Fine Dining vs. Cheap Eats

[cabrales]

I promise this is the last time I will say this, in this discussion, at least: to say that a particular cuisine is better than another is to misuse the word "better", or at least to waste its use. **To say that a particular cuisine is better because it tastes better is embarrassing.** Complexity does not equal better. There's all kinds of better.

Robert S -- I agree that complexity (including, but without being limited to, of presentation) does not necessarily support a cuisine being "better". However, it is helpful to French cuisine that it has: (1) complex (in the sense of difficult, requiring considerable skill or experience, entailing a large amount of preparation or cooking phases and/or similar meanings) as well as simpler techniques; (2) complex (in the sense of textured, abundant, varied, robust) history and a complex (in the sense of diverse, abundant, fine-tuned, carefully-articulated, well-documented) base of recipes; (3) complex (diverse, abundant, different-styled) "star" (e.g., but not necessarily in the sense of reknown throughout the pool of diners interested in cuisine) cuisiniers; (4) complex (in the sense of being imbued with history -- as in Taillevent or La Pyramide or Pic; in the sense of harmony of decor, service and cuisine -- as in the case of Troisgros) restaurants; (5) complex (in the sense of multiple, mixing, developed) utilization of texture (not that that is not evident in other cuisines; e.g., Chinese cuisine); and (6) complex utilization of herbs, spices and other enhancing ingredients (obviously also not unique to French cuisine).

With respect to cuisine, I consider it appropriate to consider "tasting better" (including the intellectual aspects of "tasting", and obviously including all senses, e.g., visual appeal, attractive of smell) to be a good proxy for "better".

Thank-you for your kind words, but I may not or may have more experience with French cuisine than you.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Toby - That succotash sounds great. Now if you were to cook it to that point and then puree it, strain it through some cheese cloth, add a little cream and maybe a hit of something like Mace, and then cook it to a velvety consistancy, you would be able to spoon some on a plate and then you could lay a beautifully little sauteed loin of veal atop. Voila, French food.

John Whiting - I think that's a pretty good standard you have there.

[LaNiña]

Nina - Well the dress code thing is a moving target. But let me try one on you for size. Is Difara's pizza better than Domino's because of someone's opinion or is it that they use the top quality and freshest ingredients?

"Quality isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of meeting objective standards." - that was me quoting you, Steve dear. Read up a few.

But freshness *is* an objective criterion. That's entirely different than subjective taste and experience.

[lxt]

If there is any relevance to the relationship between fashionable and “better,” then no matter what the roots of the success, the ultimate conclusion must be that “French food is fashionable because it is better.” Whether one acquires a taste for French cuisine after pursuing the “fashionable” or because of subjective admiration for the cuisine, the result is the same: as of today, French cuisine is dominant on the market over other cuisines. It is mostly desirable and appreciated not only among prolific food experts but as well as by general population. I haven’t seen even one argument over the course of this discussion that would prove otherwise. If there is a question that fashionable is not necessarily better, than time usually sets apart “art” from “pretense,” and French cuisine seemed to earn its place among “masterpieces.”

Of course one can suggest that not all parts of the world are mesmerized by French food, or even fully exposed to it like Singapore, where Mexican and Italian are predominant favorites, but even then the speculation is that it is due to the fact that French food uses too much cream which does not feature in the native Chinese or Malay diets because of the Mongoloid intolerance of lactose. Judging by the growing number of French restaurants in that part of the world, Singaporeans do seem to be developing a palate for it after all.

And isn’t it true that when the number of subjective opinions based on knowledge, experience and scientific expertise exceeds a certain level, then the opinion rightfully or not becomes objective?

[Toby]

Just read all your reassuring posts; I'm not distressed, and having read some of you guys previous arguments, this one is certainly on a much higher, really non-acrimonious level, and really is about food. While the conversation, debate, argument, whatever, has been tedious at points, there's been a lot of really informative and thoughtful discussion, and some really, really funny parts. But having to prove something the best is provincial, and can be truly harmful.

And on the whole point of food transmission throughout Europe, the Mediterranean Sea was of enormous importance (can't remember if that's been mentioned).

