Eating Money

[jayrayner]

Today, Craig Claiborne's notorious $4,000 Paris banquet would barely rate a mention at the bottom of a society column.

←

Oh, I think it might make a little more in the press than that. Let's not forget the headline on his piece: 31 dishes, nine wines, a $4000 cheque.

And what those wines were: the 1918 Chateau Latour, the 1969 Montrachet Baron Thenard, the 1928 Chateau Mouton Rothschild, the 1947 Chateau Lafite, the 1961 Petrus, the 1929 Romanee Conti, and the 1928 d'Yquem. Oh, and the 1835 Madeira.

Would I want to write up a meal like that? Er, yes, I think I might. But then I'm just a grubby hack.

(You happen to have mentioned one of my favourite restaurant write-ups of all time; it took me a while but I now have a copy on pdf so that, every now and then, I can pull it up and marvel.)

[John Whiting]

It's interesting that you mention only the wines. They were in fact used by Claiborne to bump up the cost--just like the modern Petri multi-thousand-quid splurge by a couple of stockbrokers. I don't have time to search out the exact quote (it's in the Claiborne obit I wrote for the Guardian), but the chef was unhappy with the menu--he said that it was enough to feed a much larger company.

EDIT: It consisted, in fact, of thirty dishes and eight wines.

Denis, of Chez Denis where all this took place, had tactfully tried to tell [them] that there would be enough food for ten; that “it was not required that all foods be sampled.”

That, of course, was in the long-ago days before the sampling menu. Edited May 31, 2006 by John Whiting (log)

[Culinista]

So it was Tom Aikens last night, and more food for thought.

There were 3 of us, all from non-privileged backgrounds, including an Iowa farmboy who made good and is now one of the world's most successful and best-fed executives. He's a perfect example of a natural palate that has used new wealth to hone itself on the best education money and passion can buy.

The food was of its usual erratic quality, with some original ideas buried under wildly baroque extravagance bordering on unstable gastronomic thinking. Definitely not one of the world's top meals to a gastronaut, only acceptable. It's Mr. Creosote's personal favorite in London, but Mr. R and I freely groused anyway, mollified only by some interesting wines. This is what gourmets do.

Then I looked around and saw mainly expensive suits and realized that this meal probably would represent somebody's special meal of a lifetime, if they could only afford it. We were discussing a Robert Parker charity event, and I jokingly asked if it was to support impoverished oenophiles. Then it occurred to me that gastronomy, almost alone of the arts, is for some reason not considered to be worthy of public support for wide access. Haute cuisine (I'm not talking about popular cuisine, of course) is almost impossible to mass-distribute in economical scale, like a CD or a museum ticket. Chefs have very heavy commercial restraints that limit what they can do, and there are no MacArthur grants and such. Great paintings and classical music are made accessible to anyone interested, but great food is not.

Why?

In the meantime, maybe the best thing for some folks to do is go to Vegas and hope to hit the jackpot so they can eat.

[MarketStEl]

As for Starbucks and local coffee shops, there was a well-documented article in the Washington Post a few years back naming places where Starbucks had deliberately moved into well-served areas and undercut the locals until they were driven out of business, whereupon their prices went back to normal. Same old story, including the plummeting of standards; I used to drink Starbucks' wonderful coffee in Seattle before Howard Schultz finally talked them into selling out. (He told his story, fulsomely, in Readers Digest, August 1998.) [emphasis added]

←

Did you really mean to use that word?

Fulsome is often used to mean “offensively flattering or insincere.” But the word is also used, particularly in the expression fulsome praise, to mean simply “abundant,” without any implication of excess or insincerity. This usage is etymologically justified but may invite misunderstandings in contexts in which a deprecatory interpretation could be made. The sentence I offer you my most fulsome apologies may raise an eyebrow, where the use of an adjective like full or abundant would leave no room for doubt as to the sincerity of the speaker's intentions.

