Cru vs. Urena vs. Venue vs. ?

[Vadouvan]

if you are looking for an understanding of the aesthetics of cooking, also fundamental to this' scientific approach, gilt is probably the best bet; if you are interested in the application of science, known as technology, wd50 is probably the best bet; if you are interested in how technological applications produce more consistent tastes and textures cru is probably the best bet.

Well Said.

[reachej]

Everyone makes some good points, perhaps this has come down to semantics a bit... no? Vocabulary doesn't always accurately describe reality...

[akwa]

Everyone makes some good points, perhaps this has come down to semantics a bit... no?  Vocabulary doesn't always accurately describe reality...

←

sometimes for a discussion to progress there needs to be a common understanding about the meaning and values of the terms used

otherwise you end up with food critics to whom avant garde is everything without red sauce; it inhibits development in diverse arenas to lump together people with diverse philosophies, generally defining them even semantically will allow consumer/chef/fan to make more informed choices.

a better dialogue between chef/guest will also improve the quality of the experience and product from both directions.

[Vadouvan]

sometimes for a discussion to progress there needs to be a common understanding about the meaning and values of the terms used

otherwise you end up with food critics to whom avant garde is everything without red sauce; it inhibits development in diverse arenas to lump together people with diverse philosophies, generally defining them even semantically will allow consumer/chef/fan to make more informed choices.

a better dialogue between chef/guest will also improve the quality of the experience and product from both directions.

And quite frankly.....

Spirited discussions on "semantics" serve to inform all and keeps the forum interesting.

I am all for clarity in the finer points of any subject matter....

[dRock]

To me, anything that is pushing the envelope should be considered "avant garde." Places Like el bulli, Cafe Atlantico, Arzak, Mugaritz, Alinea, Wd-50, Moto, Venue, Gilt etc. Even though I think Cru is a very good restaurant, I dont think it fits in this category. This is just my opinion.

[RobinsonCuisine]

To me, anything that is pushing the envelope should be  considered "avant garde." Places Like el bulli, Cafe Atlantico, Arzak, Mugaritz, Alinea, Wd-50, Moto, Venue, Gilt etc.  Even though I think Cru is a very good restaurant, I dont think it fits in this category.  This is just my opinion.

←

Urena doesn't either. Very safe.

[reachej]

Akwa and Vadouvan, no one is saying that discussion of the finer points is not useful. I meant only to say the people were starting to draw similar conclusions through different paths. But let's move on...

from this, by definition chefs cannot be scientists because they are trying to make something rather than learn something with no end point. this change in vantage point is interesting, but i am not sure it is compelling.

I don't agree with this on a couple of levels. I don't think that any one (chef or not) is excluded from the pursuit of science "by definition." Also, science, it seems to me is practiced all the time with an end point in mind. Scientific research is conducted all the time by folks with an end point in mind. Scientific research in industrial chemical companies being one example, pharmecuticals another, and on and on.

"avant-garde" "mg" are thrown around pretty easily these days without much consideration of the derivation of the ideas and meanings

otherwise you end up with food critics to whom avant garde is everything without red sauce; it inhibits development in diverse arenas to lump together people with diverse philosophies, generally defining them even semantically will allow consumer/chef/fan to make more informed choices.

This seems to be the question at hand. How do you label these restaurants (WD, Gilt, etc.)? We all seem to have agreed that MG is not an accurate term, even though everyone would understand you if you used it that way. I know this has been addressed in other threads, but Akwa makes very informed observations in this one:

if you are looking for an understanding of the aesthetics of cooking, also fundamental to this' scientific approach, gilt is probably the best bet; if you are interested in the application of science, known as technology, wd50 is probably the best bet; if you are interested in how technological applications produce more consistent tastes and textures cru is probably the best bet.

Fair enough, and we appreciate this level of understanding, but (Akwa especially), how would youl label it generally for the masses, to promote...

a better dialogue between chef/guest will also improve the quality of the experience and product from both directions

Context after all, really does matter in the appreciation of any creative form.

[Edward Quinn]

It is quite impressive though, that no matter how derisively the term is spoken of, that everyone can still manage to produce lists of restaurants that aren't practising that particular cuisine.

[Vadouvan]

everyone can still manage to produce lists of restaurants that aren't practising that particular cuisine.

The correlation between this quote and the discussion at hand is that...

Much as we are discussing misdefinition of a category of restaurants...

"Sarcasm" should not be confused with "humor"

The fact that one may be aware of the inclusion of the sample doesnt mean one should define the sample erroneously.

[Edward Quinn]

Good grief, much as I love talking in circles, (obviously no attempt at humour),

I was simply trying to introduce a new spin on the conversation.

None of you had actually mentioned the study of the molecular composition of ingredients, as practised by Heston Bluthmenthal (Fat Duck, U.K). He has established new and somewhat strange sounding flavour marriages to the world through this practise and some of those marriages are being reproduced and experimented with elsewhere in the world.

I do not find the term `molecular gastronomy' overly appealing, but in the case of the Fat Duck, it does have a trace of relevence and in twenty years time when we're still discussing this period of gastronomy, maybe that `erroneous' label will provide a reference point.

[akwa]

in the last issue of gastronomica i wrote an essay about the five levels of creativity in the kitchen

this was my attempt to define precisely the issues that i saw developing in the kitchen and hoping to make an early attempt to

"commercialize creativity" by defining it

[senorshuckerman]

Secretes, on the L E S is, until now, unmentioned either as belonging in the catagory we cannot agree upon, or as not belonging. I enjoyed the meals I had there. The food there seemed unusally composed, and full a surprising combinations that delivered on the satisfaction front. As well, it was clear the chef paid attention to all levels of cooking techniques and was willing to use esoteric and/or atraditional means of achieving an end. Molecular Cooking? -It was good food.

[weinoo]

And, isn't it closed?

[Rob Simmon]

I went to Gilt on Friday (the 18th of February) and me and my guests were impressed, thanks for the suggestion. Hopefully I'll get a full review up in the appropriate thread.

As far as the semantic side of the discussion is concerned, if Herve This uses the term molecular gastonomy, I think it's ok.