[Wilfrid]

Steve, ya mischief-maker. Don't mislead the newbies. I have been saying ever since I joined eGullet that French food is my favorite. Read my unedited Members Bio, if you don't believe me (pompous heap of tripe that it is). I not only believe it is the best within certain defined parameters, I love saying so. Anyone who follows the dinner thread will know that ninety per cent of my time in the kitchen is devoted to trying to make mainstream French cuisine. I haven't popped up here for a while, because I agree with most of the remarks, and think the debate is really about a misunderstanding of "subjectivity" and "objectivity" which is unlikely to get cleared up.

I come over argumentative and pedantic when we get to your whacko theories about why things are the way they are.

lxt - I just read your post, which I thought was helpful. I should perhaps clarify that I mentioned fashion as one of the reasons French food may have made its way across borders - along with the French language and other signifiers of sophistication. I agree the fashion, if that's what it was, would not have survived without quality to back it up. Where I disagree with Steve on this point, is that I don't think gesturing at the quality is a sufficient explanation how and why French food has been so exportable.

[lxt]

Steve and Robert -- thank you.  I would add that I enjoy eGullet discussions far more than argument for the sake of argument, which gets tedious, resolves nothing, threatens to become ad hominen, and takes up space that could be used for sharing genuine information.

Information as an abstract entity is limited in that it assumes one’s acceptance without questioning how accurate or complete it is. Pragmatism emphasizes the fact that some of our beliefs based on presented information turn out to be mistaken, as reality has many faces and it’s easy to be misinformed. How would one know that his perception of a “burger vs. fine cuisine” is true? True ideas are those that we can validate, corroborate and verify. False ideas are those that we cannot. The way to distinguish between the two is through induction and the scientific method, where a collection of facts is bound together. More often than not, even in our “arguments for the sake of argument,” not only do enough facts get presented to permit valid judgments, but the arguments themselves assist us in making those judgments.

I won’t argue that my explanation may not seem tedious, but could it be called “argument for the sake of argument?”

[jordyn]

It seems difficult to prove the point that French food is "the best".

First, I doubt that there is such a thing as an objective way to taste food. I have been wanting to post on the "Raising food-savvy children" topic that our palates must be strongly shaped by what we eat when we are young. I never got around to it there, but I will make the argument here: the fact that Thais like food that is much spicier than most Americans can stand, or that the Cantonese love eating foods that many other cultures find rather unpleasant, or that Americans like flavors that are significantly sweeter than those that most other cultures enjoy cannot be explained any other way. We learn to like the types of flavors that we are regularly exposed to, and I suspect that we learn much of this at a rather young age. Indeed, palates are probably shaped by our geographic location, our culture, and even our socieconomic status.

In other threads, there has been talk of "retraining your palate", which I believe is possible, but I'm not sure that it comes as a matter of increased objectivity, but rather a shift to a different type of measurement. Yes, there are people who smell things or taste them for a living and report results that many people agree with. However, McDonalds food is also designed to produce a pleasing flavor that huge numbers of people enjoy. Many of us here would find McDonalds hamburgers unpleasant, but a cassoulet marvelous; there are certainly many people who would have the opposite reaction. In terms of evaluating food, we want to hear from people with similar palates, so the trained palates that Steve P. refers to are probably useful for us; for others, the opinions of these finely honed palates is just so much hot air because there is no useful reference point for them.

I look at wine as a clear example of this. If there were such a thing as an "objective" palate, each wine reviewer would have an identical reaction. We know this is not the case, and this is why we have many reviewers. People will learn which reviewers have tastes most similar to them, and presumably consider that opinion with greater weight than other reviewers. It seems likely to me that no two people will have identical tastes, so there will always be some matter for subjective disagreement. We take the same approach with movie or music reviews. There is not a 'universally accepted' standard for movie reviewing objectivity, so we find critics whose opinions generally match our own and go to movies that they recommend.

My second main argument is that there is no way to value even a true consensus of the supposed objective Western tasters of food over the consensus views of various other cultures, such as India or China. These cultures are at the very least numerically superior to the entire Western population of the world. Presumably, there are people in these other cultures who are equally trained eaters, and who have equally refined palates. It is the height of narcisism to suppose that our opinions are somehow more valid than theirs.

