That Sweet Enemy

[annecros]

Dear Lord.  There've been so many quote-frames on here, I feel like I'm at Versailles.

The overuse of quotequotequote usually means one of two things:  We're all in a frenzy of mutual admiration.  "You are so wonderful."  "Oh, NO.  Not I.  It is YOU."  "After YOUUUUU!!!"    "No, After YOUUUUUU!"

OR:  There's enough snark-frenzy in the waters that SOMEBODY is gonna close us down.

This has been mostly fun.  I hope the censors aren't gearing up.

←

Oh, I love it. An allegory with the mirrors. Very good, and you have my admiration. Well turned at the appropriate time.

As far as I can tell, the censors have not saddled up as of yet. Surprised me as well.

All in all, a very good discussion, and healthy.

[annecros]

Wow, glad I drink full cream.

←

You and me both.

[kiwichef]

Another critic asks if I've worked in a french kitchen. No I haven't. But I have been cursed and abused in the kitchen many a time, and I know the french kitchens are the same. But the French don't take that language to the public as Ramsey has. My point being the etiquette in a french kitchen, and its connection with french life and society, doesn't permit such public discourse. I suggest if it ever happened the chef concerned would be publicly lambasted, and chastised. Of course Ramsey enjoys the fruits of his language, and notereity through the English speaking media, where he's lauded, and good luck to him.

←

Dear kiwichef,

As I wrote, I suspect you haven't much of an experience of the French food scene — present and past — and that you may be building your assertions on partial knowledge. For one Gordon Ramsay who gets away with such language, oh well — I'll grant you a couple others bratty insular chefs too; how many courteous and decent chefs in the UK? Hundreds? Thousands? So please don't make it a British general rule. By the way you seem to imply that the British actually enjoy brutality and foul language to the point of considering them normal features in a chef? I think it is a strange idea but I'll let you have it. And this idea of "etiquette in a french kitchen" sounds no less strange and I'm sorry if I'm about to shatter some illusions here. Though there are many courteous and polite French chefs, those who happen to be less courteous are not exactly inhibited in public, and the public is more or less used to that — at worst indifferent, at best amused. Years ago, when Jacques Maximin was at the Negresco, he once appeared in the dining room saying out loud to an old lady who hadn't enjoyed the meal: "So Madame didn't like it? Well, madame, je m'en bats les couilles !" Not an isolated example, in a way that's how we like our chefs (in small doses though).

←

I didnt mention the British, just Mr Ramsey, so there was no generalisation inferred. The media and public enjoy the foul language. Just look at the ratings of his show.

As previously mentioned I havent worked in France, however my peers tell me that french chefs, as a general rule are highly respected. Maybe its all hogwash.

[annecros]

As previously mentioned I havent worked in France, however my peers tell me that french chefs, as a general rule are highly respected. Maybe its all hogwash.

←

Of course they are highly respected. Is it demanded, or earned? Does a grunt respect a drill seargent?

I do not think it is all hogwash, if that means a thing, because I would respect any chef in France that has risen above and beyond.

Our esteemed friend in France will surely have more insight for both of us.

[menon1971]

As previously mentioned I havent worked in France, however my peers tell me that french chefs, as a general rule are highly respected. Maybe its all hogwash.

←

Of course they are highly respected. Is it demanded, or earned? Does a grunt respect a drill seargent?

I do not think it is all hogwash, if that means a thing, because I would respect any chef in France that has risen above and beyond.

Our esteemed friend in France will surely have more insight for both of us.

←

Respected or feared? Is the image of the French chef something mythologized in similar fashion to what Tim was saying about their cuisine? I also wonder about the validity of our generalizations and perceptions/stereotypes about the inner workings of French kitchens. Perhaps I need education on this point too, but are there perspectives out there that are not simply anecdotal?

[Ptipois]

I didnt mention the British, just Mr Ramsey, so there was no generalisation inferred.  The media and public enjoy the foul language. Just look at the ratings of his show.

You were trying to make a point about France and you used the example of Ramsay and the English public to prove it. So if this is not generalization about countries, what is it?

As for the ratings, I think you should consider the dynamics of modern media and trash TV without distinction of country and origin before you decide Ramsay's success could only be a British thing and not a French thing. There are TV chef shows in France too. And, may I add, this is only one chef show.

