Madrid Fusión 2007, Jan 15-18

[AlexForbes]

This year I won't be able to attend, but I'd love to hear news from those who are in Madrid this week. Today Pascal Barbot is doing his presentation.

Big names in attendance this year: Ferran, Heston, Arzak, Tetsuya, Trotter, Achatz.

I'd LOVE to hear what they had to say!

here's the link, for those who might not have it yet, Madrid Fusion

thanks!

[AlexForbes]

How odd.... I was sure there were many egulleters at the Madrid Fusión and figured they'd have lots to tell the rest of us who couldn't make it... Well, while I wait for them to post something, here is a VERY loose translation of a short part of a story that ran yesterday in El País...

The story opened saying the theme this year is "back to nature", with plently of demos with edible flowers, vegetables, herbs, etc. The featured country is China.

"(On the first day of the event) the international flavour was brought by French chef Pascal Barbot, passionate about vegetables, plants and travelling around the world. Barbot recognized the Japanese influence on his cooking, and said he's bored with classical-style haute cuisine restaurants. Owner of a small Parisian restaurant withh a two-month waiting list, he prepared dishes with very simple ingredients, based on foie gras with shellfish and algae broth."

The story then went on to list some of the big names who will be doing demos in the next couple of days, like Quique da Costa, the man who discovered that aloe vera can be used in haute cuisine, who will be showing a couple of his "edible landscapes". (She's shown his oyters Guggenheim Bilbao before, with their silvery sheen, so I'm hoping he's got something new this time).

[Rogelio]

I was yesterday afternoon at Madrid Fusión, my main purpose was to attend a biodinamic wines tasting conducted by Nicolas Joly with 50 other producers from Italy, France, Spain, Slovenia, Austria...

I could also see a few conferences like the one by Blue Hill's Dan Barber who spoke about how to create your own restaurant farm. Dan has just published a very thoughtful article at NYT about the agricultural policy in the States and his conference was about this and the future of food in a globalized world. He also made a sous-vide lamb.

This year's main them is the product and the future of the product in the gastronomy as oposed to previows years when innovation was the main purpose reaching the top when Hoamro Cantu made his edible fotocopy. So Dan's conference was one of the main points during the congress.

Pedro Morán and his son, from Casa Gerardo made an interesting exibition around the fabes (Asturian beans) explaining that there are more choices than a fabada with them, specially with the fresh ones. They made pop corns with the bean skin, an smooth ajoblanco with fresh beans and of course a fabada.

I don't know if I will come back but will report if I do.

[docsconz]

I was yesterday afternoon at Madrid Fusión, my main purpose was to attend a biodinamic wines tasting conducted by Nicolas Joly with 50 other producers from Italy, France, Spain, Slovenia, Austria...

I could also see a few conferences like the one by Blue Hill's Dan Barber who spoke about how to create your own restaurant farm. Dan has just published a very thoughtful article at NYT about the agricultural policy in the States and his conference was about this and the future of food in a globalized world. He also made a sous-vide lamb.

This year's main them is the product and the future of the product in the gastronomy as oposed to previows years when innovation was the main purpose reaching the top when Hoamro Cantu made his edible fotocopy. So Dan's conference was one of the main points during the congress.

Pedro Morán and his son, from Casa Gerardo made an interesting exibition around the fabes (Asturian beans) explaining that there are more choices than a fabada with them, specially with the fresh ones. They made pop corns with the bean skin, an smooth ajoblanco with fresh beans and of course a fabada.

I don't know if I will come back but will report if I do.

←

Thanks for the report, Rogelio. It sounds as if the concept of sustainability is gaining steam and importance. That this is receiving such consideration at Madrid Fusion, a conference noted mostly for its emphasis on innovation is significant indeed. Bravo!

[Culinista]

I thought Dan Barber's presentation was thought-provoking. Not many restaurants can afford to do the same, however, and can he make the numbers work without the deep Rockefeller pockets?

Santamaria's all over the paper today. He had some very strong words for the congress declaring he does not believe in "scientific cuisine," well received by the public but many chefs naturally took umbrage at his rather cynical take on the role of the modern haute cuisine chef. I think he is feeling very isolated and depressed with the state of the kitchen today. He claimed he was not a missionary, but he spoke like a Baptist minister. His friends worry about his inability to make nice politically, but it's good to have the debate.

