Varietal

[FoodPassion]

Yes it was.

I think any wine snob could have fun there....

I agree the concept is a little disjointed...but here's hoping it all works out...

←

Unfortunately, my guess would be it probably won't.

(without some reworking)

First--trying to be a wine bar and a restaurant is difficult at best--one has to be somewhat sublimated to the other. Logistically, you can't serve a full menu at a wine bar and combine complex food with tasting flights of wine. I personally, would be hard pressed to focus on tasting various wines and eating complicated food at the same time while sitting at a bar.

second--IMOP the menu has to make sense. The style and execution of the savory dishes needs to be carried through in the deserts.--the vision needs to be in synch. You can't successfully pair a great chef and a great desert chef unless they have the same vision.

third--same for wine--the list needs to flow from the food or vice verse.

it all has to come together for a patron and make sense. the pricing, service and ambiance also come into play and coalesce into a dining experience.

This sounds like (and again I haven't been yet) several concepts that taken individually, are well executed (the wine bar especially,sounds like a lot of fun) but that do not come together well as a whole. That is, this may be a case where the whole is less than the sum of the parts!

←

Just testing - My last post did not show! Just

←

OK, I guess the website is back up!

I have been on vacation and have missed all the fun discussions. So, here are my two cents (or three)!

I totally diagree with JohnL about Mr. Cuozzo. Whether he did a formal or informal criticism, or just his "opinion" of the restaurant and the food, it does not negate his lack of knowledge about food and styles. Besides, when a food critic expresses his opinions, he needs to say so. Ms. Cuozzo clearly exposed his ignorance: Common, he does not know the mushrooms???? He talked about Tonka beans as if a bowl of beans were served - it was only a liquified mixed smidgen. As everyone in the food industry knows (except Mr. Cuozzo) there are a lot of foods that contain poisons, like: apples, carrots, beets, hot dogs, all deli meats, etc. So, his speech about the poison Tonka beans is null! And yes, for those of you who wanted to know, the beans added a very nice contrast to the dish - which is what the restaurant, menu, and wines are all about.....

Some of the posts continue to talk about the difference between the dinner vs. the dessert menus, the difference between the big vs. small wineries, the difference between the heavy decor vs. simple or minimalistic decor. People, I spoke to the owner and the chefs, this is what the restaurant is all about. The wanted to be unusual with great foods (one traditional - the other avant garde); with the largest list of "small and less known wines"; with simple decor so that the food shines - not the pictures or the glamour; with two great chefs - one conservative gourmet and one amazing modern artist who can shame "El Bulli"; with an unsuspecting address, for the effect of surprise. This is what is all about!

NY has way too many restaurants already, all kinds of restaurants; but how many offer this diversity, this difference. Maybe the name of the restaurant in itself is a pun in words "VARIETAL" describing grapes, decribing a variety of foods uncommon, varied, and non-boring. It's almost like the opposite of "fussion". I am an food loving artist, and I appreciate the creativity, the innovation, the mixture of styles. It is refreshing to see a new restaurant stepping outside the box. How many new restaurants offer about the same foods, maybe with just a new name or a different sauce - I'm sick of it!

Another thing that really bothers me about Mr. Cuozzo and John L is that I don't think they understand the word "STYLE". If you go for dinner to Varietal expecting to get, I don't know, roast beef with mashed potatoes, or bake fish with crabmeat; it's like going to MOMA and expecting to see a Rembrandt or a DaVinci. Could you then say that MOMA's art is to way out there and that no one really knows that kind of art? No, that would be a very uneducated comment just showing ignorance and lack of culture, right? Well, that's what Mr. Cuozzo did. I think i his mind he was comparing restaurants like Tavern on the Green with Varietal. If anyone has communication with Mr. Cuozzo, someone please tell him that he should compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

He and everyone has a right to their opinions. However, when you are a food writer/critic, you are saying that you are expert in the field. Of course, people who have not been to the restaurant or who do not understand variety, innovation, creativity, art, would tend to believe what Mr. Cuozzo said. .....and whether you agree with me or not, that is just wrong.

