Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Fine Dining vs. Cheap Eats


Recommended Posts

Everything is open to analysis. The world is a multiplicity of possibilities. It just depends on breadth of mind.

An interesting book on the philosophy of Chinese cuisine is Chinese Gastronomy by Hsiang Ju Lin and Tsuifeng Lin. It attempts to explain all the elements that make up a cuisine. The chapter headings are: Ancient Cuisine, Flavor, Texture, Regional Cooking, Curiosities, Plain Cooking, Classic Cuisine, A Gastronomic Calendar. A pertinent quote:

The world of gastronomy was created by the vulgar and the rich, as well as the clever cooks and persons of good taste. Adventures lie not only in the exploration of the beautiful places, but also in the raucous streets, where people mill about. ... The flavor of the cuisine was also to be found in its faults and excesses. Eating is the pursuit of flavor, and the real connoisseur can relish even bad taste in food, for bad food often has a history or a genealogy to it. One has only contempt for those persons of shallow knowledge who know only the names of good wines and elegant dishes. Good taste should be the result of personal selection, and one really cannot make a choice without a certain amount of general knowledge. Therefore it is quite important to taste everything. If a person remembers the taste of everything he has ever eaten, he may eventually become a gourmet. This quality is fundamental, for a person's awareness results first in judgment, then in choice, then in taste.

If God is aware of every sparrow, shouldn't we be also?

I don't think I was agreeing with Steve P. in my rant on corn. What I was trying to say was that there was much to analyze in each of corn's many manifestations, but that an awareness of the importance of corn in civilization and its global reach in its myriad forms should inform any analysis of individual preparation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is that there is less to say about boiling an egg than there is to say about making eggs benedict.

Steve, does this mean that there are fewer words necessary to thoroughly discuss how to properly boil an egg, and more words necessary to discuss how to make eggs benedict, or does it mean that eggs benedict is worthy of more words?

But in reality it isn't because unless you are having a fancy dinner party where you need to make those type of scrambled eggs, the type everyone already knows how to make is sufficient knowledge on the topic. So it doesn't really come up that often. And if it did, I would think it would be of limited interest.

Here I disagree. I think that scarcely any home cooks have mastered the few basic techniques for, and make on a regular basis, impeccable scrambled eggs. Pepin has repeatedly demonstrated these techniques, along with others, such as the proper butchering for poulet pour saute. They are riveting to watch, as much so as watching him make a pithiviers or a bouche do noel.

I do, however, agree with you that, demographically, amongst readers of food-related writing, more people may be interested in reading and discussing complex, rather than simple cooking. While this may drive editors' assignments, I'm not sure what else it says about anything.

Who said "There are no three star restaurants, only three star meals"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Substituting the word "discuss" for "analyze", ...

Indeed that's all it takes for this thread, and many others online, to go on endlessly--and I mean that in the best possible way. It may keep us from reaching a conclusion and it may drive guys who need to win arguments absolutely nuts, but it's probably a factor in what keeps eGullet so interesting. Seriously though, I think that was a good part of Plotnicki's point, even if he may have been quoted out of context by another Steve who loves a good argument--excuse me I meant to say discussion--the potential for analysis make one subject better than another for an analytic discussion. That doesn't mean we're all of the same eagerness to find that sort of discussion interesting. Afterall, Wharhol made a career out of his interest in "boring."

Robert Buxbaum

WorldTable

Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.

My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. A sausage is a sausage is a sausage. It's just ground meat and spices. It has its limitations as great as it can be.

Well then, that explains why of course you wouldn't be really interested.

But I'm trying to think..... What else is just "meat and spices."

Can you think of anything, Steve?

:biggrin:

Steve?

I don't understand why rappers have to hunch over while they stomp around the stage hollering.  It hurts my back to watch them. On the other hand, I've been thinking that perhaps I should start a rap group here at the Old Folks' Home.  Most of us already walk like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert S - You and I are speaking about two different things. My comment only goes to how much interest a thread on boiling eggs would drum up on a place like eGullet. I have no doubt that somebody masterful could start a thread on the boiling of eggs that would wow us. It's just that the number of people who are in a position to do that, and who could make the conversation be interesting and to keep it that way is probably limited to Madelaine Kamman and a handful of other people. Whereas a thread that is started about how to make a proper Bolognese or ragu would not only probably be better attended than one on egg boiling, anyone could start the thread. There is so much nuance to making one, from the list of ingredients to how you chop them to the type of olive oil to the.......