The Santi storm made Heston seem like a postscript. Never mind the bubbles and 3D glasses-fun, but no substance. Interesting that there was no real food or cooking shown anywhere during the FD presentation, only thoughts on how to manipulate the expectations of the diners. I at least had heard the FD message too many times before. It, like the sweets he handed out, are feeling very packaged.

Anyway, why does product-centered cuisine and technique-centered cuisine have to be at odds? Ferran emphasized ingredient quality more than I have heard from him recently on this subject. I agree that we should be looking to alternative products to the classic luxury foods, and he is very realistic about pricing and scarcity. However, we should not give up the battle to preserve and sustain fabulous products. Ferran would certainly agree with that, although I think he has long ago stopped shelling out for top product at EB. I think the world is richer for having both Santis and Ferrans and even Hestons cooking, and it would be a shame to lose one of them.

I thought the underlying issues in this debate were economics, class, and fears of environmental and cultural loss. There is a great deal of uncertainty about the future role of cuisine and cuisinier, and I think the mixed response reflected that. If the public applauded both sides, it's because they are fascinated by the new but afraid to lose touch with the old. That's only natural.

I really enjoyed the presentations by Seiji Yamamoto and the Chinese chefs.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Culinista (log)

[AlexForbes]

Great report, Culinista, thanks.

Coincidentally, I just interviewed chef Santi Santamaria for a piece

on the Madrid Fusion to be published in Gula, a Brazilian magazine, and since I'll only use a very short excerpt in the magazine, I thought I should post the whole thing here, as it is quite provocative and interesting.

Food for thought...

"There are two kinds of experiments: good ones and stupid ones. I think we’ve entered a phase of theatre, searching for scientific explanations for all we eat. I don’t get it. I don’t ask myself, every time I eat, how that was made. This scientific cuisine is crippling the essence of cooking. We cooks humanize products when we cook them, which means we cook something to make it more pleasing to the palate and also healthier. That is the origin of cooking. The emotional side is very important, too, to transmit happiness to others through our food. But when we convert artisanal cooking into something industrial and introduce the mechanical repetition of machines into the formula, we are removing the emotional and human essence of cooking."

"We don’t have to be doctors to understand that certain foods have certain effects on our bodies and well being. So why would we need to know science to make good food?"

"I like to interpret nature though the products. Nature gives us so much, we should protect it, not destroy it. "

"I was not afraid to say what I think at the Madrid Fusion. The purpose of a food forum is to allow for the discussion of different philosophies. My ideas are renewable, and changing. None of us knows the full truth."

"There are many professionals that think like me, that want to search for the best products and see that as more important than scientific advancements. I received a very affectionate reaction from the audience, they gave me a 5 minute standing ovation, and I took that as a show of solidarity. This had never happened before in the history of the Madrid Fusion.

I’ve been treading a bit of a solitary path, by not being aligned with the scientific movement. It’s a bit like crossing a desert. "

"I didn’t see what the other chefs presented at the event. I did my own workshop and left. I’ve heard of machines and techniques, but don’t have an opinion on them. I don’t want to have an opinion on machines. We are robotizing too much our profession, substituting humans for machines, and once we go in that direction, cooking loses its humanity."

[milla]

You're the man, Santi.

[Culinista]

For the record, I don't think even the most vanguardist chefs would argue with Santi's main points that we need to respect nature and tradition, upon which our health and happiness is based. He is certainly entitled to his opinions about machine-made automaton cooking (not really a fair evalutation of the new directional cooking, but certainly intellectually defensible). I'm glad he decided to participate, and his remarks were some of the most provocative things I heard. It's no use having one-sided polemical discussions. He also cooks like a dream, and the smell of that pigeon and the whole foie roast in salt, not to mention the whole black truffle embedded in bacon fat, wrapped in cabbage leaves and baked in clay, nearly made me faint. No other chef's cooking demo wafted through the auditorium with such power, not even Heston's fake candy shop perfume.

However, he did take some rather personal potshots (for example, an uncharitable gibe at the generous use of raw black truffle in his lunch the day before at Viridiana) and make unkind characterizations of the chef's role today. I'm not sure fellow chefs appreciated being characterized as plagiarists and thieves in the service of rich snobs. Man, Santi talks a great game, however. I applauded his sheer oratory skill.