Many of us appreciate and love the style, the dinners, the wines, and most of all the artistic talent of the pastry chef at Varietal. I hope they continue their course. As for Mr. Cuozzo, maybe he can become a food writer/critic for fast food restaurants - I'm sure he would recognize the ingredients and styles!!!

[Sneakeater]

It may be that the restaurant is doing something that some of us don't think makes sense on purpose. That doesn't make it make sense.

[oakapple]

I have no idea if Varietal will be a success.

But how boring would it be, if restaurants never tried anything different? I don't see any fatal flaws in Varietal's concept, and I wouldn't be so quick to predict failure just because this exact idea hasn't already succeeded somewhere else.

If Varietal fails, people will of course blame the concept. But the rate of restaurant failures is pretty high, no matter what the concept. Varietal is at least challenging the norm, and in some fairly interesting ways.

[Sneakeater]

I agree with your implicit point that predicting success or failure is sort of beside the point. It's really in the nature of gossip-mongering or "inside baseball". What really matters is whether we think restaurants work.

That said, while I also agree that it's good for places to try to do something different, that doesn't mean they get a free pass if what they're trying doesn't work. I have problems with Varietal. (Not serious problems -- I don't hate it or anything and may well go back yet a third time -- but problems.) I don't think it's an answer to those problems to say the place is doing it on purpose. I've assumed that -- but it doesn't put them beyond criticism if I think their concept is flawed.

And my opinion of whether it "works" or not has nothing to do with whether it turns out to be financially successful.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[FoodPassion]

I agree with your implicit point that predicting success or failure is sort of beside the point.  It's really in the nature of gossip-mongering or "inside baseball".  What really matters is whether we think restaurants work.

That said, while I also agree that it's good for places to try to do something different, that doesn't mean they get a free pass if what they're trying doesn't work.  I have problems with Varietal.  (Not serious problems -- I don't hate it or anything and may well go back yet a third time -- but problems.)  I don't think it's an answer to those problems to say the place is doing it on purpose.  I've assumed that -- but it doesn't put them beyond criticism if I think their concept is flawed.

And my opinion of whether it "works" or not has nothing to do with whether it turns out to be financially successful.

←

Can you imagine if the Picasso or Dali would have given up because "problems" not done on purpose.

Sneakeater-I think the problems that you experienced had nothing to do with what we were saying about Cuozzo's criticisms. Yes, all new restaurants have problems - it's a given. What I was saying is that a food writer should not critique based on his lack of knowledge or taste!

[Sneakeater]

I'm not talking about service problems. That's remediable. I'm talking about the disjunction between the savory menu and the dessert menu, which I find problematical. I'm also talking about the fact that I don't find the savory menu all that compelling.

I think your reference to Picasso shows where the "chef as artist" comparison breaks down. Chefs are artists in a sense, but restaurants are commercial enterprises serving consumers. If you're going to compare them to painters, then, you have to discuss painters in the context of the people who buy their work. If I were alive at the time and didn't like Picasso's "rose period," maybe I'd have stopped buying his paintings until he modified his style to something I liked more. I certainly would never feel any obligation to buy a work I didn't like by an artist I do like, just because I admire the artist.

OK, let me modify that a little. There have certainly been cases of patrons buyings works they didn't particularly like just to keep supporting, financially, artists they favored. But I'm not going to go to restaurants on that basis.

