Sincerest Form

[butterscotch]

what's the buddhist quote...

first you see a mountain.....

then you see the trees and the slopes and streams, the birds and flowers, the ridges, the view, the grasses, the dirt, the worms the leaves...

then you see a mountain.

no worries, you'll get there someday.

I'm not looking at the forest, I'm not even looking at the trees. I'm going much deeper than that and looking at the leaves on the trees in the forest. Because those elements are what make up both tree and forest. A

←

[sizzleteeth]

what's the buddhist quote...

first you see a mountain.....

then you see the trees and the slopes and streams, the birds and flowers, the ridges, the view, the grasses, the dirt, the worms the leaves...

then you see a mountain.

no worries, you'll get there someday.

←

Heh, I wasn't aware of that quote - but obviously I can't prove that - maybe I should have done a little more research before I opened my mouth.

Add hypocrisy to my list of admitted transgressions.

After all... "Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury".

[butterscotch]

a big part of this is copying exactly- denying it- not giving credit, then being weasely about it by semi-apologising. it's not something i believe we are all guilty of.

it blows my mind people say the copying was not intentional. the man wanted a large menu and decided this was the shortcut he needed.

or perhaps he did it all while asleep on ativan.

I know.  I'm just saying when I first saw the pics I said to myself, "Hm, that looks familiar".  After spending more time on it, I was completely satisfied that what I was looking at was evolution/inspiration and nothing more.  My only point is that this type of cuisine brings up some interesting questions/discussions, much like this one.  Kind of a bonus over the food actually tasting good. 

←

[sizzleteeth]

he's buying into the nihilist notion that all inspiration is plagiarism.

←

And no one, I believe, ever said that "all inspiration is plagiarism" - maybe "all inspiration that can be attributed to a readily identifiable source should be noted as such in some way shape or form if it is not apparent to all where it originates from".

I think actually on that point we are in more agreement than not.

The closest I came to that was saying copying is copying and no one is innocent of copying.

That is why in that post I noted that I avoided the word "plagiarism".

Because all copying is not "plagiarism".

And even exact copying is not plagiarism.

Plagiarisim is KNOWINGLY copying without attribute and that is true at all levels of any subject, forest, tree, leaf and seed.

So it's hard to say everyone is guilty of plagiarism - but I bet most of us could find some instance in our life where we were.

Though it is much easier to find those instances in the lives of others.

I have nothing against Wylie - I think he's a great guy from what I know - but I have never in any discussion, quote or interview where enzyme noodles are discussed seen any attribute to The Fat Duck - until now.

Though I have seen the fact that he was introduced to the enzyme by Heston in articles about the noodles..

So was that copying?

Or was it plagiarism?

Or was it neither?

Or even more - am I missing that reference somewhere? (please tell me if I am)

Am I misunderstanding the article? (Which is possible). Did they never make meat noodles with the enzyme at The Fat Duck?

Was the mention of the introduction to the enzyme enough attribute?

If they did - should he have said. "We made noodles like this at The Fat Duck - just not with prawns."?

Since the noodles themselves were the primary subject of the hype.

That is why I am taking this to the level of detail I am - because yes there is the big picture - but we are also talking about very very specific things.

Does it matter to anyone?

"A lot of the interesting things we use [at WD-50] have been learned from exposure to [blumenthal's] kitchen," says Dufresne. "But it's almost impossible for me to imagine me doing something that's misconstrued as one of his dishes." The difference, he says, is in the application; Blumenthal has never used the enzyme-into-noodle technique with prawns.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,1738630,00.html

Edited March 24, 2006 by sizzleteeth (log)

[nick.kokonas]

yes it does matter. The discussion has deviated from one topic to another... as intended of course, but the confusion is not being adequately addressed.

One dish, like one brushstroke, phrase in a novel, passage in a musical composition, etc. is very difficult to pinpoint as being plagiarised, stolen, or whatever you wish to call it. These are the details you speak of. That is a huge gray area... subject of the debate going on with Sizzleteeth etc. And in that regard I agree with most of what he is saying.