I can understand Santi's frustration with his new unwelcome role as media rep for a restaurant empire that has to grow or die. He is a romantic cook caught in pragmatics, and smart enough to know it. He may be getting tired of the rat race and the need to compete for media attention. His restaurant is in the house in which he was born, bless him. You can't get closer to home than that.

[milla]

For the record, I don't think even the most vanguardist chefs would argue with Santi's main points that we need to respect nature and tradition, upon which our health and happiness is based....

←

Actions speak louder than lip service.

[docsconz]

For the record, I don't think even the most vanguardist chefs would argue with Santi's main points that we need to respect nature and tradition, upon which our health and happiness is based. He is certainly entitled to his opinions about machine-made automaton cooking (not really a fair evalutation of the new directional cooking, but certainly intellectually defensible). I'm glad he decided to participate, and his remarks were some of the most provocative things I heard. It's no use having one-sided polemical discussions. He also cooks like a dream, and the smell of that pigeon and the whole foie roast in salt, not to mention the whole black truffle embedded in bacon fat, wrapped in cabbage leaves and baked in clay, nearly made me faint. No other chef's cooking demo wafted through the auditorium with such power, not even Heston's fake candy shop perfume.

However, he did take some rather personal potshots (for example, an uncharitable gibe at the generous use of raw black truffle in his lunch the day before at Viridiana) and make unkind characterizations of the chef's role today. I'm not sure fellow chefs appreciated being characterized as plagiarists and thieves in the service of rich snobs. Man, Santi talks a great game, however. I applauded his sheer oratory skill.

I can understand Santi's frustration with his new unwelcome role as media rep for a restaurant empire that has to grow or die. He is a romantic cook caught in pragmatics, and smart enough to know it. He may be getting tired of the rat race and the need to compete for media attention. His restaurant is in the house in which he was born, bless him. You can't get closer to home than that.

←

This and your other posts in this topic are outstanding and much appreciated. I think your analysis and assessment are spot on. There is no question that Santi Santamaria is a great chef, one of the most talented in the world and his restaurant El Raco de Can Fabes a great restaurant. I do not personally see why this must be an either/or situation. I also do not see the gradient between his cooking and that of Adria, Roca and others being nearly as steep as he does. He is also not averse to using relatively new techniques. Though fairly commonplace now, sous vide cooking has been known to occur in his kitchen. I will always remember with pleasure the leg of kid at Can Fabes that was cooked sous vide. Nevertheless he has always been bugged by the Vanguardists, which I think is unfortunate. Perhaps he is simply envious of the notoriety that they have received and the characterization, however incorrect, that that is all Spanish cuisine is about. I am happy that santamaria cooks the way he does as he does it so well. I am also happy that Adria cooks as he does for the same reason. I find both to be extremely exciting. The great thing at the world of Flavors conference this past Novemeber was that there did not seem to be a dichotomy between the vanguardists and the traditionalists.

[docsconz]

Great report, Culinista, thanks.

Coincidentally, I just interviewed chef Santi Santamaria for a piece

on the Madrid Fusion to be published in Gula, a Brazilian magazine, and since I'll only use a very short excerpt in the magazine, I thought I should post the whole thing here, as it is quite provocative and interesting.

Food for thought...

"There are two kinds of experiments: good ones and stupid ones. I think we’ve entered a phase of theatre, searching for scientific explanations for all we eat. I don’t get it. I don’t ask myself, every time I eat, how that was made. This scientific cuisine is crippling the essence of cooking. We cooks humanize products when we cook them, which means we cook something to make it more pleasing to the palate and also healthier. That is the origin of cooking. The emotional side is very important, too, to transmit happiness to others through our food. But when we convert artisanal cooking into something industrial and introduce the mechanical repetition of machines into the formula, we are removing the emotional and human essence of cooking."

"We don’t have to be doctors to understand that certain foods have certain effects on our bodies and well being. So why would we need to know science to make good food?"

"I like to interpret nature though the products. Nature gives us so much, we should protect it, not destroy it. "

"I was not afraid to say what I think at the Madrid Fusion. The purpose of a food forum is to allow for the discussion of different philosophies. My ideas are renewable, and changing. None of us knows the full truth."