Finally, in the end, you seem to be saying people are beyond criticism just if they're serious. I don't buy that. I can admire someone's seriousness, but still find their work unsatisfying. And I think I have every right to say so.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[JohnL]

JohnL, I canot disagree with your last post. The conclusion to the post with which I opened this topic stated as much:

I enjoyed this marriage of disparate styles, but I have to wonder how well it will go over with most people. Will people who want a more approachable, haute bistro style of meal embrace the vanguard desserts of Jordan Kahn and conversely, will those on the prowl for the most cutting edge, be satisfied with Ed Witt's creative, but ultimately comfortable cuisine? Time will ultimately answer this question, but in the meantime I enjoyed satisfying both my Slow Food side and my vanguard side in the same meal.

While everyone is very talented, the place will have a difficult time as it stands making everybody happy. I happen to be comfortable in each of the styles that they represent, but I know many people who while finding something to be happy about will find just as much that they will be displeased with for the reasons you mentioned. I think this view, as you presented it is very reasonable and criticism along these lines justifiable. This is not what Cuozzo did, though. Whether or not his piece was an official "review", it was in fact a review. The problem is that it was a poor excuse for one, based on an "ew, this is icky" mentality rather than solid criticism.

I admire the talent in the kitchen of Varietal, but have no stake in the restaurant. I don't mind it being criticized for valid reasons. I hate to see any restaurant butchered the way Cuozzo did to this one.

←

Doc, I think your original assessment of Varietal was well written. You did convey the seemingly disjointed nature of this endeavor as a dining experience.

As for Cuozzo's piece, I do understand your criticism. I think Cuozzo's article suffers from some of the same disjointedness as Varietal.

The headline is unfortunate--I wonder if Cuozzo wrote and/or approved --it does not fit the writing that comes after it. It is clear that the piece is not a review. It's main focus is off beat ingredients--a trend that is most definitely fodder for discussion (and debate). Cuozzo's take would be better served if other restaurants/chefs were provided in support.

I fear that the problems with Cuozzo's article are a result of the very "blog" like nature of his column. I see validity in its purpose but I do have a problem in its execution. (maybe similar to the problem Varietal faces). Cuozzo clearly states: "varietal has been open just two weeks and it is too early to judge chef Ed Witt's kitchen..." It is also clear that he (Cuozzo) is offering initial impressions of Varietal.

I believe that Cuozzo is no longer formally reviewing restaurants rather he is offering his impressions and thoughts about issues he sees as important. His visit to Varietal clearly provoked some thoughts.

The questions Cuozzo asks are IMOP valid. Could he have done a better job? Yes. However the tone of the criticism of Cuozzo is IMOP an attempt to deflect any criticism of Varietal. The inference is clear. Those who would question and/or criticize varietal simply "don't get it."

This is intellectually dishonest. The fact that Cuozzo may or may not know (this is not clear) what a certain ingredient is or isn't has no impact one way or the other on whether or not the questions he is asking and issues he raises are valid.

The truth is there are any number of controversial issues in food and dining today. For one side of the issues to dismiss the other with : they aren't qualified to criticize or they just don't get it only serves to shut off discussion and debate.

So, I really do understand your criticism of Cuozzo and I am not sure you are totally off base. I would suggest you try this: assume we have no idea who asked the questions and raises the issues in the Post piece. Is the author totally off base?

[JohnL]

I'm not talking about service problems.  That's remediable.  I'm talking about the disjunction between the savory menu and the dessert menu, which I find problematical.  I'm also talking about the fact that I don't find the savory menu all that compelling.

I think your reference to Picasso shows where the "chef as artist" comparison breaks down.  Chefs are artists in a sense, but restaurants are commercial enterprises serving consumers.  If you're going to compare them to painters, then, you have to discuss painters in the context of the people who buy their work.  If I were alive at the time and didn't like Picasso's "rose period," maybe I'd have stopped buying his paintings until he modified his style to something I liked more.  I certainly would never feel any obligation to buy a work I didn't like by an artist I do like, just because I admire the artist.

OK, let me modify that a little.  There have certainly been cases of patrons buyings works they didn't particularly like just to keep supporting, financially, artists they favored.  But I'm not going to go to restaurants on that basis.