[Robert Schonfeld]

My new friends, with whom I have enjoyed this discussion even while finding its principal premises incomprehensible: thanks; this is fun. I hope that someday we'll have risotto or paella or pizza or something together.

I mentioned this once on another thread and I think it's worth repeating. Picasso, a Spaniard (and the head Modernist), who lived most of his life in France, said, near the end, "I've spent my whole life learning to draw like a child."

[SobaAddict70]

and cymlings sauteed in a little bacon fat

What's a cymling?

Like an ortolan? Is it mythical? (j/k)

SA

[g.johnson]

Plotnicki: You’re confusing different issues.

But all that says is that you can't view food objectively. But there are people who can. Just like there are people who smell perfume for a living. It isn't based on their preferences, but on their ability to discern subtle differences in the fragrances. Same with wine tasting. It's not about liking it, it's about having the ability to differentiate between terroirs on tasting.

The presence of trace substances in a perfume or wine is an objective fact, and those with the requisite skills can detect those substances. Whether the presence of those substances is a good or bad thing is, however, purely subjective.

Quality isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of meeting objective standards. It has nothing to do with things like liking offal or oysters. Those are just complex tastes that some people might like, and some people might not like. But whether you like veal kidneys is a wholly different question than is this particular one of good quality, and has it been prepared well? Those aren't really measured subjectively. They are measured objectively.

It is true that some statements about kidneys (‘this kidney is off’) are objective: we could define ‘off’ to mean ‘having greater than 10^5 bacteria per gram’, say. Similarly we could define a standard of cooking based on internal temperature. However, the statement that kidneys taste best when fresh and cooked rare is, again, subjective.

[LaNiña]

One of the things my mother and I most enjoy arguing about is what makes something "chic." Related to this, no?

I've been nudging her to get on here already. She would have much to add.

But I don't think she'd be able to keep herself from correcting Plotnicki's grammar and spelling.

[Wilfrid]

Big issues, Jordyn. My opinion, which I've expressed before, is that rational judgments - about food and other matters of taste - can be made in the context of a shared set of criteria. Certainly, food and wine critics will differ in their views in some respects, but there are also very broad areas of agreement, as there with art and literature. And where there is disagreement, it is usually possible to see why - it's not just a matter of spontaneous, divergent impulses. I think the art critic Peter Fuller, for example, was wrong about Andy Warhol, but I can see why he took the position he did, and I understand his reasons. I think formal French cuisine scores higher than any other against a certain set of gastronomic criteria - criteria, to be fair, which the French experience decisively helped to formulate. I just don't know how well it would perform set against criteria derived from a Chinese, Japanese or Indian milieu - less well, I suspect.

Universal standards of taste, independent of such criteria, are meaningless to me.

lxt - I think the broad thrust of your comments on knowledge is very fair. To be picky, I would say that induction - the gathering of data in the hope that a hypothesis will ultimately be verifired - is no longer regarded as a valid method of proving a hypothesis, although it's certainly a big part of what scientists do. It has been argued, notably by Karl Popper, that we gain knowledge by trying to falsify hypotheses, in other words by looking for counter-examples; but however neat this seems, it just doesn't seem to fit what researchers actually do.

Recent thinking (Lakatos) has been more modest. It proposes that rather than attempt to identify proven (true) hypotheses in the sciences, we should draw up criteria to judge the merit of research programs - in other words, which lines of enquiry are most likely to produce data relevant to the hypothesis of interest. I think that's consistent with the views of some probability theorists, but I do not pretend to be up-to-date with this stuff.

All very verbose, but applicable, I believe, to some eGullet threads. Some hold out more hope of enlightenment than others!

[Toby]

and cymlings sauteed in a little bacon fat

What's a cymling?

Like an ortolan? Is it mythical? (j/k)

SA

A cymling is a type of summer squash with a delicate flavor, probably more popular in the South. It's round and almost flat with scalloped edges, pale green color. Some people may call it a pattypan squash. You can sometimes find it in farmers' markets, probably later on in the summer.