"There are many professionals that think like me, that want to search for the best products and see that as more important than scientific advancements. I received a very affectionate reaction from the audience, they gave me a 5 minute standing ovation, and I took that as a show of solidarity. This had never happened before in the history of the Madrid Fusion.

I’ve been treading a bit of a solitary path, by not being aligned with the scientific movement. It’s a bit like crossing a desert. "

"I didn’t see what the other chefs presented at the event. I did my own workshop and left. I’ve heard of machines and techniques, but don’t have an opinion on them. I don’t want to have an opinion on machines. We are robotizing too much our profession, substituting humans for machines, and once we go in that direction, cooking loses its humanity."

←

Alex, thanks for posting this. This is certainly consistent with what Santi has said and done in the past including his three part interview with Pedro Espinosa on eGullet that can be found here, here and here.

[pedro]

In terms of food for thought, probably Dan Barber was the chef whom provided the more complete presentation. His article at the NYT covers more or less the same ground: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/opinion/14barber.html

Ferrán's was challenging too, challenging established mindsets about sourcing, luxury products and at the same time, completely aware that media wouldn't focus on that part of his presentation but on how he made oil caviar.

I admire Santi Santamaría but I believe he chose a provoking for the sake of provoking strategy which occupied more time than needed in his presentation. He took the scenery by storm and the public applaud him almost constantly with a final standing ovation. I wonder whether he will appear more in this type of events after his unquestionable success at Madrid fusión.

[Culinista]

Ferrán's was challenging too, challenging established mindsets about sourcing, luxury products and at the same time, completely aware that media wouldn't focus on that part of his presentation but on how he made oil caviar.

Ferran is right. He gave more or less the same presentation at Alimentaria last year, and most people only woke up when the fireworks began. However, these ideas about sourcing, both Dan's and Ferran's, are central concerns to the future of haute cuisine, or any cuisine, for that matter.

[vmilor]

Ferrán's was challenging too, challenging established mindsets about sourcing, luxury products and at the same time, completely aware that media wouldn't focus on that part of his presentation but on how he made oil caviar.

Ferran is right. He gave more or less the same presentation at Alimentaria last year, and most people only woke up when the fireworks began. However, these ideas about sourcing, both Dan's and Ferran's, are central concerns to the future of haute cuisine, or any cuisine, for that matter.

←

So, is this a confession by Ferran? He, 6-7 years ago, stopped putting the premium on sourcing top products. He is also unable or unwilling to cook whole pieces(of meat and fish) as Santi does and without which one can not pretend to put a premium on sourcing.

On the other hand, it may be to everybody's benefit that the pendulum is swinging back....Spain particularly has a lot to gain from it because they still have great products.

[milla]

my point exactly Vedat. you can't have it both ways. there IS a dichotomy between the two camps and it is wide. why buy great product when it is so manipulated, its special nature or the provenance gets lost? what is the point? you can just buy the cheaper carrot because no one will/can tell the difference...

[docsconz]

my point exactly Vedat. you can't have it both ways. there IS a dichotomy between the two camps and it is wide.  why buy great product when it is so manipulated, its special nature or the provenance gets  lost? what is the point? you can just buy the cheaper carrot because no one will/can tell the difference...

←

I don't buy that. If you put garbage in you still get garbage out no matter what you do to the product. On the other hand if a chef can make something special with inferior product than power to that chef. While I may or may not be able to distinguish the "terroir" of a particular product depending on the preparation, the base products still need to be of good quality.

Ferran's point is that what makes particular items extra special is their inherent quality and not how rare and especially how expensive a product is. A good "x" is better than a poor "y". Often times we as a society value particular items because of their scarcity and cost and undervalue items of great quality because they are common. If a chef can elevate a "common" ingredient so much the better - what difference does the cost of the ingredient really make? Ultimately what matters is the pleasure able to be derived from the ingredients.

[Culinista]

Ferrán's was challenging too, challenging established mindsets about sourcing, luxury products and at the same time, completely aware that media wouldn't focus on that part of his presentation but on how he made oil caviar.

Ferran is right. He gave more or less the same presentation at Alimentaria last year, and most people only woke up when the fireworks began. However, these ideas about sourcing, both Dan's and Ferran's, are central concerns to the future of haute cuisine, or any cuisine, for that matter.

←

So, is this a confession by Ferran? He, 6-7 years ago, stopped putting the premium on sourcing top products. He is also unable or unwilling to cook whole pieces(of meat and fish) as Santi does and without which one can not pretend to put a premium on sourcing.