While I do not wish to beat the proverbial dead horse, I do not personally believe that is what went on in this particular case. There are a total of nearly 10 dishes that photographically were identical to their counterparts in the states -- not just the WD-50 shrimp or the Alinea photos pictured here -- plus another 10 or so that verbally meet identical description of highly unique phrasings and ingredients. In this particular example, there is little room for argument about evolution, deviation etc. We are not speaking about a single unique ingredient or technique, but a veritable menu of them.

Does this happen elsewhere? Perhaps.. but I have never seen it. I ate dinner tonight at a restaurant that had both "Bocuse" and "Ducasse" dishes noted -- and I also understood that Bocuse and Ducasse do them differently and better. I have seen single dishes replicated exactly. I have never seen a menu of them. The Guardian article was weak in that it made no mention of this distinction.

At this point frankly I don't really care. Whatever discussion needed or wanted to take place has already. Apologies have been made... menus are being changed.

However, it would be interesting to hear viewpoints on when exactly a dish should be attributed... a unique technique, a particular ingredient set? Or does it require a more exacting replica of the dish?

I say it is all about intent -- if a chef intends to make a copy of another chef's dish, he should make an effort to note it....

and while a single chef can easily get away copying a few dishes here and there, I would say this...

it's not a legal issue, an IP issue (unless it is a giant company per C. Cantu), an NDA issue, a stage issue... it is just plain uncool. If you worked 16 hours per day, 6 days per week for years to establish some level of proficiency and personal style.. honing your craft only to see someone else claim it as their own, it is a bit heartbreaking. You pause a moment...

But then you just go back to work...

[Pan]

[...]Again, plagiarism is a concept in ethics that applies to all creative endeavors. It's not limited to academia, nor is it limited to the written word.

←

It is relatively recent in historical terms for plagiarism to apply to music in any important sense. As recently as the 18th century, composers were constantly copying one another's work with few hard feelings. And then there are the fake attributions: It's often been observed that Pergolesi is perhaps the only person who composed more music (was it twice as much?) after his death than when he was alive.

As for copyright, in literature, countries like the US have had trouble with pirated editions in China and India in the last few decades, but in the 19th century, the US was king of the literary pirates and it was Britain that was outraged.

As an academic myself, I care a lot about plagiarism. It stinks, not because it's copying per se, but because it's copying and not being open about that fact, and because it's substituting someone else's thoughts for your own. But doing a set of variations on a theme by someone else or paraphrasing their opera? Sure!

Anyway, before I go further off on a tangent, my main point in this post is to reiterate the point that was made earlier: That is, the concept of plagiarism and standards of professional honesty are changing. We should advocate for standards that we believe in, but we should also understand the history of standards on plagiarism. And we should also acknowledge that if there were universal agreement on standards of honesty in cuisine, we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.

[inventolux]

[...]Again, plagiarism is a concept in ethics that applies to all creative endeavors. It's not limited to academia, nor is it limited to the written word.

←

Anyway, before I go further off on a tangent, my main point in this post is to reiterate the point that was made earlier: That is, the concept of plagiarism and standards of professional honesty are changing. We should advocate for standards that we believe in, but we should also understand the history of standards on plagiarism. And we should also acknowledge that if there were universal agreement on standards of honesty in cuisine, we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.

←

Standards that are "believed" are ambiguous and cannot be calibrated. Sure, there may be some bad press around Interlude for a short time but the bigger problem will still persist and the only thing we may achieve here will be one more suffering restaurant and 30 plus more suffering employees. Its that problem that can be defined and should be addressed. We need to see how deep "the rabbit hole goes." Maybe this is not the thread for this discussion, but its as close as im gonna get.

I have to go now, tomorrow is calling.

[Pan]

Chef Cantu, don't you think this thread is somewhat of a warning that in this age of the internet, the World is watching?

