cooks are involved, to get anything between "very rare" and "burnt". A point usually goes too close to the former, bien cuit to the latter. It personally doesn't bother me, because I tend to order things saignant or even bleu. But it causes problems for friends and guests.

[Wilfrid]

The behavior you describe is intolerable, JD. How pompous! I have had similar experiences, with restaurants saying they "can't" cook meat that way. I have even suggested, in the case of a filet mignon, simply butterflying it. That was refused too, and I was tempted to ask if I could come to the kitchen and butterfly it for them.

In practical matters, if the cook digs his heels in, you are going to end up with something horrid. I value those restaurants, and there are many, where they understand the request and take the trouble to execute it.

[cakewalk]

Clearly the dish is right in this case.

And this is precisely why the dish ran away with the spoon.

[cakewalk]

It's a matter of ignorance that the diner doesn't understand the nature of the meat.  No one can deny the right to remain ignorant. It is undeniably an American right, but I haven't found another country where it's not a commonly supported principle whether or not it's a right upheld by law.

Maybe this is the heart of the matter for me. I can see no positive aspect of ignorance. If somebody has the right to be ignorant, then do I not have the right to educate them?

But you're only supposing that ignorance is the issue. What if the customer knows that the meat is not meant to be eaten well done, but orders it that way anyway because *that's the way he likes it*? You're asking if personal preference should be allowed to override long-held standards. IOW -- should anarchy apply to food?

[lizziee]

In many cases, ignorance is the case. I remember many, many years ago, on our first trip to France, we ordered the Canard Apicius at Lucas Carton. It came in 2 courses and for the first course, the duck was thinly sliced and very rare. Not knowing any better, as I had never eaten rare duck, I set it back to be "cooked." I wish the waiter had done more than just accede to my request. If I had been "enlightened", I would have tried the dish the way it was suppose to be served. Maybe, then, unfamiliarity is another way of saying personal preference.

[Bux]

They then complained that it was tough, tasteless and dry. Later they mentioned to another American couple that they had this problem a few times and at the last resturant the chef came out and told them to never order this dish again.

Does anyone have the right to keep on making the same mistake over and over even after they're told what they're doing wrong?

Now my personal opinion is that they ruined the dish and that to enjoy it you have to have if fairly rare (this is immaterial, so no "I prefer my steak cooked "X" comments). But, were that family "right" in ordering the dish the way they prefered it, even if it mean destroying what they chef felt was the entire point of the dish? Do the rights of the individual out-weight the rights of the dish?

Patient: "Doctor it hurts when I do this."

Doctor: "So don't do that."

Okay they have the right to go on making the same mistake and they have the right to ruin the dish. We didn't rise to the top of the food chain to give equal rights to dead cows, but I think they've given up the right to complain or at least the right to any sympathy.

[Fat Guy]

Not in a democracy. People have the right to remain ignorant. You might have the right to encourage them to educate their palates, but it's something that is voluntary. That point encapsulates both the good part and the bad of a democratic system. People are allowed to vote the wrong candidate into office and people are allowed to eat their steaks overcooked. But telling people how *they have to* eat their steaks is the same as telling people what books they can or can't read. No mind police here please. And no palate police either. You have the right to associate with like palates, which I guess is why you are on eGullet.

Plotnicki, I just wanted to mention that in many instances rights are what we have to protect us against democracy.

As for the larger issue, I agree that the waiter can in most cases avert a disaster. But let's say that doesn't happen. It seems pretty clear to me that the customer has the "right" to make any and all requests and the owner of the restaurant (or his authorized representative) has the "right" to refuse any and all such requests. So what issue are we really discussing?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - All you have said is that a democracy can't vote for things that are illegal. I knew that. That's why democracys have constitutions etc., to set out the rules of democracy. It's not a vote in a vacuum.

As to the larger point, I agree with you. All of this is personal choice. A diner can ask for his steak done well and the chef even has the right to refuse. And the diner can leave if he wants to and go eat elsewhere. But I'm sorry that Adam framed his question the way he did. Because the real issue here isn't how we can force someone to eat steak that is cooked "correctly," but how it is we can eductate people about it and hope they take to it.

[Fat Guy]

That's why democracys have constitutions etc., to set out the rules of democracy.

That's like saying that the law against murder is part of the rules of baseball. Democracy is a subset of the American system just as baseball is a game we play within our borders.

Rights and democracy are two different things. Much of the American system was specifically designed to be anti-democratic -- to prevent the so-called tyranny of the majority. See Federalist #10 primarily and also # 64 and a few others I can't think of right now.

You can have freedom of expression in a dictatorship and you can have a democracy where voices are silenced.

[Adam Balic]

But I'm sorry that Adam framed his question the way he did. Because the real issue here isn't how we can force someone to eat steak that is cooked "correctly," but how it is we can eductate people about it and hope they take to it.

Thank you all for what has been a very interesting discussion (well, for me at least).