On the other hand, it may be to everybody's benefit that the pendulum is swinging back....Spain particularly has a lot to gain from it because they still have great products.

←

Vmilor, I'm sorry to tell you it wasn't a confession but an unapologetic exhortation to move in a different direction. When Ferran was talking about the need to source new product, he was specifically excluding what have traditionally been considered "premium" products (foie gras, caviar, lobster, etc.). He was asking that we expand our notions of what is a wonderful or interesting thing to eat, even beyond the bad lobster/ good sardine question. The bitter white lemon rind, for instance, or tomato seeds have been considered garbage, gastronomically speaking. Ferran is taking another look at these throwaways--tomato seed pulp is a natural gelatin with no space food whiz-bang, and it can be an interesting component of a dish both visually and texturally. He's exploring the uses of rabbit ears and mackerel belly. I can't remember who it is now, but there is another chef (Regol?) exploring trash cooking. Reminds me of George Washington Carver examining all the uses of a peanut.

I'd agree that a great Ferran rabbit ear is at this moment no match for a great Santi rabbit, but the question is a vital one to ask in this time of greater scarcity. Who knows when the exploration will hit pay dirt? Someone after all discovered espardenyes (OT: the contrasting uses of sea cucumber by Dong and Roca was another fascinating presentation) and other unlikely delicacies. Maybe someone will hit on the best way to cook rabbit ear. I remember the first time I had ostrich, I said to myself that this could be a good product if only we knew what to do with it. In a way, Ferran is turning away from the cuisine of the rich and going the way that popular cuisine has taken since time immemorial to find good uses for economical products that are to hand.

Why does every haute cuisine restaurant have to serve the same rarefied ingredients?

[AlexForbes]

Exactly, Docsconz.

Ferran does want to source top products, except his idea of a top product is very different than Santi's. While a more traditional chef, like Santi, relies heavily on haute cuisine standards like caviar, truffles and foie gras and often gives priority to products from his own terroir, paying a premium, for instance, for the finest young vegetables grown organically as close to his restaurant as possible, Ferran tries to find gold in unexpected places, cooking with ingredients not usually associated with haute cuisine, such as the examples I heard he gave at this year's Madrid Fusion: the white part of lemons, tomato seeds and melon solomillo (the more gelatinous flesh found near the seeds, I think). As for the use of foie gras, caviar and truffles, Ferran says: "I love all that stuff. But I also love potatoes or aspargus just as much. So I try not to limit myself to what is considered refined, and I cook with an ingredient because it's good, not because it's expensive". That being said, he also likes to stress that "at any restaurant that charges 300 or 400 euros for a meal, obviously the ingredients have to be of the highest quality. The same way that it goes without saying that a famous carmaker will only build cars using perfect car pieces".

These are things he said at last year's Madrid Fusion. He also said:

" If the conquest of America gave us tomatoes and corn, now there is a second revolution happening in ingredient sourcing. It's totally crazy, today we can order products from the U.S., Japan or Peru and they arrive the next day. Distance is irrelevant. Is that good or bad? All is relative. The other day I ate some Chilean cherries in Barcelona, and they were some of the best I've ever had. Does it matter that it's not cherry season, and so they had to be brought in from half way across the world? Well, no. What matters is that we use ingredients respecting our own cooking techniques and parameters, and not where the ingredients are from".

[milla]

Can't speak for vmilor but he did not make any mention about luxury ingredients in his post but referred to top ingredients, which can include a top carrot, leek, etc. it seems as if it was read in that he was talking about luxury ingredients. one cannot take a mediocre QUALITY ingredient and turn it into a high quality dish, it is a physical impossibility. why buy/grow a carrot of top quality and provenance when you manipulate it so much that its special properties and provenance are nowhere in evidence, in other words a supermarket carrot will do? isn't that disrespectuf to the ingredient?

and is not buying the best carrot one can buy for your haute cuisine restaurant (because any old supermarket carrot will do) disrespectful to your breathless clients beating a path to you door?