As previously mentioned I havent worked in France, however my peers tell me that french chefs, as a general rule are highly respected. Maybe its all hogwash.

←

Of course they are highly respected, nobody said they weren't. Respected just the way they are. This only confirms what I wrote and now you're shifting the subject.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Ptipois (log)

[hjshorter]

Respected or feared? Is the image of the French chef something mythologized in similar fashion to what Tim was saying about their cuisine? I also wonder about the validity of our generalizations and perceptions/stereotypes about the inner workings of French kitchens. Perhaps I need education on this point too, but are there perspectives out there that are not simply anecdotal?

←

Jacques Pepin's autobiography, The Apprentice is very interesting, as is The Perfectionist, about Bernard Loiseau.

There's also lots of information out there on the web. The brigade is a very structured and compartmentalised system, and I'd be curious to know how strictly it's adhered to these days. Here's a Wikipedia entry describing the brigade de cuisine.*

*That Escoffier guy pops up again. He's everywhere.

Edited January 14, 2007 by hjshorter (log)

[menon1971]

Respected or feared? Is the image of the French chef something mythologized in similar fashion to what Tim was saying about their cuisine? I also wonder about the validity of our generalizations and perceptions/stereotypes about the inner workings of French kitchens. Perhaps I need education on this point too, but are there perspectives out there that are not simply anecdotal?

←

Jacques Pepin's autobiography, The Apprentice is very interesting, as is The Perfectionist, about Bernard Loiseau.

There's also lots of information out there on the web. The brigade is a very structured and compartmentalised system, and I'd be curious to know how strictly it's adhered to these days. Here's a Wikipedia entry describing the brigade de cuisine.*

*That Escoffier guy pops up again. He's everywhere.

←

Are we speaking of history here, since both men you mention apprenticed before I was born (I am 35). I am sure that there are aspects of this system still around, but the days of apprenticing at age 14 are over. I am not trying to be antagonizing here, but in reference to the original topic are we lionizing (and I might argue fetishizing and reifying) France's past rather than its present?

[Carrot Top]

in reference to the original topic are we lionizing (and I might argue fetishizing and reifying) France's past rather than its present?

←

Probably both yes and no.

The brigade system is used in professional kitchen operations of a certain size in most western countries and those operations in other countries that are affected by western-oriented business practices.

It has become almost standard grammar, in a sense. One might wander off a bit (and there are examples of this happening more and more, "today"), but the formal idea still remains in mind almost as core basis of thought pattern in back-of-house operational setup for fine dining.

(I should add that stations can be, and often are, eliminated or combined from the more formal form as needed, basing this decision upon the defined menu requirements of any individual operation.)

Edited January 14, 2007 by Carrot Top (log)

[Carrot Top]

Though actually, if that is too anecdotal for you ( ) you might find a definable resource in looking at what the "top" cooking schools are teaching in this area of operations planning.

Higher education (what is taught in colleges and universities) is always directly linked to how things work in the real world, isn't it?

[Carrot Top]

But then of course if real numbers (based on whatever way they find these numbers heh) are wanted, one could always search The National Restaurant Association. This site is for the US. There is a similar thing for the UK.

[kiwichef]

I didnt mention the British, just Mr Ramsey, so there was no generalisation inferred.  The media and public enjoy the foul language. Just look at the ratings of his show.

You were trying to make a point about France and you used the example of Ramsay and the English public to prove it. So if this is not generalization about countries, what is it?

As for the ratings, I think you should consider the dynamics of modern media and trash TV without distinction of country and origin before you decide Ramsay's success could only be a British thing and not a French thing. There are TV chef shows in France too. And, may I add, this is only one chef show.

As previously mentioned I havent worked in France, however my peers tell me that french chefs, as a general rule are highly respected. Maybe its all hogwash.

←

Of course they are highly respected, nobody said they weren't. Respected just the way they are. This only confirms what I wrote and now you're shifting the subject.

←

Ramsey's success is global, and not limited to the British, that's why I purposely lft the British and Britain out of my text. I'm aware they have tv in France. Nora!

[Ptipois]

Ramsey's success is global, and not limited to the British, that's why I purposely lft the British and Britain out of my text.  I'm aware they have tv in France. Nora!

←

I'm glad you're aware of that, but that is not what I wrote about. The point was your misrepresentation of French chefs. But now I think the demonstration is done and it would be charitable to leave you alone.