Finally, in the end, you seem to be saying people are beyond criticism just if they're serious.  I don't buy that.  I can admire someone's seriousness, but still find their work unsatisfying.  And I think I have every right to say so.

←

Good points.

As for the tonka bean part of this discussion--the point is--I think--there is a trend today for chefs to use exotic ingredients in their cooking. we can debate whether a particular ingredient is "exotic" or not. However, the issue remains--how ingredients work or do not work in a dish exotic or not. One need not know what a specific ingredient is, let alone know its history to conclude that it (and its flavor) work or do not work. If one feels it does not work then one must ask the question--what is it doing in the dish--why was it put there--especially if the menu singles it out!

This goes for tonka beans in a desert or vanilla in a lobster dish (we all--even Mr Cuozzo-- know what vanilla is).

There is a larger issue. Intellectual food vs hedonistic food. Every dish (every painting) has an intellectual and hedonistic component. As I see it, it comes down to how much of each element is present. Alinea's bacon on a wire dish is heavy on the intellectual and lighter on the hedonistic. A baked potato with sweet butter and white truffles is heavy on the hedonistic and light on the intellectual.

I firmly believe that everyone has varying degrees of tolerance and appreciation for each. High concept food is by its nature going to be controversial. This is because after the appreciation of the concept, and marveling over the execution there is often too little hedonistic pleasure in actually eating it. High concept and execution do not always lead to something that tastes good.

This area provides a lot of room for debate and discussion.

Back to Varietal. It is clear that there are problems of an executional nature in being a cutting edge restaurant and wine bar. It is IMOP probably an offshoot of current misguided wine geek thinking that there is a wine that is a "perfect" match for every food item and flavor on earth.

I would think that operating a wine bar is one thing. Operating a fine restaurant with a great wine list is quite another.

Then there is that high concept desert thing!

[docsconz]

JohnL, perhaps Cuozzo should hire you as his ghost writer as your points are much more clearly stated than his were. I don't have a problem with asking the questions that you gleaned from his article (though I think you may have read at least as much into the article as you claimed I did! ). They are indeed legitimate questions and worthy of discussion - perhaps on a new topic if not directly related to Varietal. If those questions were in fact Cuozzo's purpose, it was unfair of him to lay them entirely on Varietal's (a new restaurant) back. It would have been fine if he did indeed raise the questions in a clear and unambiguous manner and then used Varietal's tonka beans as an example, but he did not. The article was entirely about Varietal and if his intent was indeed to raise those more worthy questions his method was at best unclear and at worst either ignorant or malicious.

The yin-yang nature of Varietal's offering is unique and not intuitive though I don't think the alleged disconnect is nearly as wide as it has been made out to be. Jordan Kahn's desserts don't taste weird. In fact, I think they taste quite delicious. They are creative though, fusing unusual technique and unusual ingredients into what I considered a rather tasty and harmonious whole. Ed Witt's food is also quite tasty and clearly the work of the chef. I did not feel that the food conflicted at all in terms of taste. In terms of style, however, they are quite different. Where there is a disconnect is that Jordan's desserts are clearly more unique in concept and execution than Ed's savories, which stylistically are similar to those of a number of other restaurants in New York. Jordan's desserts, though philosophically related to those from the likes of Alex Stupack, Will Goldfarb and Sam Mason to name three are still original unique in their actualization and style. If people have an open mind and enjoy different styles of cuisine, I think Varietal is worth visiting. If on the other hand, people have strong preferences for one style or another, they may not be pleased with an entire meal there. It strikes me that Cuozzo fits into this category, though I have not had reason to read enough of his work to have a real sense as to how true this may be. One group that this restaurant may be particularly good for is the set of people who are interested in trying more creative cuisine, but prefer not to do a whole meal with.

BTW, I find tonka beans work very well when used like Jordan and others have used them.