Actually, the real issue (again for me) was if food or a paricular dish could be considered as something more then simly a commodity. Yes, if you are going to stick something in you mouth, then you have every right to say what that item will be. Also, restaurants are in the business of making money, both of these issue do mean that the customer is "always right". But, those issue aside I was wondering if the food itself could be considered, on some level, could be considered, well like art (yes, yes I know art is also a commodity) or a thing of beauty in its own right.

The Vatican has hacked of all the man-bits on their collection of statues and covered the offending area with plaster vine leaves, this has not improved the atractiveness of the statues, so I thought that maybe over-cooking the Bistecca was a bit like that.

[Varmint]

Careful about that food as art discussion, as Shaw will start bringing up Plato's Dialogues!

[Gavin Jones]

Are you referring to Plotto's monologues?

[chefette]

I think Adam's point is a good one. You have to think these people inherently must not actually like beef, or that they are overwhelmed by fear and loathing of the possibility of disease from their food to the point that like a racoon they will destroy it so that it cannot possibly be enjoyed.

I recently was at a Grill where they offered two different steaks and when I queried the waiter about the difference between the two he indicated that if you preferred your meat medium rare or less the one steak was more flavorful and appropriate (a thinner steak served au poive) but that if you preferred your meat medium or well the sirloin (a hefty thick piece) was the right choice. I thought this was interesting since I have never heard a waiter profer such advice.

So, what did I choose? I went with the sirloin medium rare in spite of the advice because another diner nearby just devoured one and it looked sooooo tasty. Plus, I had tasted the other one on our last visit. Anyway, the long and short of it was that waiter was correct. The thinner steak WAS much tastier than the thick sirloin in this case and I think the basis of his guidance was that diners who (for whatever ludicrous reason) want their meat well done - the thicker steak would retain more juicy meatiness and be less disgusting.

I think the diner is wrong in failing to recognize that he does not actually enjoy a certain dish. But perhaps these people are incapable of appreciating or understanding food and their own tastes and are thus limited in their ability to learn and change their habits so that their taste buds and tummies would be more rewarded.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Adam - But as you point out, there aren't laws that stop people from destorying works of art. I can go out today and purchase a Van Gogh and take a knife to it if I want. How is that different than food? Agreed that there is a culture that has grown up around art that would prevent the owner of a painting from destroying it. It's just that food isn't revered the same way. It's one of the points we always get to in our objective/subjective discussions. If people approached food more objectively, we would all eat better. And the fact of the matter, and I'm trying to figure out a way to frame the question so I can start a thread about it, we do approach it objectively but we refuse to admit it. Many people will readily admit that a painting they don't care for can still be great art if it is explained to them objeticvely. Just like Wilfrid comments on the ballet in the "Assessing a restaurant" thread. But people are loath to say that food is good when it tastes bad to them. There is some cultural gap when it comes to food that I would love to get to the bottom of.

Fat Guy - Thanks for saying the same thing I said. The rights you speak of come from the Constitution and it's articles and ammendments which governs how the majority can act. Fortunately as part of the "American system," we set up a judiciary and legislative branch to balance the power the majority has. This way if the popular vote elected an Islamic fundamentalist, like it did in Algeria, much of what that government would try to enact would be considered illegal and not allowed. It's what I always say about suicide bombing. That it couldn't happen in a legitimate democracy because there isn't any way in the world condoning suicide would be considered legal.

[britcook]

Whether the customer is right or wrong has been well debated here, but those of you who have read Bourdain's book "Kitchen Confidential" will know that kitchens have less than subtle ways of taking revenge on guests who insist on messing with the chef's ideas.

Nico Ladenis is a very different case, a charming man I have had the pleasure of meeting a few times, when he started his restaurant he was determined to raise the gastronomic level above that generally prevailing in restaurants at the time (abysmal). He set out his stance very clearly, you ate his food as he intended or you dined somewhere else. Far from failing he succeeded very well and finally achieved 3 Michelin stars (the ultimate European accolade) at his restaurant on Park Lane, London. In the process he gave a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction to those who appreciate good food, and probably annoyed the h**l out of a minority who thought the customer was always right. But he and a few like minded chefs did succeed in raising the overall standard of food in Britain. In today's dining scene it might be considered too autocratic, but then it was probably necessary

[Fat Guy]

Balic: Close your tags.

Plotnicki: Thanks for repeating yourself without adding anything. Let me put it as simply as I can. Democracy = majority rule. Restrictions on majority rule = undemocratic. Or are you just defining democracy as "what we have here in America," in which case I don't disagree with your conclusions, only with your incorrect definition.

[Gavin Jones]

In my youth I ran a small poetry burning society.

I think that was essentially this thread.

Alternatively one might have viewed it as an additional edit.

[Jinmyo]

Plotnicki: Thanks for repeating yourself without adding anything.