[Doc-G]

Whilst running the risk of splitting the thread, I wanted to convey a couple of thoughts regarding the 'fusion' issue.

Whilst in a sense it can easily be argued that the fusion of cuisines from different cultures has been occurring for hundreds of years, the active assimilation of ingredients from different cultures for the sole purpose of creating something new is a phenomenon that is relatively new. This fusion of foods or ‘fusion cuisine’ has been defined by Sinsheimer as the ‘fashionable trend to marry different cuisines, combining in one dish elements that cut across distinct, culinary regimes’.

‘Hungarian Paprika’ is a good example of an ingredient assimilated by another culture. Originating in America, Paprika or ‘Indian Pepper’ entered Hungarian cuisine indirectly through Columbus’s ‘discovery’ of the Americas. After traveling to Europe where it was likely picked up by the Turkish in Venice as a result of trade partnerships, paprika was then transported to Hungary via the invading Turkish armies. What is important to consider when looking at this assimilation compared to true ‘fusion’ cuisine is that this process was passive and occurred over a relatively long period of time.

True ‘fusion’ cuisine, on the other hand, is a more deliberate and dynamic attempt to mix key ingredients from two cuisines together. The result is not always admirable and this is often the reason why people are either firm believers or critics of this movement. There are also critics of this movement who disagree with its virtues due to its potential for damaging regional culinary traditions such as Paula Gho who offers concerns about the “’deconstructed cuisine’ offered at Bulli by Ferrán Adriá”.

For this reason, fusion cuisine is most prominent in countries that do not have a firmly entrenched culinary tradition. Indeed, according to John Brunton, ‘fusion always works best in a country that does not have – or has lost – its own firm foundation of traditional cooking, which is why America, Australia and Britain have become the birthplaces of fusion cuisine’. This is further reinforced by Barbara Santich who states that, ‘fusion cuisine seems to be most obvious, and most developed, in countries that have welcomed migrants from a great diversity of background cultures and where, coincidentally, culinary traditions have been relatively weak’.

In addition, according to Barbara Santich, another important factor to consider is ‘globalization, both of peoples and of products. The ingredients which once characterized a particular national or regional cuisine are no longer restricted to that country or region, nor is that nation or region limited to its local ingredients’.

In conclusion then, we can see that modern day fusion cuisine is a distinct phenomenon from the culinary assimilation that occurs passively over time as is the case with Paprika in Hungary. Modern day fusion cuisine is a characterized by the speed at which it has occurred and its deliberateness. It is also characterized by its prominence in cultures with little notion of national or regional cuisine and high numbers of diverse migrant populations. Finally, an overall driver by the name of globalization means that ingredients once restricted to a particular region or cuisine are now freely available on a global basis.

Cheers,

G

[Carrot Top]

Using those parameters, then, "fusion" cuisine can only be said to be something existing today and not yesterday due to the ease and quickness of modern transportation. Modern transporation for the masses and modern banking for the masses make obtaining previously foreign ingredients as easy as lifting a telephone and pulling out a credit card.

Kings (Queens too?) and rulers of countries used to send for foreign ingredients they desired, sending their envoys thousands of miles upon whatever means of transportation was available. They carried bags of gold perhaps, as payment, or enclosed letters with promises of other things as trade.

The desire was there for the fusion, and the intent made real in form of taking the job on of going to get the foreign ingredients. It was slower, for transportation had not been industrialized. It was more class-sectioned, for obviously only the very wealthy could afford to do this - no "chef" would ever be able to realize this as an action they could personally take.

So perhaps indeed, fusion cuisine as defined as

the active assimilation of ingredients from different cultures for the sole purpose of creating something new

or

the ‘fashionable trend to marry different cuisines, combining in one dish elements that cut across distinct, culinary regimes’.

can be said to be pre-modern-day, and not simply

this process was passive and occurred over a relatively long period of time.

passive.

If one starts with an idea, one often ends right up back at the idea. Start with the idea of our industrialized world and the rest will be defined by it - leaving out important opportunities to see things in different lights.

It's my feeling that there has been indeed a true and active, non-passive, "fusion cuisine" since time began. It may not fit our parameters of our time as the class structures were different, and it may not fit our time as it could not have happened so very quickly or actively due to differences in means of transportation.