[docsconz]

Can't speak for vmilor but he did not make any mention about luxury ingredients in his post but referred to top ingredients, which can include a top carrot, leek, etc.  it seems as if it was read in that he was talking about luxury ingredients. one cannot take a mediocre QUALITY ingredient and turn it into a high quality dish, it is a physical impossibility.  why buy/grow a carrot of top quality and provenance when you manipulate it so much that its special properties and provenance are nowhere in evidence, in other words a supermarket carrot will do?  isn't that disrespectuf to the ingredient?

and is not buying the best carrot one can buy for your haute cuisine restaurant (because any old supermarket carrot will do) disrespectful to your breathless clients beating a path to you door?

←

The point of disagreement is that any old carrot will do and that the ingredient's "special properties and provenance are nowhere in evidence" because of over-manipulation. It has not been my experience at the best of the vanguard restaurants that this is in fact the case. The manipulation I have experienced at places like el Bulli, Alinea, Arzak, WD-50, mini-bar and others has served to highlight special ingredients rather than obscure them. In some cases, however, individual ingredients have been sublimated into a new whole, but that new whole would likely not be as good if lesser ingredients were utilized. I fully agree with your statement that "one cannot take a mediocre QUALITY ingredient and turn it into a high quality dish." Disagreement with one point and agreement with the other are not in my opinion inconsistent. The important element is good cooking with high quality ingredients whatever the style of cooking utilized. Great results are not likely to be attained with inferior ingredients no matter the techniques used for preparation.

[milla]

The point of disagreement is that any old carrot will do and that the ingredient's "special properties and provenance are nowhere in evidence" because of over-manipulation. It has not been my experience at the best of the vanguard restaurants that this is in fact the case.

And it has been my experience without exception both in the kitchen and as a diner. Without exception.

I fully agree with your statement that "one cannot take a mediocre QUALITY ingredient and turn it into a high quality dish."

That's good. It is a law of physics. You might cover something up with a heavy sauce but you can't change or make something a better quality through your skills as a chef. you can't make a carrot younger or make a industrial farmed carrot taste vaguely artisanal without some sort of fakery.

Great results are not likely to be attained with inferior ingredients no matter the techniques used for preparation.

Stating the obvious now and my original point (and perhaps vmilor's as well) earlier in the thread. This point should be clarified, however, by saying that when you state inferior, that means not the best that one can possibly procur. It can be more clearly stated by saying "satisfactory results are likely to be attained with satisfactory ingredients", "inferior results are likely to be attained with inferior ingredients" and so on... you cannot change the law of physics. what can change is one perceptions of what great quality or results are... and that happens over time as one truly starts to understand and feel through accumulated experience, not just paying lip service to the point of cliche, that the best ingredients one can attain, however humble, is the true, unerring foundation and irrefutable truth of haute cuisine as an artistic/artisanal endeavor.

The key then, is how one defines respecting nature and products. Does one let a great ingredient (not luxury) speak for itself in its natural and rare beauty or is it respected by manipulation to the point where one can't tell how special it was to begin with?

And we haven't even touched the humanity issues that Santi raised...I'm out.

[docsconz]

The point of disagreement is that any old carrot will do and that the ingredient's "special properties and provenance are nowhere in evidence" because of over-manipulation. It has not been my experience at the best of the vanguard restaurants that this is in fact the case.

And it has been my experience without exception both in the kitchen and as a diner. Without exception.

I fully agree with your statement that "one cannot take a mediocre QUALITY ingredient and turn it into a high quality dish."

That's good. It is a law of physics. You might cover something up with a heavy sauce but you can't change or make something a better quality through your skills as a chef. you can't make a carrot younger or make a industrial farmed carrot taste vaguely artisanal without some sort of fakery.

Great results are not likely to be attained with inferior ingredients no matter the techniques used for preparation.

Stating the obvious now and my original point (and perhaps vmilor's as well) earlier in the thread. This point should be clarified, however, by saying that when you state inferior, that means not the best that one can possibly procur. It can be more clearly stated by saying "satisfactory results are likely to be attained with satisfactory ingredients", "inferior results are likely to be attained with inferior ingredients" and so on... you cannot change the law of physics. what can change is one perceptions of what great quality or results are... and that happens over time as one truly starts to understand and feel through accumulated experience, not just paying lip service to the point of cliche, that the best ingredients one can attain, however humble, is the true, unerring foundation and irrefutable truth of haute cuisine as an artistic/artisanal endeavor.