On the other hand, I guess the other question is whether even this type of bad publicity may be lucrative. Only time will tell.

In terms of standards that are believed not being calibratable (is that a word?), isn't that basic to questions of ethics and morals? We could be debating when it is a good thing to lie, for example. People who say that lying is always immoral are idiots. When lying to crazed or evil genocidal murderers will save hundreds of people (or even one person), it is a heroic act. The fact that much, much less is at stake in questions of plagiarism doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to try to reach a consensus on what standards should be adhered to. If we reach such a consensus and some people violate it, they can only be subjected to ostracism and invective, because no laws will have been broken. But surely, the most important social mores really depend on that kind of suasion, not the coercive power of the law; don't you agree?

[sizzleteeth]

On the other hand, I guess the other question is whether even this type of bad publicity may be lucrative. Only time will tell.

isn't that basic to questions of ethics and morals?

←

the only thing we may achieve here will be one more suffering restaurant and 30 plus more suffering employees.

While I have been as much a member of the argument as any - I wonder, in reality - how important any of this really is in the greater scheme of things - at least when it comes to food - even if it is "food as art".

I know I'm definitely not doing nearly all I could and comparatively live an extremely privleleged life, but, as Inventolux makes the case for much earlier - there are people all over the world scratching to even eat to stay alive...

And we're in a glorified chat room arguing over how some noodles are arranged on a plate and who deserves credit.

Having witnessed more poverty and desolation just in the past month then I can accurately describe - I think that's another thing we should add to the discussion as we speak of morals and suffering and standards.

I would also say this.

The saturation of the market is going to happen - and there's nothing you can do about it.

It happened with everything before this, it happened with Nouvelle cuisine and the organic foods movement and farm fresh ingredients.

And as it does it is going to become increasingly more difficult to stand out of the crowd and I see what is happening here as both an attempt to stake claims in a gold rush and an attempt to "stop" and "control" the dissemination of something that has organically disseminated for the entire history of man before now.

We can split hairs, zoom out, point fingers, name name's etc.

But in the real big picture... in the actual greater scheme of things.

It just doesn't really make any difference.

Cooking food is about people, its not about techniques, its not about the best ingredients, its not about fame or recognition and its not even really about art.

Though those other things are factors we cannot let them overshadow the true purpose here.

But I think maybe we already have.

Edited March 25, 2006 by sizzleteeth (log)

[Tess]

it's not a legal issue, an IP issue (unless it is a giant company per C. Cantu), an NDA issue, a stage issue... it is just plain uncool. 

←

That's exactly how it seems to me. If I ate at a restaurant and only found out later that a large percentage of dishes had been copied from a single place, ingredient for ingredient ad well as technique, my reaction would be, "Wow, that's deeply uncool."

I also thought the Guardian article was misleading in not bringing out the number of dishes involved. If the situation was what they suggest I, for one, would have no problem with it.

[Redbank]

cdh,

believe it or not Australia no matter how remote, is still part of the same planet as You.S.A, and unbelievably this particular resident has tried at least a little interesting cooking and travelled to (WOW) spain and London.

And unfortunately harm has been done to first pride, secondly respect, and thirdly integrity, which are qualities that I hope transcend country of origin.

And yes reputations have ben damaged.

There is little need to belittle the culinary arts by comparison to academia.

Originality is welcome anywhere anytime.

Plagiarism whether in your world or mine is about as relevant as a cheese burger.

What pleases the dining public one day is steak and chips the other maybe avant garde cuisine.

Be honest, Stay strue.

[slkinsey]

I'm not so sure I agree with the premise that reproducing something substantially inspired by, or even borrowed wholesale from another person without attribution necessarily constitutes plagiarism irrespective of the medium and the standards which are commonly accepted to apply to that medium. Clearly, for example, we don't feel that one has an ethical obligation to credit Escoffier or whoever when making a dish with one of his classic sauces.