[JohnL]

Doc

I don't want to dominate this thread and I think we are at the point where I would agree with you that whatever its flaws Varietal is certainly worth a visit.

This may be fodder for its own thread but given this thread's Cuozzo issue as well as other --Bruni and the current thread in the PA forum about "James--is this a joke..."

It seems that restaurant criticism and writing are evolving into a kind of blog/top of my mind writing by critics. While not formal restaurant reviews, it seems critics are referencing restaurants they have not reviewed (they may be in the process of writing a review) in making points or raising issues. This is often in a very informal and bloggy style--often in their on line blogs.

I, for one, am concerned that this informality may not be such a good thing. I also wonder how much a large number of people (the public at large) are relying on formal reviews anymore but rather turn to more informal avenues--blogs, websites, Zagats (I think Zagat is much more influential in people's decisions than local newspapers).

The danger is many of these outlets are informal, often using shorthand and often not a result of the more traditional in depth review process.

I didn't take Cuozzo's piece with the weight I would give a formal review, but your point that much of what he wrote does amount to some criticism of Varietal is well taken.

[FoodPassion]

Doc

I don't want to dominate this thread and I think we are at the point where I would agree with you that whatever its flaws Varietal is certainly worth a visit.

This may be fodder for its own thread but given this thread's Cuozzo issue as well as other --Bruni and the current thread in the PA forum about "James--is this a joke..."

It seems that restaurant criticism and writing are evolving into a kind of blog/top of my mind writing by critics. While not formal restaurant reviews, it seems critics are referencing restaurants they have not reviewed (they may be in the process of writing a review) in making points or raising issues. This is often in a very informal and bloggy style--often in their on line blogs.

I, for one, am concerned that this informality may not be such a good thing. I also wonder how much a large number of people (the public at large) are relying on formal reviews anymore but rather turn to more informal avenues--blogs, websites, Zagats (I think Zagat is much more influential in people's decisions than local newspapers).

The danger is many of these outlets are informal, often using shorthand and often not a result of the more traditional in depth review process.

I didn't take Cuozzo's piece with the weight I would give a formal review, but your point that much of what he wrote does amount to some criticism of Varietal is well taken.

←

Doc: You are right on! You are absolutely right! But I will disagree with JohnL again. His quote: "If I were alive at the time and didn't like Picasso's "rose period," maybe I'd have stopped buying his paintings until he modified his style to something I liked more.", proves exactly my point! JohnL, if you don't like something, you don't have to say you like it, but you should neither say that it is bad or weird! You may say, it looks or tastes bad to "ME", but never "IT" is weird for the rest of the world to know. Cuozzo did single out Varietal, and that is my entire point - it was wrong.

Again as far as your description of "disjointed menus" some of "US" enjoy that, we like the unusual, the taking risks, the different menus, etc. So, I "COULD" say that the unusual style of this restaurant is "awesome" to me, I should "NEVER" imply that "IT" is awesome for everyone, like you. Obviously many of us who have been there have a much different opinion than you - and that's ok. My objection is to making blanketed statements - that's all! Thanks for reading!

[oakapple]

It seems that restaurant criticism and writing are evolving into a kind of blog/top of my mind writing by critics. While not formal restaurant reviews, it seems critics are referencing restaurants they have not reviewed (they may be in the process of writing a review) in making points or raising issues. This is often in a very informal and bloggy style--often in their on line blogs.

I, for one, am concerned that this informality may not be such a good thing. I also wonder how much a large number of people (the public at large) are relying on formal reviews anymore but rather turn to more informal avenues--blogs, websites, Zagats (I think Zagat is much more influential in people's decisions than local newspapers).

←

I don't have such a big problem with this. Restaurants, and especially untraditional venues like Varietal, are constantly evolving. Restaurants aren't like that Picasso painting, which, once painted, is the same thing forever. A large number of informal reviews may give a better pulse of a restaurant's current performance than a few "magnum opus" masterpieces of criticism that quickly become obsolete.