Maybe one might say there was a "pre-industrial" fusion and a "post-industrial".

(As with so many other things. . .)

Edited January 15, 2007 by Carrot Top (log)

[Busboy]

Given that we have no modern-day Escoffier to mandate our culinary definitions, I would suggest that "fusion" is likely more an attitude than a precise technique or approach. Though generally thought of as a marriage of French and Asian (and could anything be less precise than "Asian?" Thai, 85 Chinese regions, Korean, etc...) it gets thrown around a lot here in the states as a descriptor for other marriages, as well. I remember (though not favorably) dinner at Asia de Cuba in LA a meal of Asian-Latin fusion.

For cooks and diners, it's important to have a precise definition of "sautee" or "dice." It's not important to have a precise definition of "fusion."

A propose of Carrot Top, I wonder if the first fusion meal was when someItalian married noodles -- origin (Some say): China -- with tomatoes from the New World to make spaghetti abnd red sauce.

[menon1971]

A propose of Carrot Top, I wonder if the first fusion meal was when someItalian married noodles -- origin (Some say): China -- with tomatoes from the New World to make spaghetti abnd red sauce.

←

I see a difference between the deliberate marrying of different regional cuisines and the assimilation of ingredients. Did the Italian cook say to him or herself "here I will take a fruit from the New World and a starch from the Orient and create a fusion hybrid of the two distinctive food cultures"? Fusion, it seems to me, as a culinary movement, requires the cook to have more of a knowledge of distinctive cultures and also a frame of consciousness that desires to meld cuisines as opposed to simply assimilating an ingredient here or there over time, into an existing food culture, i.e., the addition of spices to an already extant recipe.

[Carrot Top]

I wonder if the first fusion meal was when someItalian married noodles -- origin (Some say): China -- with tomatoes from the New World to make spaghetti abnd red sauce.

←

Great topic idea for a thread (?)

"I wonder if the first fusion meal was when ___________".

[annecros]

I had thought that the term "fusion" had become tried and trite over the last couple of years anyway. I do see it advertised less as an attraction for any particular restaurant. Perhaps I am reading the wrong mags.

I would not discount warfare among the big melders of cuisine, either. To the victor goes the spoils.

In a contemporary illustration, looking at my own family, my husband's stepfather was from Southwest Georgia (US) and married a young German woman and adopted her son. My son-in-laws father was Italian-American, stationed in Japan, and brought his young Japanese wife home to New Jersey.

I can guarantee you there was quite a bit of fusion going on at those dinner tables, where cultures clashed and ingredients from different cuisines were brought together in a deliberate manner in order to produce something entirely different that everyone in the household could find palatable. Sometimes with more success, than others.

[Carrot Top]

I also seem to (vaguely) remember wars started based on desires for foodstuffs.

And not only in my home, either.

Rome/Egypt. . .wheat, olives, lemons? (Don't quote me, I'm just vaguely remembering. . .)

[Ptipois]

I cannot see how fusion did not start with cooking itself.

Also, for the notion of fusion to exist, the notion of clearly defined national cuisines - as pure, whole, unalterated entities - has to exist first. It is by no means certain that this notion was existing or even important to anyone before a recent period. And personally I don't think this notion ever had any true meaning.

Edited January 15, 2007 by Ptipois (log)

[Carrot Top]

Fusion, it seems to me, as a culinary movement, requires the cook to have more of a knowledge of distinctive cultures and also a frame of consciousness that desires to meld cuisines as opposed to simply assimilating an ingredient here or there over time, into an existing food culture, i.e., the addition of spices to an already extant recipe.

←

Chefs mostly do not think in terms of frame of consciousness that lurk around desires to meld "cuisines". They think in terms of flavor, color, shape, taste, texture, and methodology of cooking.

It's not about the "cuisine". It's about the food.

For most chefs.

Afterwards, of course, when creations have been made, it makes a nice intelligent and worldly sound-bite for the public relations to speak of higher things, higher things being "cuisines" and culture. But mostly, it's about the food one can play with, what one can actually touch.

[annecros]

I cannot see how fusion did not start with cooking itself.

Also, for the notion of fusion to exist, the notion of clearly defined national cuisines - as pure, whole, unalterated entities - has to exist first. It is by no means certain that this notion was existing or even important to anyone before a recent period. And personally I don't think this notion ever had any true meaning.