The key then, is how one defines respecting nature and products. Does one let a great ingredient (not luxury) speak for itself in its natural and rare beauty or is it respected by manipulation to the point where one can't tell how special it was to begin with?

And we haven't even touched the humanity issues that Santi raised...I'm out.

←

I believe that the real question here is one of viewpoint, preference, philosophy and definition. We clearly agree (I think ) that the best results are attained with the best quality ingredients. Where we begin to differ is in our views as to what is considered a 'respectful" way to treat these ingredients. One way (and indeed a great way) is to "let a great ingredient (not luxury) speak for itself in its natural and rare beauty," that is to treat the ingredients simply and cook them expertly as with the seafood at Rafa's, the Frog Hollow peaches at Chez Panisse Cafe or with the fresh pasta and tomatoes that were a revelation to me at Agriturismo Seliano in Paestum. Another way (and to me equal) is to simply utilize them to make something wonderful regardless of the technique utilized even if that ingredient becomes sublimated into another essence by virtue of the chef's alchemy. As one who appreciates variety and diversity, I do not understand the need for these approaches to be mutually exclusive. I loved dining at El Raco de Can Fabes and I loved dining at El Bulli. I do not believe that they are nearly as far apart in their approaches as Santi Santamaria would have us believe.

[vmilor]

I think the disagreement is narrowing down.

"Top" ingredient and luxury are 2 different things. Thanks to milla for the correct interpretation. My apologies if I was unclear.

One can see my criticism of the FL and the "caviar" quality to see that I am not easily swayed by luxury ingredients. On the contrary. In gastroville reviews my partner Mikael and I are esp. on the lookout for chefs who use second rate luxury or expensive ingredients and charge astronomical prices.

This said, I confess that, according to my parents, I loved beluga caviar from Iran when I was seven and I would pester them to buy it more often at a time when I had no understanding of scarcity and price. Fortunately I also loved fries then which they provided me on a more daily basis! (I still love fries, esp. cooked with horse fat!)

My remaining disagreement with docsonz is that, of the 4 restaurants he names, I know El Bulli (reviewed in gastroville) and Arzak--not WD-50 and Alinea. I think the quality of ingredients leaves a lot to be desired in these restaurants. Arzak used to be much better under the father's reign. Now it is the level of a one star restaurant. But they still have some special things which they reserve for best clients. I won't quite call Arzak an avant garde restaurant though. Akelare, Mugaritz and Berasatequi are all, more avant garde than Arzak if one is looking to name the leading modern Basque restaurants in Spain.

Gagnaire would be my example for avant-garde cooking which is also extremely ingredient conscious. I don't always find his concoctions superlative, indeed some are inedible. But he is a great chef and when he puts everything together he continues to astonish me.

As for Ferran's new statement about using less known parts of vegetables and animals, I think this is a good thing. Chinese, for instance, eat all parts of the animal. I esp. find Americans too shy in their eating habits. Very few eat any offal, even lamb consumption is very low here and some even consider lamb to be exotic. It is chicken, and chicken and chicken. On the other hand, before 3 Michelin star chefs started imitating each other and creating fads, French chefs used to make use of all parts of the beast, with staggering results. Now the only multi star chef who cooks a tete de veau, as far as I know, is good old Vigato at the new at his new and classy Apicius. No longer this is a favorite with French when some 3 stars are unable to fill up their rooms.

On the other hand, here I am speculating and prove me wrong, I don't trust Ferran Adria to present less edible parts of the beasts in their full glory, in a non manipulated form a la Gagnaire or Vigato. He caters his cooking too much to the international clientele, favoring sweetness and acidity. His cooking lacks clarity and focus. I am also disheartened to read that he is in favor of importing major ingredients. Long distance transportation takes a toll on the quality and, in this form of sourcing, one can never establish long term relations based on trust with the suppliers. What Ferran is defending and practicing, essentially is the opposite of the philosophy of some great Catalunyan restaurants such as Can Jubany, Con Fabes, Hispania. But, being a good businessman neither Ferran nor anybody can publicy state that the issue of ingredients is a secondary concern for them.

All said, if one day Ferran decides to cook a whole becada or a good old shoulder of lamb or cabrito or langouste, what have you, and to show that he can imprint his stamp on it, I would be more than willing to try.

[docsconz]

I think the disagreement is narrowing down.