Cuozzo took that argument to the extreme, announcing that reviews are (in his opinion) entirely obsolete. His official position is that he doesn't write reviews; he just comments on trends. I think he took it too far, but that is his position.

JohnL, if you don't like something, you don't have to say you like it, but you should neither say that it is bad or weird!  You may say, it looks or tastes bad to "ME", but never "IT" is weird for the rest of the world to know.

←

I think it's understood that when JohnL (or any of us) writes, we are stating personal impressions. What else could they be? A comment like "tastes weird..." implies "...to me," since no one can say how it tastes to anyone else. I therefore don't care if "to me" is omitted, as it is pretty much obvious. Edited January 26, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[JohnL]

Doc

I don't want to dominate this thread and I think we are at the point where I would agree with you that whatever its flaws Varietal is certainly worth a visit.

This may be fodder for its own thread but given this thread's Cuozzo issue as well as other --Bruni and the current thread in the PA forum about "James--is this a joke..."

It seems that restaurant criticism and writing are evolving into a kind of blog/top of my mind writing by critics. While not formal restaurant reviews, it seems critics are referencing restaurants they have not reviewed (they may be in the process of writing a review) in making points or raising issues. This is often in a very informal and bloggy style--often in their on line blogs.

I, for one, am concerned that this informality may not be such a good thing. I also wonder how much a large number of people (the public at large) are relying on formal reviews anymore but rather turn to more informal avenues--blogs, websites, Zagats (I think Zagat is much more influential in people's decisions than local newspapers).

The danger is many of these outlets are informal, often using shorthand and often not a result of the more traditional in depth review process.

I didn't take Cuozzo's piece with the weight I would give a formal review, but your point that much of what he wrote does amount to some criticism of Varietal is well taken.

←

Doc: You are right on! You are absolutely right! But I will disagree with JohnL again. His quote: "If I were alive at the time and didn't like Picasso's "rose period," maybe I'd have stopped buying his paintings until he modified his style to something I liked more.", proves exactly my point! JohnL, if you don't like something, you don't have to say you like it, but you should neither say that it is bad or weird! You may say, it looks or tastes bad to "ME", but never "IT" is weird for the rest of the world to know. Cuozzo did single out Varietal, and that is my entire point - it was wrong.

Again as far as your description of "disjointed menus" some of "US" enjoy that, we like the unusual, the taking risks, the different menus, etc. So, I "COULD" say that the unusual style of this restaurant is "awesome" to me, I should "NEVER" imply that "IT" is awesome for everyone, like you. Obviously many of us who have been there have a much different opinion than you - and that's ok. My objection is to making blanketed statements - that's all! Thanks for reading!

←

For the record. I didn't make the observation a la Picasso's rose period.

(I do sorta like it though).

Aren't you over reacting to Cuozzo? He is a critic and his job is to criticize to express his opinions.. The piece in question is not a review of the restaurant and he indicates that clearly. I agree there are some areas where he (and the headline writer) were not being as clear and effective in opinion being expressed.

I also feel you are parsing phrases and words a la "it depends upon what the word is....is"

I guarantee that if the ingredients for the desert menu were shown to a hundred casual to even serious diners the combinations would be described as "weird"! That would not be a judgment of quality, rather it is an indication that most people would find the ingredients out of the norm for deserts. So what? You are also overlooking the part where Cuozzo offers some praise for the chef.

All too often we look for validation of our own opinions when reading a critic or writer. If we don't get that validation we then often ignore what the critic is saying and attempt to devalue him or her. I love this place (or movie or play or painting or...) If so and so does not then: they are clueless, they are idiots, they are not the expert they claim to be, they are not qualified.... and so on. We can disagree. Everyone has an opinion. Attacking the messenger because we don't like or agree with the message is not the best way to advance one's disagreement or argument. Calling someone the equivalent of a jerk doesn't get anyone very far in a debate, discussion.