--Sandy, being perhaps a bit too nit-picky here

[MarketStEl]

Las Vegas has worked hard to bill itself as the place where the middle class can be naughty (and maybe spy a drunk idiot like Paris Hilton doing something tiresome).

As the city's rather successful tourism-promotion campaign slogan says, "What happens here, stays here."

In  the process, we've become the Mall of America of restaurants. (--well, that and the place where anemic old rock groups go to die. Anyone up for a little Air Supply?)

I thought that was Branson, Mo.

Oh, wait--those are country musicians.

And Branson hasn't yet advanced past the $7.99 all-you-can-eat buffet stage; Las Vegas has evolved well beyond that. Atlantic City is just beginning to head in Vegas' direction, but its evolution may be retarded by the fact that there are just too many low rollers living within an easy drive (or bus ride, with complimentary roll of quarters to get you started at the slots) of the place.

Great article, jayrayner!

←

Agreed.

[JohnL]

So it was Tom Aikens last night, and more food for thought.

There were 3 of us, all from non-privileged backgrounds, including an Iowa farmboy who made good and is now one of the world's most successful and best-fed executives. He's a perfect example of a natural palate that has used new wealth to hone itself on the best education money and passion can buy.

The food was of its usual erratic quality, with some original ideas buried under wildly baroque extravagance bordering on unstable gastronomic thinking. Definitely not one of the world's top meals to a gastronaut, only acceptable. It's Mr. Creosote's personal favorite in London, but Mr. R and I freely groused anyway, mollified only by some interesting wines. This is what gourmets do.

Then I looked around and saw mainly expensive suits and realized that this meal probably would represent somebody's special meal of a lifetime, if they could only afford it. We were discussing a Robert Parker charity event, and I jokingly asked if it was to support impoverished oenophiles. Then it occurred to me that gastronomy, almost alone of the arts, is for some reason not considered to be worthy of public support for wide access. Haute cuisine (I'm not talking about popular cuisine, of course) is almost impossible to mass-distribute in economical scale, like a CD or a museum ticket. Chefs have very heavy commercial restraints that limit what they can do, and there are no MacArthur grants and such. Great paintings and classical music are made accessible to anyone interested, but great food is not.

Why?

In the meantime, maybe the best thing for some folks to do is go to Vegas and hope to hit the jackpot so they can eat.

←

Wow!

While we're at it I am also a great appreciator of the art of the automobile.

I can't wait for my government subsidized Aston Martin to arrive!!!!!

Enjoying "haute cuisine" is not a right, it is a privilege. Unfortunately, it is a "consumable" entity.

One can pay a small fee to "see" and enjoy art and after the experience the painting sits on the wall for someone else to enjoy. The frogs legs in truffled broth are gone forever!

Using your logic everyone is "entitled" to a Brioni sports jacket and a Patek!

One does not have to be filthy rich to enjoy even haute cuisine. Many people of modest means dine out in a fine restaurant from time to time (we just don't do it every day). many fine restaurants offer deals, I often eat at the bar in fine restaurants for eg. or go for lunch which is often much cheaper than dinner.

The point is fine dining--if one wants to enjoy it--is accessible to many more people than you seem to think.

I cringe when I see the words "public support." Why not come clean and say "higher taxes."

I gladly support programs for the arts but I draw the line at having my taxes go toward enabling someone to enjoy dinner at a three star restaurant.

It's getting to the point where any more tax increases--and I won't be able to eat at Per Se twice a year. (but I guess someone else--less fortunate-- will be able to take my place--kind of self defeating isn't it?)

The simple fact is, fine dining and haute cuisine are businesses. people choose to enter them. There is decent money to be made at all levels. Chefs and restaurateurs have many options to make money these days. Why--because contrary to what many would like to believe--there are plenty of healthy and thriving economies around the world and millions of people who can afford at least an occasional trip to a temple of gastronomy and maybe a set of Emeril Lagasse cookware and a couple of River Cafe cookbooks (I love those gals).

Las Vegas is pretty unique (love it or hate it). I am not sure it is a good case study for broader arguments.