"Top" ingredient and luxury are 2 different things. Thanks to milla for the correct interpretation. My apologies if I was unclear.

One can see my criticism of the FL and the "caviar" quality to see that I am not easily swayed by luxury ingredients. On the contrary. In gastroville reviews my partner Mikael and I are esp. on the lookout for chefs who use second rate luxury or expensive ingredients and charge astronomical prices.

This said, I confess that, according to my parents, I loved beluga caviar from Iran when I was seven and I would pester them to buy it more often at a time when I had no understanding of scarcity and price.  Fortunately I also loved fries then which they provided me on a more daily basis! (I still love fries, esp. cooked with horse fat!)

My remaining disagreement with docsonz is that, of the 4 restaurants he names, I know El Bulli (reviewed in gastroville) and Arzak--not WD-50 and Alinea.  I think the quality of ingredients leaves a lot to be desired in these restaurants. Arzak used to be much better under the father's reign. Now it is the level of a one star restaurant.  But they still have some special things which they reserve for best clients. I won't quite call Arzak an avant garde restaurant though.  Akelare, Mugaritz and Berasatequi are all, more avant garde than Arzak if one is  looking to name the leading modern Basque restaurants in Spain.

Gagnaire would be my example for avant-garde cooking which is also extremely ingredient conscious.  I don't always find his concoctions superlative, indeed some are inedible. But he is a great chef and when he puts everything together he continues to astonish me.

As for Ferran's new statement about using less known parts of vegetables and animals, I think this is a good thing. Chinese, for instance, eat all parts of the animal. I esp. find Americans too shy in their eating habits.  Very few eat any offal, even lamb consumption is very low here and some even consider lamb to be exotic. It is chicken, and chicken and chicken. On the other hand, before 3 Michelin star chefs started imitating each other  and creating fads, French chefs used to make use of all parts of the beast, with staggering results. Now the only multi star chef who cooks a tete de veau, as far as I know, is good old Vigato at the new at his new and classy Apicius. No longer this is a favorite with French when some 3 stars are unable to fill up their rooms.

On the other hand, here I am speculating and prove me wrong, I don't trust Ferran Adria to present less edible parts of the beasts in their full glory, in a non manipulated form a la Gagnaire or Vigato. He caters his cooking too much to the international clientele, favoring sweetness and acidity. His cooking lacks clarity and focus. I am also disheartened to read that he is in favor of importing major ingredients. Long distance transportation takes a toll on the quality and, in this form of sourcing, one can never establish long term relations based on trust with the suppliers.  What Ferran is defending and practicing, essentially is the opposite of the philosophy of some great Catalunyan restaurants such as Can Jubany, Con Fabes, Hispania. But, being a good businessman neither Ferran nor anybody can publicy state that the issue of ingredients is a secondary concern for them.

All said, if one day Ferran decides to cook a whole becada or a good old shoulder of lamb or cabrito or langouste, what have you, and to show that he can imprint his stamp on it, I would be more than willing to try.

←

Vedat, I agree that the disagreement is narrowing down. we may have to agree to disagree regarding El Bulli and Ferran Adria's talents and skills, although I have no basis to assess his abilities to cook traditional catalan cuisine. I also have no basis to doubt those abilities, however, but then this is straying from the point at hand...

While Arzak may be less vanguard today then it has been, it was still one of the major innovators in Spain. I ate there in 2004 and had a fabulous meal. Perhaps it has deteriorated since then. I cannot say, though I know that both you and Mikael, two knowledgeable and respected palates, have criticized it before now.

Clearly not all chefs, whatever their stripes, are ingredient conscious. i am happy to see you acknowledge that there are at least some avant-garde chefs who you feel are. My whole point is that the concept of being ingredient driven and avant-garde (or whatever term one wishes to use) are not mutually exclusive

One additional point that I would like to address regards Adria and importation of ingredients. While he is not averse to importing ingredients for a specific purpose, I do not believe that is his primary avenue for sourcing ingredients nor his preference. If he can get an ingredient of quality from somewhere that is either unavailable locally or of inferior quality, he is unafraid to do so. However, if he can source products locally he does. There is certainly no lack of quality product in Catalunya, but then he does utilize global elements in his cooking that are not available locally.

[vmilor]

My whole point is that the concept of being ingredient driven and avant-garde (or whatever term one wishes to use) are not mutually exclusive

←