Now whether Pepin's method for butchering a poulet is interesting or not, is not what my comment is directed at. My comment is directed at *what we generally seem to be interested in.* I would think that most people here who want to make Poulet Saute, don't want to butcher the chicken themselves. They are happy having the guy at Jefferson Market do it. And if someone posted a thread about how to butcher a chicken for that purpose, there would be a response but it would be limited. But I would bet a thread with tips as to how to get the skin on the poulet saute nice and golden, and how to get the right garlicky flavor to it would be very popular.

Jaymes - It's not that it's just meat and spices. It's just that chopped meat isn't refined enough to instigate the same type of discussion that potato gratins do. That's part of the problem as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaymes - It's not that it's just meat and spices. It's just that chopped meat isn't refined enough to instigate the same type of discussion that potato gratins do.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I think I've made my point.

I don't understand why rappers have to hunch over while they stomp around the stage hollering.  It hurts my back to watch them. On the other hand, I've been thinking that perhaps I should start a rap group here at the Old Folks' Home.  Most of us already walk like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's room for discussing boiled eggs, discussing potato gratins, and having tedious arguments. Can't we do all three?  :raz:

Sure, and still have time for lunch.

Bux, for me one of the most interesting things to discuss with a serious professional chef is basic technique. I really like to learn how, for example, Jean-Georges scrambles eggs, or Ducasse cooks steak. Do you find this completely uninteresting, or categorically less interesting than a discussion of gratins?

Once again "interesting" has many relative positions along the scale and maybe not all of them are related to "capable of analysis." Scrambled eggs are among the most abused of all the techniques of haute cuisine. Then again I don't know that I always want the finesse of haute cuisine in my breakfast scrambled eggs. At a certain point I just notice the absence of truffles or caviar.

Nevertheless for the all the talent and dedication to excellence required to produce great scramble eggs, it is a limited topic for discussion. Is a great haiku more or less interesting than a great novel? I'd suggest not, but I'd also suggest there was more to analyze in the novel. This is not to argue that one couldn't write about either for the rest of one's natural born days. What we're discussing perhaps is just how much we'd like to hear about different things.

Haute cuisine is "high" and apart from plain old French food. I would argue that Mexican home cooking can be every bit as complex as cuisine grandmere in France and every bit as worth of analysis, but the analytical cooks are doing the haute cuisine and not the other two. I'm not sure of my point other than to clarify the rules of the game or the boundaries of the playing field. We may not all be playing the same game here, however.

Robert Buxbaum

WorldTable

Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.

My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ay, ay, ay, ay, ay. I agree with Bux.

I'm not sure if I should do something about this or not, but it seems worth quoting.

Hell, I'm even at a loss to pick the correct icon.

Robert Buxbaum

WorldTable

Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.

My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My comment only goes to how much interest a thread on boiling eggs would drum up on a place like eGullet.

Oh goody, because I beg to disagree. Even here there's often less interest in the really interesting topics.

:biggrin:

Robert Buxbaum

WorldTable

Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.

My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Haute cuisine is "high" and apart from plain old French food. I would argue that Mexican home cooking can be every bit as complex as cuisine grandmere in France and every bit as worth of analysis, but the analytical cooks are doing the haute cuisine and not the other two. I'm not sure of my point other than to clarify the rules of the game or the boundaries of the playing field. We may not all be playing the same game here, however. "

Gee I thought I said that earlier when I said it's a combination of complexity and popularity. It's not that people aren't interested in a good mole, it's that people *aren't trying to perfect their mole* to the same extent they are trying to perfect their potato gratin. Why that is the case is a different discussion but, it's clear this board has more interest in the latter than the former. But if we had a very strong Mexican board where numerous "amatuers de cuisine de Mexique" posted, there very well might be numerous nuanced recipes for making different types of mole posted on that board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything is open to analysis.  The world is a multiplicity of possibilities.  It just depends on breadth of mind.