[SobaAddict70]

Thanks, Toby.

SA

[g.johnson]

Recent thinking (Lakatos) has been more modest.  It proposes that rather than attempt to identify proven (true) hypotheses in the sciences, we should draw up criteria to judge the merit of research programs - in other words, which lines of enquiry are most likely to produce data relevant to the hypothesis of interest.

Lakatos too fails, I believe (though I’m an admirer of his), since there is no objective way of determining how fruitful a given research program will be. There really is something to Feyerabend’s anarchy (to the extent I understand it).

[lxt]

I am not a fan of opera. I haven't the upbringing or the cultural baggage to appreciate it.

I'm sure in time, with the proper exposure, I could learn to tell the difference in the quality of various operatic performances.

But meanwhile I subsist on less lofty forms of music and find my enjoyment therein.

I am not quite sure whether this particular example properly illustrates a key idea in the comparison of more sophisticated and therefore analytical vs. simple and hence more approachable music or food, for that matter. If correlation to classical music is to be made, I’d suggest a contrast of musical works created by different composers within the same genre rather than opera vs. “less lofty forms of music.”

For instance, Saint-Saëns, whose piano works usually lack analytical depth, though they may please a listener with their emotional lyrics and clarity of form, represent rather boring study material for the performer, lacking sophistication and subtlety in the thought process. They do, however, require technical mastery to achieve fluency in performance, which can be compared to mastering a burger. Schumann’s works, on the other hand, represent an intellectual challenge for the performer, requiring an ability to dissect complicated polyphonic mosaics enriched by lyrical inspiration, and hence the parallel could be made to a more complex food preparation such as haute cuisine.

[Priscilla]

I mentioned this once on another thread and I think it's worth repeating. Picasso, a Spaniard (and the head Modernist), who lived most of his life in France, said, near the end, "I've spent my whole life learning to draw like a child."

Robert, this Picasso quote is in my mind when assessing Modernism, comparing what is modern, what is Modernism.

And I've been thinking of it during this discussion, truly. Over time I have come to think, (and I speak from the MOST elementary level), more and more, not less, that true Modernism is maybe even a little reductionist, in the sense that one must judge (and have the courage to jettison) the unnecessary.

There is modern, i.e. contemporary, art and cuisine that is not simple and not seeking purity (and has every right to carry on so being, in my book). But, (and I always use the Ramones as an example, which may make you Robert gag but bear with me), to me, true Modernism is the removal of the extraneous.

[Wilfrid]

Lakatos too fails, I believe (though I’m an admirer of his), since there is no objective way of determining how fruitful a given research program will be. There really is something to Feyerabend’s anarchy (to the extent I understand it).

Fair enough. I did read a paper about probability theory which seemed to offer a possible way of selecting between such programs, but it was a quick scan in the library, and I am really behind the ball on this kind of stuff.

I note what you say about Feyerabend. Coming from a scientist, that's scary, but doesn't mean it's wrong.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Oy, you take a shower and look how much there is to respond to.

Jordyn - Your most eloquent post is something I was trying to get at earlier. The reason these debates go on endlessly is that the doubters want the standard to be absolute proof. Just look at the way my point about perfume was parsed.

"The presence of trace substances in a perfume or wine is an objective fact, and those with the requisite skills can detect those substances. Whether the presence of those substances is a good or bad thing is, however, purely subjective. "

This opinion completely ignores that certain trace substances being present is what make perfumes extremely valuable. Or it is to say, that people who know nothing about perfume and don't value those substances have opinions that are just as valid as those who do.

As I was going to ask Nina, but since the issue is really raised here I will ask you.

Is a beautiful beefsteak or a perfectly formed and ripe roma plum tomato better than a pale supermarket tomato? The best you can say is that "better" is the wrong word to use. But to quibble over the word, which is what we do around here is really useless. Whatever you want to call it, the point is made. Anyone who likes a pale supermarket tomato better than a beefsteak, doesn't know anything about tomatoes and we just shouldn't listen to them.