In the music world, there is definitely a distinction made between a creative act and an interpretive act. If someone substantially copies a song, they are guilty of plagiarism (and copyright violation, for that matter). However, suppose I copy someone's interpretation? For example, Giuseppe di Stefano was famous for taking the high C at the end of the Faust aria in full voice and then doing a long sustained decrescendo to pianissimo. Does this mean that I'm a plagiarist if I do the same thing without holding up a little sign saying, "this decrescendo originally conceived and performed by Giuseppe di Stefano?" Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

Sizzleteeth makes an interesting and similar point about the meat enzyme. Is the idea of using the enzyme to make pasta out of meat a creative act or an interpretive act? Is everyone who does this ethically bound to clearly credit the inspiration to Dufresne (or whoever)? I think there is an argument to be made that taking an enzyme that was designed (by someone else) and used (by lots of people and companies) to stick meat together, and using that enzyme to create noodles out of meat is an interpretive rather than creative act. As such, I'm not convinced it's something that can be plagiarized, per se. If many or most of the interpretive elements that went into the dish are substantially copied, I would say that that makes the derivative work not very inspired -- just as I would find it uninteresting were a soprano to slavishly imitate Maria Callas's interpretation of Violetta in La Traviata. But I'm not sure I'd call either one plagiarism. Different ideas and different standards apply in different fields and disciplines.

In the music and food worlds, I think there is a built-in assumption that interpretive works are substantially influenced by and built upon what has come before, and that no work is entirely original in either conception or execution. Certainly, even in a restaurant like ADNY or Per Se or wd-50, I wouldn't necessarily have the expectation that every dish has been created out of thin air by the chef. And clearly certain dishes and ideas reach a certain level of ubiquity where no one feels that they need credit anyone. Are all the restaurants in NYC serving "crudo" giving credit to Pasternack at Esca?

[butterscotch]

i have yet to see one person defend what the resturant in question had done without misrepresenting and minimizing what was done.

it was not one technique, one recipe, it was many. as much as 2/3 of the total menu.

and it was certainly not "borrowing" (if the originator is not loaning or sharing) nor being "inspired by" nor is it an "interpetive work" when it is copied exactly, and more than one item- it would be more acurate to say "duplicated works" .

i want to see what actually happened here defended for once, because it truly has not been.

the closest anyone has come has been to make excuses such as "australia is far, it won't hurt the business", "they didn't intend to steal" and "everybody does it".

so far we have excuses, misrepresentations of the case at hand, digressions about patent law and the nature of plagerism and hypotheticals that get us off tangent.

i want to hear how or why anyone thinks what actually did happen in this situation is ethically okay. so far, i don't think anyones weighed in without a hypothetical scenario.

[inventolux]

i have yet to see one person defend what the resturant in question had done without misrepresenting and minimizing what was done.

it was not one technique, one recipe, it was many. as much as 2/3 of the total menu.

and it was certainly not "borrowing" (if the originator is not loaning or sharing) nor being "inspired by" nor is it an "interpetive work" when it is copied exactly, and more than one item- it would be more acurate to say "duplicated works" .

i want to see what actually happened here defended for once, because it truly has not been.

the closest anyone has come has been to make excuses such as "australia is far, it won't hurt the business", "they didn't intend to steal"  and "everybody does it".

so far we have excuses, misrepresentations of the case at hand, digressions about patent law and the nature of plagerism and hypotheticals that get us off tangent.

i want to hear how or why anyone thinks what actually did happen in this situation is ethically okay.  so far, i don't think anyones weighed in without a hypothetical scenario.

←

I wont defend Chef Robin's actions. Also I can no longer agree with this forums persistence to drive his name into the ground until he winds up becoming the new milleniums poster child for everything ugly when it comes to defining copycat gastronomy. Thats not cool. Aren't we better than that? I choose to exercise tolerance. The guy apologized, he made menu changes, he will remember this for the rest of his professional life. Enough is enough. Whats next? Front page of the New York Times? Will that be enough? Or how about until he closes the restaurant and lays off all of his people? We just might learn something as I am sure he has.