An interesting book on the philosophy of Chinese cuisine is Chinese Gastronomy by Hsiang Ju Lin and Tsuifeng Lin.  It attempts to explain all the elements that make up a cuisine.  The chapter headings are:  Ancient Cuisine, Flavor, Texture, Regional Cooking, Curiosities, Plain Cooking, Classic Cuisine, A Gastronomic Calendar.  A pertinent quote:

"The world of gastronomy was created by the vulgar and the rich, as well as the clever cooks and persons of good taste.  Adventures lie not only in the exploration of the beautiful places, but also in the raucous streets, where people mill about. ... The flavor of the cuisine was also to be found in its faults and excesses.  Eating is the pursuit of flavor, and the real connoisseur can relish even bad taste in food, for bad food often has a history or a genealogy to it.  One has only contempt for those persons of shallow knowledge who know only the names of good wines and elegant dishes.  Good taste should be the result of personal selection, and one really cannot make a choice without a certain amount of general knowledge.  Therefore it is quite important to taste everything.  If a person remembers the taste of everything he has ever eaten, he may eventually become a gourmet.  This quality is fundamental, for a person's awareness results first in judgment, then in choice, then in taste."

If God is aware of every sparrow, shouldn't we be also?

I don't think I was agreeing with Steve P. in my rant on corn.  What I was trying to say was that there was much to analyze in each of corn's many manifestations, but that an awareness of the importance of corn in civilization and its global reach in its myriad forms should inform any analysis of individual preparation.

That is beautiful writing. Thanks, Toby, for introducing me to it.

I don't understand why rappers have to hunch over while they stomp around the stage hollering.  It hurts my back to watch them. On the other hand, I've been thinking that perhaps I should start a rap group here at the Old Folks' Home.  Most of us already walk like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee I thought I said that earlier when I said it's a combination of complexity and popularity. It's not that people aren't interested in a good mole, it's that people *aren't trying to perfect their mole* to the same extent they are trying to perfect their potato gratin. Why that is the case is a different discussion

Steve, conceding that it *is* a different discussion, and noting your aptitude for sensing the marketplace, I would ask for your thoughts - and others' - on why that is the case. Why, in the context you have stipulated, namely the sort of discussion we have here (am I stating the context accurately?), French over Mexican? French over Chinese? French over Italian? High over low? Complex over simple? Expensive over cheap? Why is that? Is the other way around: Mexican over French; perfecting mole over perfecting gratins, etc., the dominant interest elsewhere? Where?

Who said "There are no three star restaurants, only three star meals"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, despite what Steve thinks, this is not a debate about populism. While it's true that the most emotional objections to his position centered around the economic component of his argument, the heart of the dispute was simply--at least as far as I'm concerned--centered around an initial mis-statement that seemed to imply that food fell into two extremes. We've all, by this point in the argument, agreed that such is not the case--even if a few of us arrived there through the back door. Food, and what we make of it, and say of it, falls along a spectrum.

Steve seems to see everything through the lens of someone who's greatest pleasure is in discussing, analyzing and breaking down the components of his finest meals. His goal seems to be to refine that knowledge so that he can seek out, and judge, even better meals. This may or may not be accurate, but its the general perception of him, and overall its not a bad way to be perceived--since in our own way its what most of us are here for.

But others come to eGullet with the goal of building their own knowledge, in hopes of being able to prepare, or consume, better food themselves. They've been exposed to less, and are starting from a simpler place and building up. We can be dismissive and say that this falls under the category of "how to find the best hamburger", or whatever they are preparing or seeking, but those people are probably perfectly happy to analyze mid-range cuisine because it is of the most utility to them.

This is no way alters the fact that more complex preparations are more interesting to the proper audience, it's only a cogent point in my little thesis that the interest in the topic is defined by the audience, not by some absolute formula based on the complexity of the preparation or the expense or rarity of the ingredients. People find the most interest in what is of the most utility to them.

A struggling college student in Akron, Ohio might find a discussion of the food at Guy Savoy In Paris of interest, but they're also going to find considerable interest in a discussion of a local restaurant of far less stellar reputation. Similarly, that same student might find some enlightenment in an analysis of how the best dish at Guy Savoy was prepared, but an analysis of something less ambitious might also be of burning interest to our student, if he or she is attempting to prepare the food themselves and slowly elevate their skills.

Again, this is not a question of populism--it's a question of practicality. Everyone who bothers with a board like this wants to eat as well as they possibly can. Its why they are here. The questions of dollars and cents are only a limiter on their efforts--it doesn't define them. You can't dismiss all lesser efforts with a broad brush by saying that its also "okay to discuss how to find the best burger", as if finding everything except for the finest preparations is simply some kind of treasure hunt.