"However, the statement that kidneys taste best when fresh and cooked rare is, again, subjective"

G. - I saved this one for you. No a kidney tastes best when it is cooked in a way that maximizes its flavor. Roast beef tastes best rare. But onglet tastes best medium rare. And so on. Of course you might like your roast beef well done. But that has nothing to do with when a hunk of prime rib exudes the most flavor, or has the best texture for chewing.

Robert S. - I find that Picasso quote to be a bunch of hype. It was made at a point in his life when he didn't need to be cutting edge anymore. It's a great thing to say when you are selling people plates with stick figures on them at $5,000 a throw. But it's only something one could say after being the most important artist of his era, and who implemented an extremely complex technique that was different than what came before him. In fact it's good that he didn't paint like a child all his life because we would have a bunch of plates and vases instead of masterpieces.

Wilfrid - How French cuisine would perform against Chinese etc. is irrelevent. The question of French culinary dominance can only be viewed amongst a peer group that includes Western palates. When anyone here uses the word dominant, they don't mean dominant over Indian per se, they mean dominant over British, German etc. That it might be dominant over Indian is a different issue. There is good reason for French and Indian cuisine to be disparate (geography ). But the reason that the disparity between French and British or German exists is somewhat harder to explain.

[Wilfrid]

The question of French culinary dominance can only be viewed amongst a peer group that includes Western palates. When anyone here uses the word dominant, they don't mean dominant over Indian per se, they mean dominant over British, German etc.

Er, yes, that's what I said, although it would be more precise to talk about a set of shared criteria derived from Western cuisine: who owns the palates doesn't really matter.

But I think some of the people in this forum assume that dominance is meant as global supremacy. I agree that such a claim would be - well, I wouldn't use the word "irrelevant", I'll stick with meaningless.

[Jonathan Day]

You say you don't buy the geography theory

Not so. I simply don't find the geography explanation the most immediately convincing. Given suitable evidence I would change my view.

but then you say that "that French furniture, clothing, and ultimately cookery became standards of "civilisation". This social phenomenon may explain some of the diffusion of French cuisine." And that makes me wonder how all this French culture traveled to those places and why if information and culture radiated out of  French hub, those who came from far away distances like Russia to carry French culture back with them could or would do so without bringing their own culture into France for those mathematicians to deconstruct, and then reconstruct them into French culture? Hubs are hubs for no other reason than geography. And the traffic has to flow in both directions for any hub to exist.

There are other plausible explanations: upper-class French (and their cooks) travelling to other countries, expatriated French chefs (Boulestin, Soyer, Escoffier...). Or tourists coming to France, not because of its location but because of other attractive factors

Hubs are hubs for no other reason than geography. And the traffic has to flow in both directions for any hub to exist.

There's a specialised branch of economics that deals in location problems (e.g., why did you once find branches of Barclays, Lloyds, NatWest and Midland within 500m of one another on the typical British high street?). I am far from expert in this, but I don't believe that hubs arise because of geographic proximity. Silicon Valley isn't particularly on anyone's natural travel path, yet technology entrepreneurs go there. There's a part of Germany where there are more printing equipment and ink manufacturers than anywhere in the world.

The story, as I recall it, is that "hubs" arise because of 1) demanding consumers -- e.g. in Germany people will ring up and send their morning paper back if the ink is smeared; 2) strong local competition; 3) skilled workers. See Michael Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations.

To buy your geographic hub theory you would have to believe that if, say, Spain or Denmark had possessed a local populace enamoured with food, a system of rating and ranking restaurants, a system of rating and rewarding top chefs (Meilleur Ouvrier de France, etc.), and many of the other internal factors that enhance French cuisine and diffuse it across the world, the cuisine of those countries would NOT have spread as the French did, simply because, in crossing Europe (by train? on foot? boat?) people didn't naturally traverse those lands.

Also, your point about Lievre a Royale and Pappardelle al Lepre is telling. Because it is obvious on its face that the big difference between the two dishes is how much it costs to make them. And when I say that, I am adding in the time and effort it takes to make a more involved preparation to the cost.