By the way --have you ever eaten at the "Haute Cusine" pavillion at Epcott!?

[Shalmanese]

Without getting into class warfare, it's understandable that those who can't afford today's astronomically expensive restaurants will not be any more interested in them than they are in, say, the road test on the latest Rolls. One change that I've noticed within my own lifetime is that the cost spread between the bistro and the Michelin three-star has widened at the same accellerating rate as the income gap within most countries' populations. Middle class people not on expense account used to dine regularly at the top end--how often will even the most dedicated foodie spend a week's salary on a single meal? But there are thousands for whom the cost is as nothing. Today, Craig Claiborne's notorious $4,000 Paris banquet would barely rate a mention at the bottom of a society column.

←

I could not disagree more. If anything, the astounding trend of the 20th century has been the mass democratisation of haute cuisine and the reclaiming of good food by passionate gourmets. It used to be that the great restaurants of the past could survive on reputation alone. People went and ate to be seen and because they didn't know any better. But gone are the stuffy tie and jackets, endless arrays of cutlery and stiff, formal service. Instead, what has arrived is the discerning but sceptical palate. They don't care about your history or your reputation, if your food sucks, then they'll tell the world about it. Through blogs and message boards and any other medium possible. And while other people are afraid of contradicting the prevailing wisdom for fear of seeming stupid, these people are perfectly willing to say exactly whats on their minds.

If you take a look at the list of the World's top 50 restaurants, the top 5 clock in at $225, $265, $220, $132 (not mentioned but its 175 AUD) and $213 respectively. None are over $300 and the average is around $200. This would hardly be a weeks wages unless you made $10,000 a year. In fact, for a person earning median wage, this would be not even 2 days wages. This has been almost the first time in history that great, and by that I mean the best food in the world, has been brought into the reach of all but the poorest of the western world. As I've said before on eGullet, people would not think twice about even the poorest person spending $200 a month on booze, drugs & gambling yet somehow it becomes a frivolous extravagance for a middle class person to be spending the same amount on a single great dining experience every month. The idea that great food is beyond the reach of the common man is simply fallacious.

[Shalmanese]

Oh, and actually replying to the original article, I can't help but predicting that this trend of ever increasing empires is unsustainable at the top end. At that level of dining, people want to feel pampered and unique. It becomes increasingly difficult to do so if you know that 3000 other people in 20 different locations are enjoying the same experience. What will happen is that the chains will move continually downmarket, gaining presence but loosing cachet. The people going to Nobu London are not the ones who enjoyed Nobu NY and want to eat the same food, its those who could never afford to eat at Nobu NY and want to feel some of the reflected glory.

[Culinista]

I think I was misunderstood. Culture is not a right, it is always a privilege. And up until very recently, high culture has always been the exclusive provenance of the rich. That's the way the world is.

But the rich have been getting generous over the last few hundred years. All those museums and concert halls out there are mostly the product of philanthropy by rich individuals and a public decision that culture is beneficial to civic life. People now have gotten so used to this generosity that they have come to believe that art and music should not be just for the rich, but belong to everyone. Professional classical music would have died long ago if it were a business like a restaurant.

My question is, why are gastronomic arts considered the same as "frivolous" luxury goods and not a valuable cultural experience like a live symphony performance? Nobody is talking about giving Apicius duck to the masses, but people regularly give their Picassos.

So maybe food is one of the lesser material arts. But if you enjoy Aston Martins, you can see them in car museums, although it is definitely not the same as driving one. There's a Patek museum, and fashion museums as well. Maybe Vegas and the Epcot haute cuisine pavilion (yes, I have been to both) serve a kind of culinary museum function in the sense that they are making high-end cuisine available to a broader audience. But since they are inevitably bad and still extremely expensive facsimiles, they are even more severely limited than other cultural museums.

When I was growing up, we couldn't afford restaurants, just Hardee's on special occasions. I had never heard of a three-star restaurant in the backwater of Savannah, Georgia, let alone think of going to one. TGI Friday's was my first real restaurant, when I was 18. I'd like to think some kid like me in Vegas is getting a taste of what truly great food is like, even if it is just seeing the famous international names on the Strip. It's a start.