The Cuozzo piece has some things wrong with it. It is one person ruminating about a facet of restaurants today using a visit to Varietal as the impetus. Shame on him and his editor for not being more precise or compelling but the fact remains, the best way to refute those views and opinions is to deal directly with them and present your case. Not call Cuozzo incompetent and dismiss him completely.

As I noted earlier--this trend toward blogs in tone and format today has some problems. These things are likely to be taken far more seriously by many than warrants. The casualness can lead to a certain sloppiness. We have seen this with Bruni and others.

As for you liking the "disjointed" nature of Varietal you are certainly entitled to your likes and dislikes! It is however, something that is worth noting and my guess is many people will find it to be a problem to one degree or another. Some, will find it to be a positive attribute. The fact is, most restaurants make an effort to provide a clear execution of their vision, nowhere does there seem to be an effort by whoever is behind Varietal to be clear in what their vision is. That has been left to the critics and the public and via on line threads and blogs and in the media mainstream and otherwise, that is what we are all doing!

[Sneakeater]

As the author of the "rose period" and "disjointed menu" observations:

OF COURSE everything I say is my own personal opinion. Who could read it otherwise?

I don't buy this requirement of bland "it's only my opinion" writing. I have my opinion. I'll state it. If anyone has a different opinion, they'll state that. I thought everyone understood that's how boards like this work.

So yeah, if I say the disjointed menu bothers me, and you LIKE the disjointed menu, then you can say you disagree with me. Fine. But don't try to tell me I don't have a right to express my opinion because others may disagree. What's the point of having an opinion, then?

I think the attitudes being expressed here are EXACTLY the kind of chef worship that Frank Bruni rather exaggeratedly wrote against. These guys aren't gods above our criticism (and neither is Picasso). I resent the implication that they are.

[docsconz]

What does the word "weird" connote? To me the word does not connote a positive attribute. Instead, I see and I believe that the general population sees "weird" as something that is less than desirable. The implication when "weird" is used to describe something is that it is off-base and generally undesirable, certainly not something that is generally used positively. The word "unusual" on the other hand is much more neutral and can be used to describe something that is good or bad. It is basically devoid of an inherent value judgment. Had Cuozzo used that word, I would not have taken him so much to task. Jordan Kahn's desserts are certainly unusual in terms of their composition and their plating. They may be considered unusual for their flavors as well. However, I do not find them to be the least bit weird - at least not the ones that I have had.

[Sneakeater]

I don't know. I found them to be weird. And I LIKED some of them.

[Sneakeater]

I know that you won't take this the wrong way, docsconz, and I hope no one else does either, but this sort of shows how much in our own world we are. I think that if you took a random sampling of people in my law office -- generally sophisticated urbanites, but not foodies -- and gave them the desserts at Varietal (or the desserts Will Goldfarb made at Cru), they'd call them "weird". Not "unusual", but "weird". They might go on to like them, or some of them. But they'd STILL think them weird.

I think you have to be very very involved in cuisine to be immediately accepting of -- or, to keep up the theme here, not to be weirded out by -- the things Chef Kahn comes up with.

And I do NOT in any way mean that as a criticism of Chef Kahn or his work.

[Sneakeater]

Just to say one more thing, one of the early menu items at WD-50 was a block of pate de foie gras topped with anchovies and dusted with cocoa (I hope I'm remembering it right). I thought it was weird. No other word for it. It was one of my favorite things on that early menu. But weird was still what I thought it was.

[docsconz]

Just to say one more thing, one of the early menu items at WD-50 was a block of pate de foie gras topped with anchovies and dusted with cocoa (I hope I'm remembering it right).  I thought it was weird.  No other word for it.  It was one of my favorite things on that early menu.  But weird was still what I thought it was.

←

I guess to you then, "weird" does not connote negativity, necessarily? Anyone else? Maybe it is my perception of this that is "weird"!