500g of caviar is even more expensive. And there is subtlety and interest in a caviar service -- the setting, the quality of the product, etc. -- but I think I could find more to discuss in a fine pappardelle al lepre than even the most expensive caviar service.

And if you want to focus on labour costs, what about those horrible cakes and pastries that cost a fortune to make and buy but have no taste?

Cost, in my view, is not the issue. Great cooking, cooking worth analysing and discussing and arguing about, is a kind of performance art (I use the word deliberately) going between the farmer and the diner, finding extraordinary ingredients and making them even more special without fundamentally changing what they are (Curnonsky's point).

And I don't see the difference between having a Canard d'Olives at a place like Allard that a chef refined to a restaurant level and eating at Nobu. It's still about food for us as opposed to food for them if you know what I mean.

A canard aux olives at Allard was one of my first meals ever in France, maybe my first. I can still taste it. Is the place still there?

I am prepared to believe that a hamburger could achieve this level of gastronomic interest, but it would take a lot of work. You would want to know where the beef came from (e.g. as with a bistecca alla Fiorentina I ate in a tiny village in Tuscany...the cook pointed to the hill behind the restaurant where the animal had lived and where one of its siblings was still grazing); you would want to know how the meat was aged and how it was chopped; how the fire was prepared; the quality of the bread; etc. Somehow this seems even stranger than Daniel Boulud's "hamburger" gussied up with short ribs and truffles and whatnot.

[Toby]

In such an instantaneous and multiplicative medium as this, it's helpful to define whatever terms, geographical areas, historical periods we use as carefully and as early as possible to prevent endless misunderstandings.

[LaNiña]

Plotnicki, you showered? I didn't realize it was July already!

"Is a beautiful beefsteak or a perfectly formed and ripe roma plum tomato better than a pale supermarket tomato? The best you can say is that "better" is the wrong word to use. But to quibble over the word, which is what we do around here is really useless. Whatever you want to call it, the point is made. Anyone who likes a pale supermarket tomato better than a beefsteak, doesn't know anything about tomatoes and we just shouldn't listen to them."

Not a good example. Nature determined this criterion. If a tomato is left to ripen naturally, then it would be red and juicy and tasty. The pale supermarket tomato was tampered with prematurely.

[Jonathan Day]

I was away from eGullet for roughly 8 hours, so this may be way out of sequence. Apologies for that.

I wanted to add that we should not forget the Japanese. Their cookery is very complex, and at its height it varies in a nuanced way with the seasons, the weather, the setting in which people are dining, perhaps even the clothes they are wearing. I am not at all learned in Japanese cuisine or the artistic discipline that surrounds it, but I know that it is as least as elaborated as the French, though this complexity is less widely known. At least in the Heian period, there was a highly complex matching of clothing colours, foods served, table settings and the like.

And the preparation of fine Japanese food isn't a doddle either.

Years ago some friends and I spent a day with Stephen Toulmin, the philosopher (who also loves food and wine, and would be a wonderful participant in this group). Our friends had invited a Japanese "national treasure" (I think her name was Tanaka, but don't remember) whom they knew. She was a master of tea ceremony cookery. Together with Tanaka-san we cooked a meal and ate it together. The preparation took about 8 hours altogether. Stephen and Donna didn't join in the cooking, but they did enjoy and comment brilliantly on the result.

At one point I was preparing a dish of squash. We steamed the squash, and then Tanaka-san directed me in cutting it into precise cubes. I could make reasonable cubes of roughly the right size but no matter how hard I tried, I could not make their sides perfectly straight, the angles exact. The steamed squash was too soft for the usual brunoise cut. Eventually Tanaka-san took over and cubed the remaining squash for me. Her cubes were perfect.

Then she threw the cubes into a bowl and proceeded to puree them! It turned out that this was one of those dishes of a vegetable puree bound with some gelatin (agar-agar?). Haltingly, I asked why we had worried so much about the shape of the cubes. "Because the shape of the cubes affects the quality of the puree", she replied.

Sweating the details, according to the master, made a difference in this dish. Perhaps that's a good test of whether a dish is "interesting" or not from a gastronomic perspective.