←

Agreed. But the term looked good in an advertisement.

I think fusion has honestly gone the way of paradigm, as shifts are concerned.

Edited January 15, 2007 by annecros (log)

[Busboy]

A propose of Carrot Top, I wonder if the first fusion meal was when someItalian married noodles -- origin (Some say): China -- with tomatoes from the New World to make spaghetti abnd red sauce.

←

I see a difference between the deliberate marrying of different regional cuisines and the assimilation of ingredients. Did the Italian cook say to him or herself "here I will take a fruit from the New World and a starch from the Orient and create a fusion hybrid of the two distinctive food cultures"? Fusion, it seems to me, as a culinary movement, requires the cook to have more of a knowledge of distinctive cultures and also a frame of consciousness that desires to meld cuisines as opposed to simply assimilating an ingredient here or there over time, into an existing food culture, i.e., the addition of spices to an already extant recipe.

←

I am no expert is fusion cuisine. But the whole concept of fusion as a "culinary movement" -- as opposed to talented chefs saying "what if..." makes me a little queasy. Knowledge of ingredients and techniques, and the talent to combine different styles well: yes. "Knowledge of distictive cutures?" I don't think so. Did Thomas Keller have to study Moliere and The Enlightenment to master Frech technique?

When Gray Kuntz marries tamarind with barbecue (and when I spill it onto a hanger steak and serve it with Salvadoran beans and rice), there's a huge cross-cultural thing going on, but I don't think he set out to make an intellectual statement. I think, just as that ancient Italian, he's just looking at what's around and trying to throw them together in new and wonderful ways.

I never had raw fish until I was almost 30. My son, now 18, walks around the corner to nosh on carryout sushi whenever I'm willing to cough up the six bucks (long discussion, there ). When I was force-fed sushi the first time, it was still vaguely exotic and very "Asian." Now, it's just carryout food available in neighborhoods across America. Just like tomatoes were exotic for a few years in Naples,until they made it their own. Just like "fusion" cusine is now, until the generation that grew up on sushi and Asian supermarkets gets into the kitchen, and starts treating star anise the way their elders treated garlic.

[menon1971]

A propose of Carrot Top, I wonder if the first fusion meal was when someItalian married noodles -- origin (Some say): China -- with tomatoes from the New World to make spaghetti abnd red sauce.

←

I see a difference between the deliberate marrying of different regional cuisines and the assimilation of ingredients. Did the Italian cook say to him or herself "here I will take a fruit from the New World and a starch from the Orient and create a fusion hybrid of the two distinctive food cultures"? Fusion, it seems to me, as a culinary movement, requires the cook to have more of a knowledge of distinctive cultures and also a frame of consciousness that desires to meld cuisines as opposed to simply assimilating an ingredient here or there over time, into an existing food culture, i.e., the addition of spices to an already extant recipe.

←

I am no expert is fusion cuisine. But the whole concept of fusion as a "culinary movement" -- as opposed to talented chefs saying "what if..." makes me a little queasy. Knowledge of ingredients and techniques, and the talent to combine different styles well: yes. "Knowledge of distictive cutures?" I don't think so. Did Thomas Keller have to study Moliere and The Enlightenment to master Frech technique?

When Gray Kuntz marries tamarind with barbecue (and when I spill it onto a hanger steak and serve it with Salvadoran beans and rice), there's a huge cross-cultural thing going on, but I don't think he set out to make an intellectual statement. I think, just as that ancient Italian, he's just looking at what's around and trying to throw them together in new and wonderful ways.

I never had raw fish until I was almost 30. My son, now 18, walks around the corner to nosh on carryout sushi whenever I'm willing to cough up the six bucks (long discussion, there ). When I was force-fed sushi the first time, it was still vaguely exotic and very "Asian." Now, it's just carryout food available in neighborhoods across America. Just like tomatoes were exotic for a few years in Naples,until they made it their own. Just like "fusion" cusine is now, until the generation that grew up on sushi and Asian supermarkets gets into the kitchen, and starts treating star anise the way their elders treated garlic.

←

When I think "fusion" I usually conjure up images of cooks (in the Pacific Northwest, for instance) who deliberately try to, for example, take an expressly Asian dish or set of flavors, prepare it using French techniques, using local ingredients.

Regarding your rather tasty sounding use of tamarind - are you using it in a sauce?