I never said anything about entitlements, but I know how it feels to be shut out by people who say the good life is only for those who can afford it. Maybe I should think of starting a food education scholarship. A rich guy gave me a scholarship, and it made all the difference.

[Culinista]

It used to be that the great restaurants of the past could survive on reputation alone. People went and ate to be seen and because they didn't know any better. But gone are the stuffy tie and jackets, endless arrays of cutlery and stiff, formal service. Instead, what has arrived is the discerning but sceptical palate. They don't care about your history or your reputation, if your food sucks, then they'll tell the world about it. Through blogs and message boards and any other medium possible. And while other people are afraid of contradicting the prevailing wisdom for fear of seeming stupid, these people are perfectly willing to say exactly whats on their minds.

If you take a look at the list of the World's top 50 restaurants, the top 5 clock in at $225, $265, $220, $132 (not mentioned but its 175 AUD) and $213 respectively. None are over $300 and the average is around $200. This would hardly be a weeks wages unless you made $10,000 a year. In fact, for a person earning median wage, this would be not even 2 days wages. This has been almost the first time in history that great, and by that I mean the best food in the world, has been brought into the reach of all but the poorest of the western world. As I've said before on eGullet, people would not think twice about even the poorest person spending $200 a month on booze, drugs & gambling yet somehow it becomes a frivolous extravagance for a middle class person to be spending the same amount on a single great dining experience every month. The idea that great food is beyond the reach of the common man is simply fallacious.

←

Are you factoring the costs of traveling to those places? Not to mention the dining experience you have to have in order to understand those restaurants and appreciate what you are paying for? I can't tell you how much it pains me to see people choking on the bill too much to appreciate the food. No one can learn anything from one meal or one bottle of great wine. They have to be able to pay for a long apprenticeship.

Everybody can afford to eat well, except the poorest of the poor. Even when we were on welfare, we had a garden and hunted crabs and ate better than most kids eat now. But let me respectfully suggest that you go out and meet more common people.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Culinista (log)

[Shalmanese]

My question is, why are gastronomic arts considered the same as "frivolous" luxury goods and not a valuable cultural experience like a live symphony performance? Nobody is talking about giving Apicius duck to the masses, but people regularly give their Picassos.

So maybe food is one of the lesser material arts. But if you enjoy Aston Martins, you can see them in car museums, although it is definitely not the same as driving one. There's a Patek museum, and fashion museums as well. Maybe Vegas and the Epcot haute cuisine pavilion (yes, I have been to both) serve a kind of culinary museum function in the sense that they are making high-end cuisine available to a broader audience. But since they are inevitably bad and still extremely expensive facsimiles, they are even more severely limited than other cultural museums.

I never said anything about entitlements, but I know how it feels to be shut out by people who say the good life is only for those who can afford it. Maybe I should think of starting a food education scholarship. A rich guy gave me a scholarship, and it made all the difference.

←

It pretty much comes down to an issue of physical practicality. We have figured out ways to reproduce sound, images and videos relatively cheaply so they have permeated mass culture. I guess the only way we have now to replicate food is via cookbooks and those are what serve as the culinary equivilants of museums and concert halls.

I'll note however that going to the source for any of these goods is still expensive. When I was in Chicago, a ticket to the musical Spamalot would have cost almost twice as much as my dinner to Alinea (and lasted about 1/2 as long). A concert by a world class orchestra or rock band is similarly priced. An original painting by even a talentless hack would cost the price of a mid-range meal.

What has allowed the spread of mass culture has been technology, not philanthropy.

[Culinista]

You are right about technology. Following that logic, we should rejoice at sous vide and the cloning. I recently heard serious people seriously discussing the imminent prospect of making a Star Trek-like food replicator that would reproduce any gastronomic experience in outer space.

Shalmanese, you did better at Alinea than Spamalot.