Fine Dining vs. Cheap Eats

[Fat Guy]

Plotnicki, on another topic, wrote with regard to some feature stories about hot dogs and hamburgers that we were discussing:

. . . what's there to opine about?

To me this is just one more example that the "Cheap Eats" aspect of dining not being very interesting on an analytical level. Yes information about where you can buy a great hot dog/hamburger (raw or cooked) and maybe a tip or two about how to prepare them might be helpful but, there isn't the same level of subtlety and variance when discussing them as there is when you discuss things like potato gratins or how one uses green tea.

Agree; disagree; other?

[=Mark]

Disagree. I don't let the price tag on or esoteric nature of what I eat dictate my interest in it. A great pizza can be as interesting analytically as tea. I would suggest that in an area as subjective as food and dining that it serves little to denigrate the interests of folks whose opinions of food differ from our own. There are certain ingredients and methods of preparation I don't particularly care for, but if others enjoy them and take pleasure in it what point is it to dismiss them as not being worthy of interest?

[Jinmyo]

Sigh. I agree with Steve P.

The possibilties of flavour, texture, colour, aroma, plating, presentation, pacing of service and on and on of nuanced cuisine also allows for a much richer discussion.

Fun can certainly be had discussing "cheap eats" but really, there's not much to say. And especially not much to engage interest in reading an article on, say, oh...hamburgers in Saveur. A burger can only be so good. Talking about it can only be so interesting. Talking about talking about hamburgers can be more interesting. But not that much.

ediot:

I typed "hamurgers".

[Bux]

I thing I've said just about the same thing often enough online. It's just so much more interesting to talk about excellence and refinement. The food of inspired and creative chefs is so much more likely to inspire me to think about and consquently to discuss what I have eaten. Plotnicki, on the other hand, shoots himself in the foot when he waxes so rhapsodical about sliders from White Castle.

Okay, he's not so analytical. Then again those holes in the patties ...

[Fat Guy]

I find simple food exceptionally interesting from an analytical perspective, so much so that it seems beyond obvious to me that there's plenty to talk about when you talk about hamburgers, hot dogs, pizza, etc. So to that extent I disagree with Plotnicki, Bux, et al.

At the same time I wouldn't argue for equivalency among food types. I think high cuisine is more advanced, more sophisticated, and more of a lot of other loaded terms, than cheap eats or low cuisine or whatever you want to call it. So to that extent I agree with Plotnicki, Bux, et al.

To address it from the perspective of a food writer, plenty of us are comfortable writing about both ends of the spectrum. Eric Asimov would be a strong example of a switch hitter. And then there are the folks who are clearly only comfortable at one extreme or the other, and they're very good at what they do, but when they try to switch hit it's just embarrassing.

[Jinmyo]

Mark, I certainly wouldn't say that "cheap eats" are not "worthy of interest." Only that they're only so interesting.

I'd rather have a well made hamburger than omakase at a Japanese restaurant that uses a powdered dashi. I lose interest immediately. It's when food has been prepared and presented with attention and interest that I find it interesting because (here comes the tautology) that's what I'm interested in about food.

However, some things like hamburgers seem to have an upper limit of nuance. I question whether Daniel Boulud's CB burger really is one. It certainly pushes at the edge of the definition, which is what makes it interesting. But I'm actually more interested in the poreparation of the short ribs it's stuffed with.

ediot:

I typed "poreparation" instead of "preparation". I just thought I'd point that out.

[Andy Lynes]

Expense has absolutely nothing to do with it. I've had some outstanding food in Malaysia for instance, especially seafood and shellfish, that was very cheap indeed but very memorable (a chilli crab eaten al fresco in Penang sticks in the mind).

I dont really think potato gratins are a very good example either, what could be easier and cheaper than that, unless you are going to start grating white truffles all over them, which isn't a bad idea come to think of it.

[Jinmyo]

Andy, I agree. But expense of ingredients is not the same as expense at table for diners.

[Suzanne F]

Ah, but once you add that little bit too much of truffles to the gratin, you've lost the subtlety and elegance and made the dish nouveau riche. Given it "the canned 'new-car smell' of high-end cooking" as Asimov said today. Whereas if you made it simply and perfectly with excellent potatoes, rich fresh cream, etc, it would still be worth serious consideration because each element would contribute something special to the whole.

[jhlurie]

The WORST food can sometimes be the most interesting to talk about. The BEST food can sometimes be the most boring. And vice versa.

The odds are in favor of the fine food being the most interesting, but its far from universal. Fine cuisine invites discussion of technique, and that's always a large area for discussion. But "cheap eats" invite more comparison, more discussion of value, and in some cases some very interesting points about mass production.

Grandmaster P's point also ignores the gray area between the two--what we sometimes call "ethnic food" for lack of adaquate terminology. He's reducing the low end to hot dogs and hamburgers, and we all know that's not an accurate representation. I can walk down to a store on my corner and get a bowl of Vietnamese Pho for less money than I'd spend at a Burger King, and his assumptions just don't work there.