[Jonathan Day]

It's one of the points we always get to in our objective/subjective discussions. If people approached food more objectively, we would all eat better. And the fact of the matter, and I'm trying to figure out a way to frame the question so I can start a thread about it, we do approach it objectively but we refuse to admit it. Many people will readily admit that a painting they don't care for can still be great art if it is explained to them objeticvely. Just like Wilfrid comments on the ballet in the "Assessing a restaurant" thread. But people are loath to say that food is good when it tastes bad to them. There is some cultural gap when it comes to food that I would love to get to the bottom of.

Steve, if you do start this thread, this is a plea that you frame it in a different way than "objective/subjective".

"Objective" means that something exists independent of any person's perception. An absolute. Something about which nobody in her right mind, in full possession of the facts, could rationally dispute.

We could have a philosophical debate about the objectivity of aesthetic judgements (ballet, Van Gogh, bouillabaisse, etc.) but I don't think that is the conversation you are trying to start. My sense is that you are trying to attack the notion that all tastes are totally relative, that the only thing that matters is "what I like" at a particular time. I think you are saying that tastes can be systematised, taught and acquired, that someone can become more experienced in appreciating food, wine and restaurants.

Framing this as a debate about "objectivity" gets in the way of your argument. The philosophers, lawyers and those of us who treasure precise language will be tripped up because you are using "objectivity" in a new and different way. Others may be concerned because it could seem as though you are posing your own tastes as a single, undisputable (objective) standard -- which I don't think you are.

Isn't the question here "can taste be taught and learned?". If you really do want to get to the bottom of this, then talking about objectivity and subjectivity won't help.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Jd - Okay duly noted. But what I'm trying to get at is to show how people will accept systematic methodology (whether termed objectivity or not) for things like art and music much more readily than they are willing to accept them about food. Loads of people walk around museums with art historians or headsets but nobody goes into a restaurant with people who are expert in dining. The closest we get is a sommelier who is a walking encyclopedia of a discipline that seems alien to mere mortals.

[Wilfrid]

1. JD, I think you're right to warn against framing the discussion in those terms, especially as "subjectivity" and "objectivity" are exceptionally difficult to define. There is a problem for Plotnickiism, however, which is that if he concedes so-called "objectivity" in favor of systematic learning and education, against a background of shared criteria, he adopts a position which I think is right, but which undermines his commitment to the idea of eternal, unchanging values. I still think, unfortunately, that Plotnickiism is some kind of Platonism or essentialism.

2. But to give credit, I think Steve's observation of a kind of hierarchy of serious attention when it comes to judgments of taste is very interesting. People are willing - to a degree - to have art, history, perhaps classical music, and even poetry and philosophy explained to them. They do think, on the other hand, that their own judgments, tutored or untutored, are decisive when it comes to food and drink. What else? Ethics, I would suggest. Sport, most certainly. Movies? And I think fiction - novels if you like - falls somewhere in the middle. People feel that expertise in some fields needs to be acquired, while in others it is innate. Odd, I agree.

[cakewalk]

Loads of people walk around museums with art historians or headsets but nobody goes into a restaurant with people who are expert in dining.

I wonder why?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid and J.D. - Well I'm glad we are getting away from the semantics of objective vs subjective. Although Wilfrid, I recall that earlier on you used a definition of objective as "agreed upon standards." And to me, to use objective to define a systemized way of tasting things. as opposed to a definition that relies on purely physiological distinctions is just hair splitting. But let's leave that alone.

I think that Wilfrid's observations in his second point begin to reveal why the phenomenon exists. Unfortunately it's that dreadful old thing called money. I think that it's cheap to eat food and drink wine. Even an expensive meal. So people are loathe to allow others to set tastes and standards for them. But a paintings in a museum or a performence of a symphony orchestra cost millions to display or put on. And that people are more open minded to allow others to explain things to them when the cost is so far out of reach. This might not be the only cause but obviously one of them. Restaurant diners are always categorized as consumers. Just read Adam's post about the Bistecca Fiorentina. But people who attend a museum are not.

[LaNiña]

1.  JD, I think you're right to warn against framing the discussion in those terms, especially as "subjectivity" and "objectivity" are exceptionally difficult to define.  There is a problem for Plotnickiism, however, which is that if he concedes so-called "objectivity" in favor of systematic learning and education, against a background of shared criteria, he adopts a position which I think is right, but which undermines his commitment to the idea of eternal, unchanging values.    I still think, unfortunately, that Plotnickiism is some kind of Platonism or essentialism.

2.  But to give credit, I think Steve's observation of a kind of hierarchy of serious attention when it comes to judgments of taste is very interesting.  People are willing - to a degree - to have art, history, perhaps classical music, and even poetry and philosophy explained to them.  They do think, on the other hand, that their own judgments, tutored or untutored, are decisive when it comes to food and drink.  What else?  Ethics, I would suggest.  Sport, most certainly.  Movies?  And I think fiction - novels if you like - falls somewhere in the middle.  People feel that expertise in some fields needs to be acquired, while in others it is innate.  Odd, I agree.

How about mass market "literature?"