People who appreciate fine food don't come full formed... they elevate themselves to that point by climbing through some very interesting, and worthwhile, middle levels. Their interest in those levels is real, and probably quite passionate, and must include plenty of worthwhile analysis--for them, and those who are also on the same journey.

Jon Lurie, aka "jhlurie"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, that is asking everyone to agree that fine dining is high-end restaurants, and that that sort of food preparation is the ultimate goal of anyone interested in food. People are interested in what interests them, I think, more than what's of utility to them. I love food because of its infinite variety and for what it says about human creativity. Anything is of interest -- I don't believe there's a hierarchy of interest.

I'm actually more interested in what I can cook at home or eat in small, chef-owned restaurants where the chef is doing the cooking (or closely supervising) than in restaurants where the chef no longer touches the food. I believe food reflects the personality and soul of the person who touches and cooks it as well as their talent. In that respect, high-end restaurant food can also convey very confusing messages. (Of course, now I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. But really, who is to say what the pinnacle of good eating/cooking is?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, that is asking everyone to agree that fine dining is high-end restaurants, and that that sort of food preparation is the ultimate goal of anyone interested in food.  People are interested in what interests them, I think, more than what's of utility to them. I love food because of its infinite variety and for what it says about human creativity.  Anything is of interest -- I don't believe there's a hierarchy of interest.

I'm actually more interested in what I can cook at home or eat in small, chef-owned restaurants where the chef is doing the cooking (or closely supervising) than in restaurants where the chef no longer touches the food.  I believe food reflects the personality and soul of the person who touches and cooks it as well as their talent.  In that respect, high-end restaurant food can also convey very confusing messages.

Our positions are not that far apart. I DON'T necessarily think that high end restaurants are the pinnacle of interest for most people.

My comment was that anyone interested in food preparation (and that's certainly not everyone, including myself) is always looking to elevate their skills. Bold statements can be made here about how only high-end restaurant food is analytically interesting, but that's CLEARLY not true to someone who's GOAL is to be able to duplicate the effort themselves, and whose skills are not at that level.

Your point that not everyone's personal choice will drive them to desire to duplicate those dishes at all is another point entirely, and also valid, and neither point detracts from the other. This spins off into that whole debate about french food vs. Mole, I suppose.

It all goes back to the single cogent point that interest is defined by the audience. The kind of absolutes some would throw around just aren't realistic.

Jon Lurie, aka "jhlurie"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More and more, I take pleasure (or otherwise) in a meal in much the same way I take pleasure in a person's company. I'm prepared to meet a meal on its own terms and relish whatever is good, passing over what isn't. I'm not eager to evaluate it at the time in comparison with other meals. If it's a place where I haven't eaten before, I'll later come to some conclusion as to whether I want to return. If it's an old friend, and it's having an off night, I'll put up with it and maybe say a gentle word on the way out.

A meal in a restaurant is to be enjoyed, if at all possible. To that end, I stay away from places that I don't think will be sympathetic, no matter what their reputation for brilliant individual dishes. By the same token, I don't choose my friends for their bon mots, but rather for their general compatibility. The end result of all this is that (a) I enjoy the company of my friends because, if they have faults, I have decided to ignore them; and (b) I find myself in very few restaurants that don't at the time give me a certain amount of pleasure, even if I decide not to return.

John Whiting, London

Whitings Writings

Top Google/MSN hit for Paris Bistros

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that every one is making this much too personal. It's not about what interests any one person. The large tree that falls in the forest may well be of less interest to me than the little one that falls on my car, but the large tree makes more noise whether I'm there or not and whether I have any interest in it or not. I believe that some things are inherently more complex and therefore capable of greater analysis, whether or not they interest me.

Robert Buxbaum

WorldTable

Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.

My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, your words are well spoken, but would you think less of me if I told you that I seek the company of people who are not my friends as well as those who are and even at times with people I know I'd not like to call a friend. Imagine how little I would have learned in school if I only chose the company of my friends.

:smile:

I may not be a Cabrales, (who I trust appreciates this reference as a compliment) but I find restaurants and meals can offer intellectual stimualtion as well as pleasure, or perhaps it's more accurate to say that I derive pleasure from the intellectual stimulation of an interesting meal in the same way as I might from a person with something interesting to say.