I have to go now, Jerry Springer is on.

[slkinsey]

Well said, chef. I'd like to think that this discussion is about a lot more than the individual example that started it. It's not about assigning blame or levels of blame to one chef or one restaurant. It's about exploring some ideas and concepts, and how they relate to the restaurant and food world.

[DERF]

[Fat Guy]

Chef Robin has now told another newspaper, this time Australia's Sunday Age, that "At no time did I try and claim that I invented any of the dishes." I think most folks posting here were ready and remain eager to move on from the specifics of Chef Robin's case to the general issues involved, but he keeps pulling us back. It's hard to feel sorry for the guy when he maintains that position. Certainly, he is not the victim here.

[slkinsey]

That one line seems a bit taken out of context to me. It conveys an altogether different feeling here:

In an interview with The Sunday Age, Wickens, 31, said: "It's not something I'm proud of. The main thing I've learnt is that you have to be careful about how you give credit. If I was to do it again, I would definitely put credit on the menu.

"I was excited to share with my kitchen staff some of the creative dishes that inspired me overseas. At no time did I try and claim that I invented any of the dishes."

A survey of past interviews shows that Wickens did refrain from claiming such credit in those interviews, although the Interlude website refers to "thoughtfully and masterfully created" dishes.

[Tess]

That is a much better article.

I do feel sorry for him and I agree with the person in the article who said he acted dumb and naive. I also think that "at no time did I claim" business is probably the literal truth as he sees it; his misrepresentation was by omission. I'll bet he was really under the impression that he wasn't doing anything out of the way.

I'm really interested in finding out how widespread this phenomenon is.

[slkinsey]

I'm interested to hear thoughts on this one... The first job I ever had as a kid was working at a bakery in the Boston area. I can remember that one of our most popular cookies was something involving a lot of nuts that was baked all in one piece and then punched out with a cutter. The baker had learned the recipe at another bakery, that had conceived the recipe. Should our signage have credited the "inventor" of the cookies? Or, for that matter, what about "cookies & cream" ice cream? Should everyone making that credit Emack & Bolio's?

There is some difference, in my mind, between saying "I conceived this" when you did not, and simply not saying anything about who conveived something.

[Pan]

[...]In the music world, there is definitely a distinction made between a creative act and an interpretive act.  If someone substantially copies a song, they are guilty of plagiarism (and copyright violation, for that matter).  However, suppose I copy someone's interpretation?  For example, Giuseppe di Stefano was famous for taking the high C at the end of the Faust aria in full voice and then doing a long sustained decrescendo to pianissimo.  Does this mean that I'm a plagiarist if I do the same thing without holding up a little sign saying, "this decrescendo originally conceived and performed by Giuseppe di Stefano?"  Of course not.  That would be ridiculous.

←

Right, because that's only one aspect of his interpretation.

If many or most of the interpretive elements that went into the dish are substantially copied, I would say that that makes the derivative work not very inspired -- just as I would find it uninteresting were a soprano to slavishly imitate Maria Callas's interpretation of Violetta in La Traviata.  But I'm not sure I'd call either one plagiarism.[...]

←

Instead, you called it slavish imitation. What's the difference?

Back in the late 70s or so, I remember hearing a violist who will remain nameless (but whose last name I do remember) play a Bach cello suite. At the end of the performance, my father asked me whether I liked the interpretation. I said I liked it very much. He replied that it was a great interpretation, but the problem was, it wasn't the performer's, but rather, it was Pablo Casals' in every respect, taken from his record, down to the most minor detail of how much time was taken between phrases, where he sped up and slowed down, and precisely what dynamics he used in which measures. For a student to do that might be an interesting exercise. For a professional to do that does constitute a kind of fraud to me. I do my best to play bel canto flute music (mostly French bel canto) in bel canto style, but as I'm certain you know, part of that style is to do expressive things on the spur of the moment. If I merely copied someone else's interpretation slavishly, there's no way I could actually transmit the spirit of the music and truly make it come alive.