Yes, the best fine cuisine will be more enriching and ultimately MOST worthy of discussion. But it's neither accurate, nor right, to claim that everything else is "{not} very interesting on an analytical level." It's too broad--it's just one of those types of dramatic generalizations people use to win points in a debate class.

[Andy Lynes]

Thats an excellent point. But the arguement as originally presented is too reductionist to merit serious debate. I would argue that "cheap" food can be fine dining. But not "fine dining" obviously.

[Blue Heron]

Steve P. is eloquent whether writing about Michelin star restaurants and expensive wine or white castles and cheap eats. His writing is flat out brilliant & interesting to read. However, I disagree with the idea that only expensive food is interesting or worth analyzing & discussing. I don't know how cheap is cheap eats, but I think most ethnic restaurants are either cheap or moderate in price, and yet the aromas, flavors, textures, presentation, style of room and service can be very intersting & worth of analyzing and discussing. Not only that, I don't have the pleasure of dining in michelin star restaurants. So if I could not discuss and analyze cheaper or more moderate priced foods, I would not get to analyze or discuss much of anything! That said, I love learning & reading about all types of foods, expensive and cheap.

[jhlurie]

Steve P. is eloquent whether writing about Michelin star restaurants and expensive wine or white castles and cheap eats.  His writing is flat out brilliant & interesting to read.

Steve is eloquent... but he's been known to over-generalize to win an argument.

[Jinmyo]

Steve is eloquent... but he's been known to over-generalize to win an argument.

Hmm. Everyone seems to always say that.

[tommy]

ediot:

HAHAHAHA!!!!!

i've seen steve p. go on for paragraphs about how to make a great burger.

[Fat Guy]

Mind you, I started this thread not Plotnicki. I was using his comment as a good way to get the ball rolling. Let's not make this about Plotnicki's style of argumentation. If anybody doesn't like the way he argues, then go ahead and beat his ass in an argument. The thing I find interesting about this topic is that it's very helpful in letting me and others know where eGullet's users are coming from. Not any one place I might add.

[jhlurie]

I'm not sure he can win this one, if he's prepared to argue it. If his thesis had simply been that fine cuisine is more interesting than cheap eats, he would have had a slam dunk victory. But its very different to say that everything else is "{not} very interesting on an analytical level." All someone has to do is to find a single example to disprove it.

This is just to point out that this particular argument is not his strongest. He's had a few hundred others to balance it out.

[Jinmyo]

If anybody doesn't like the way he argues, then go ahead and beat his ass in an argument.

Anyway, while Steve P will weigh in when he does, and we could wrangle over the term "cheap eats", I think we know what's meant.

[jhlurie]

we could wrangle over the term "cheap eats", I think we know what's meant.

No, Jin, that's the whole point. You can't possible set Hamburgers and Hotdogs and Fine Dining as the only two possibilities with a definitive statement of that type.

[Fat Guy]

If his thesis had simply been that fine cuisine is more interesting than cheap eats, he would have had a slam dunk victory.

Plenty of people would disagree strongly with that statement.

[jhlurie]

If his thesis had simply been that fine cuisine is more interesting than cheap eats, he would have had a slam dunk victory.

Plenty of people would disagree strongly with that statement.

You can take that argument to him, sir. I know that mine is more... easily winnable.

[Beachfan]

Some of my favorite expereinces:

1) Tracking down the best knish in NYC

2) The best pizza in Italy

3) The best gelato in Italy

4) The best cannolli in Italy

5) The best baguette in Paris

6) The best goat cheese in the market at St.Remy

7) The best fallafel whereever I go

8) The best peach at my local farmers market

Let's not confuse mundane with cheap.

[jhlurie]

Some of my favorite expereinces:

1) Tracking down the best knish in NYC

2) The best pizza in Italy

3) The best gelato in Italy

4) The best cannolli in Italy

5) The best baguette in Paris

6) The best goat cheese in the market at St.Remy

7) The best fallafel whereever I go

8) The best peach at my local farmers market

Let's not confuse mundane with cheap.

Beach, I don't think Steve P. is doing that. And he's not talking about people's favorites, or even what they most enjoy. To Steve's credit, he's never pooh-poohed the taste of "cheap foods".

It's a very limited argument in scope, about what types of food are INTERESTING to discuss and/or analyze.

[Beachfan]

I wasn't really responding to Steve P's major statement; I agree that, in terms of analysis, simple often has less to analyze than complex.

I'm responding the the "discussing" part. For me, discussing doesn't have to be analyzing.

One further thought: Steingarten's article on peaches, toro, baguettes have a ton of analysis too. I like his articles that have the theme "search for the best..". Simple subjects, often good analysis.

[Jinmyo]

Well, Jon, what makes interesting interesting?