Robert Buxbaum

WorldTable

Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.

My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons I go to "high end" restaurants is specifically to have an experience I know I will never have at home. But analyzing what I am eating is the last thing on my mind, unless sensory perception that is as complex as the food is considered analytical. Maybe this is a right side of the brain/left side of the brain kind of thing.

I am still interested in thoughts about "high and low". Is the opposite of haute cuisine college food in Ohio? Is it dim sum in Vancouver? Why is French culture the epitome of "high"? Does the entire world believe this, or is there another point of view that values another culture as "high"? What is "high", anyway?

Who said "There are no three star restaurants, only three star meals"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does haute cuisine have an opposite? I suspect it may seem poles apart from many cheap eats, but are they on the same linear scale? I think the entire western world sees haute cuisine as the epitome of high end cooking as I can't think of a single culture in the west where classic French technique is not valued and taught in cooking schools and where classic French terms are not a lingua franca in professional kitchens.

Robert Buxbaum

WorldTable

Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.

My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bux et al, my words were only intended as a summary of how I happen to enjoy both food and companionship, not as a model to be followed by others. In other words, a description, not a prescription.

Haute cuisine might be regarded as a rough equivalent of classical art -- a genre whose imitation teaches certain techniques. Just how far we may depart from this, for better or for worse, can be deduced by observing modern conceptual art which owes nothing to skill and everything to salesmanship.

John Whiting, London

Whitings Writings

Top Google/MSN hit for Paris Bistros

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that every one is making this much too personal. It's not about what interests any one person. The large tree that falls in the forest may well be of less interest to me than the little one that falls on my car, but the large tree makes more noise whether I'm there or not and whether I have any interest in it or not. I believe that some things are inherently more complex and therefore capable of greater analysis, whether or not they interest me.

Bux, with due respect... that's not what Steve originally said. I realize the quote was taken out of context, but the implication was that there were two alternatives, period. The original argument was that the big tree was always of more importance than the little one, and clearly that's not the case. Nobody's arguing the fact that the bigger the tree, the bigger the, er... noise.

Well, maybe Fat Guy wanted us to when he started this, but that would be ridiculous!

We're getting pretty philosophical here if we are equating some kind of ultimate... interest scale... based on inherent complexity. Still, in my mind, relevence (and interest) is always situational. It has everything to do with the individual, although hopefully that's not the same thing as it being "personal" in an emotional sense.

Jon Lurie, aka "jhlurie"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may not be a Cabrales, (who I trust appreciates this reference as a compliment) but I find restaurants and meals can offer intellectual stimualtion as well as pleasure, or perhaps it's more accurate to say that **I derive pleasure from the intellectual stimulation of an interesting meal in the same way as I might from a person with something interesting to say.**

Bux -- I agree (and did take your note as a significant compliment :blush: ), particularly since a friend with something interesting to say that is unrelated to cuisine could interact with me over the phone, by e-mail, while having coffee, or at other times when I am not taking in a meal.

I find French haute cuisine much more potentially pleasing (including by reason of its being more interesting to analyze). However, that, as with many things cuisine or restaurant-related, is a subjective assessment. I would consider it entirely natural that others might find kim chi pickles or fast food burgers to be what they prefer to analyze. I imagine much could be interesting about the range of vegetables used by Koreans for kim chi, or the role and type of mustard, bun, quality of meat, ketchup, etc. in a burger (even before getting to the cheese), however, for me those things are subjectively less delicious than French haute cuisine. Thus, I devote less time and effort to pursuing and discussing them because the potential subjective fulfillment to be derived from those foods is less than for French haute cuisine in my case. However, there are exceptions, like egg dishes in any cuisine or, as previously mentioned, the exuberance of cherries. :smile:

At present, I am debating whether to undergo some reduction of restaurant going in the US (to a level that would not be low, presumably), given my subjective preferences for restaurants in France. One of the primary lines of inquiry in that internal debate mimics the topic of this thread: With all respect to restaurants all over the world, are restaurants in France intrinsically for me so considerably more interesting to eat at, analyze and discuss that I should not be eating out as much as I do in the US? Apologies to any member who may mistake the above as a criticism of the quality of food found in the US; that is not the intended meaning. It is merely to say that subjectively I find restaurants in France to be considerably more fulfilling. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...