sizzleteeth, I was in India (and then-equally-poor Indonesia) in the 70s, so I absolutely know about the kind of grinding poverty and hunger that exists in parts of the world. You are right that conditions in the world that cause unnecessary suffering and death are a more important topic than any other. But that doesn't mean that no other topics are of any interest, relevance, or importance for eGullet Forums or The Daily Gullet. No-one will solve world hunger by recommending a great Chinese restaurant in LA or suggesting what dishes to order at a Michelin 3-star, but we surely won't solve world hunger by sending those meals in envelopes to India or Africa instead of eating them at delicious restaurants and thereby increasing our enjoyment of life. We all know the solution to the problem of extreme inequality and maldistribution of resources is much more complex than can be solved by merely sending food from luxe restaurants to crisis locations overseas. If you feel that the existence of misery in parts of the world should cause us to change the way we live, that is a very valid response, though, and I would encourage you to start a thread with any thoughts you might have on that.

Edited March 26, 2006 by Pan (log)

[ChefGEB]

As Tom Friedman pointed out in his latest book, "THE WORLD IS FLAT". With the internet, email, cell phones, FedEx, etc, we are now more interconnected, and thus closer than ever. I think that cuisine is now experiencing some issues with globalization that have been affecting other industries for a quite some time.

Once you try to take advantage of new technologies, whether it is to create a new dish or to help promote your cuisine, you inevitably put your cards on the table for the entire world to see. I am not trying to condone what anyone has does (or what everyone has done for that matter) in regards to copying, but I feel that one has to realize that it will continue to happen as access to information is readily available.

Does one take an isolationist approach and limit his exposure to the public for fear of being copied? Or does one race to the press with every new idea to prove to the world that he thought of it first?

[deco75]

I do my best to play bel canto flute music (mostly French bel canto) in bel canto style, but as I'm certain you know, part of that style is to do expressive things on the spur of the moment. If I merely copied someone else's interpretation slavishly, there's no way I could actually transmit the spirit of the music and truly make it come alive.

Do you not think there's a chance that by learning to play someone else's interpretation it could help you become a better flute player. After all practice makes perfect, and the better you get at playing the flute the better your own original pieces will be when you write them.

It would take an arrogant chef to say that they know everything and have no more to learn.

Edited March 26, 2006 by deco75 (log)

[reachej]

Since Fatguy mentioned the molten chocolate cake a while back I thought it might be of interest to note that even though most in the profession are aware that it is an invention of Michel Bras, it also appears to be protected in some way as a registered trademark. If you go to the dessert menu on his website (apologies for insufficient tech ability to post link) you will notice that the word "coulant" is followed by the "R" symbol for registered trademark in 2 places. For those of you participating with a backround in this sort of thing, does this protect the wording? The recipe? Or what? My guess is that it gains him very little other than credit for the invention (which as far as I understand it he deserves). Certainly the concept pertains to the issue at hand. But how?

[Andy Lynes]

Like, when the first person copied Vongerichten's molten chocolate cake, was he plagiarizing?  Was it wrong at first to serve that dish without attribution, but became OK later?  And how about Nobu's sable?  Was the first Japanese fusion place to copy it wrong, but now it's OK? 

←

I think there's a much sharper focus on invention in avant-garde cuisine than in the case of either of the dishes you've referenced. For one thing, I'm not at all certain that Jean-Georges and Nobu are the inventors of those dishes.

←

Since Fatguy mentioned the molten chocolate cake a while back I thought it might be of interest to note that even though most in the profession are aware that it is an invention of Michel Bras

←

Vongerichten's recipe, which is a reasonably strighforward batter that is "undercooked" to achieve the molten centre, is entirely different from Michel Bras recipe which has a plug of frozen ganache inserted into the middle of the cake batter. As the dessert bakes, the ganache melts. Very similar in effect and no doubt one inspired the other but the two desserts are really quite different to eat.