[JosephB]

I saw an episode of Iron Chef America last night with the Chef from Moto in Chicago. I've never been there, but weird is an understatement in decribing his work. Whether it affects the food negatively or not I don't know, but edible paper with the chef's image on it is just silly and unnecessary to me.

[tan319]

Just to throw my two cents in...

Having read the "Chef Worship" article and then F.B.'s blog piece about Ducasse, I think he's even more full of it then before.

Ducasse has been around for years, written many cookbooks and such, and if there's anyplace to buy them, why not his restaurant???

When' Kitchen Confidential' and 'A Cooks Tour' by Bourdain came out, you could buy them at Les Halles, who had a problem with that?

Re: Varietal: it seems like Couzzo copped a Bruni and, as John L. said above, used Varietal to complain about " the facets" much like F.B. did about wine prices and used GILT as the "prime offender".

I said it before and will say it again, that kind of writing, to me, borders on irresponsible.

It can "kill" a restaurant or it's chefs, a helluva lot faster then the amount of a Tonka bean infusion in a dessert or sauce.

.

[Vadouvan]

Just to say one more thing, one of the early menu items at WD-50 was a block of pate de foie gras topped with anchovies and dusted with cocoa (I hope I'm remembering it right). I thought it was weird. No other word for it. It was one of my favorite things on that early menu. But weird was still what I thought it was.

It wasnt dusted with cocoa, it was topped with cocoa nibs.

It definitely was wierd but I still tried it.

Possibly the least favourite thing I have ever eaten there which is strange because I love all the components in different preparations, the citrusy jam on the side was great but the combination was a not so appealing

I do understand the intellectual thought behind it but sometimes intellectual thoughts work well on paper not in practice.

"Wierd" on paper doesnt necessarly mean wierd in flavor as JKahns desserts show.

It's all a matter of perception.

Edited January 27, 2007 by Vadouvan (log)

[Pan]

Just to say one more thing, one of the early menu items at WD-50 was a block of pate de foie gras topped with anchovies and dusted with cocoa (I hope I'm remembering it right).  I thought it was weird.  No other word for it.  It was one of my favorite things on that early menu.  But weird was still what I thought it was.

←

I guess to you then, "weird" does not connote negativity, necessarily? Anyone else? Maybe it is my perception of this that is "weird"!

←

I think "weird" is usually a negative word, but the phrase "weird and wonderful" isn't such a strange phrase to me.

And for the record, I don't think much of Picasso's Rose Period or the Blue Period before that, and don't think he would have been a great painter if he had stopped there and hadn't gone on to his cubist periods. So any of you who disagree with me can just go sue me.

[Lateralus]

The only reason why there is a forum of discussion for Varietal is becasue of Jordan. Without Jordan, what is this place besides gone? "Labeling" food weird is just such an old expression!!! and quite frankely very annoying!!! They said Atlas was weird, Wd-50, Gilt(Paul not that Lee guy) and look the food is still being eaten and discussed. At the end of the day that is the only thing that matters.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Lateralus (log)

[docsconz]

The only reason why there is a forum of discussion for Varietal is becasue of Jordan. Without Jordan, what is this place besides gone?  "Labeling" food weird is just such an old expression!!! and quite frankely very annoying!!!  They said Atlas was weird, Wd-50, Gilt(Paul not that Lee guy) and look the food is still being eaten and discussed.  At the end of the day that is the only thing that matters.

←

I am a big fan of Jordan's but I disagree with your statement that without him Varietal would be gone. Ed Witt also happens to be a very talented chef and his food is quite good. Most of the discussion has not been about whether or not either chef is not producing good food, but about their clear difference in style and the effects positive or negative that that has on the restaurant and customers perceptions. I do agree though that without Jordan, much of this discussion would not be taking place. As the person who started this topic, I can say that it was indeed Jordan that drew me there in the first place.