Can Cuisine Get Dated?
#46
Posted 08 July 2009 - 05:48 PM
#47
Posted 08 July 2009 - 05:57 PM
I was putting off saying that in hopes that you were gonna.
#48
Posted 08 July 2009 - 06:55 PM
Saying that something is 'modern' today is that same as saying something is 'so 2010' in twenty years time.
If the kind of cooking that becomes dated has an analogue at all, surely it must be the fashion industry.
We've just removed several inappropriate comments from this Q&A. Going forward, those who think so highly of their own culinary prowess that they feel they have nothing to learn here should either 1) volunteer to teach an eGCI class, or 2) stay out of the eGCI altogether. Contentious posts and attempts to hijack this learning process will be removed as will their authors. Anyone who lacks the common sense to know what is and isn't appropriate in the current setting should err on the side of caution and say nothing. Thanks.
They Invoke Formal Academic Arguments Like the Intentionist Fallacy or the Logical Fallacy
“We would like the kitchen to cook for us.” That is the secret handshake used in the dining community to communicate to a chef or kitchen that you are serious about dining out and that you want to be accorded whatever special treatment the restaurant holds in reserve for regulars and other serious diners.
#49
Posted 08 July 2009 - 07:01 PM
#50
Posted 08 July 2009 - 07:16 PM
Saying that something is 'modern' today is that same as saying something is 'so 2010' in twenty years time.
If the kind of cooking that becomes dated has an analogue at all, surely it must be the fashion industry.
sure but how does that contradict what is being said here?
#51
Posted 08 July 2009 - 07:22 PM
#52
Posted 08 July 2009 - 07:32 PM
#53
Posted 08 July 2009 - 07:34 PM
It would seem inconsistent to blame food for being dated whilst praising food for being modern since it is a common quality of both that is at once the object of blame and praise.
We've just removed several inappropriate comments from this Q&A. Going forward, those who think so highly of their own culinary prowess that they feel they have nothing to learn here should either 1) volunteer to teach an eGCI class, or 2) stay out of the eGCI altogether. Contentious posts and attempts to hijack this learning process will be removed as will their authors. Anyone who lacks the common sense to know what is and isn't appropriate in the current setting should err on the side of caution and say nothing. Thanks.
They Invoke Formal Academic Arguments Like the Intentionist Fallacy or the Logical Fallacy
“We would like the kitchen to cook for us.” That is the secret handshake used in the dining community to communicate to a chef or kitchen that you are serious about dining out and that you want to be accorded whatever special treatment the restaurant holds in reserve for regulars and other serious diners.
#54
Posted 08 July 2009 - 07:38 PM
Sneakeater - "Sure, you have to walk a few blocks. But we are New Yorkers. We aren't those pathetic people who live in the middle of the country whose legs have become vestigial."
#55
Posted 08 July 2009 - 07:50 PM
I'll throw out one example of this being done successfully: Kreuther's squab-foie croustillant at Atelier - classic in conception, contemporary in execution.
ETA: The one thing I have been pleased to see over the past ten years is a return to the sheer variety of main ingredients one sees on old menus. A decade ago, I constantly griped that the average New York fine dining menu gave you a choice of beef, chicken, lobster, tuna and some white fish. This has changed, for the better (although few realize that scattering menus with sweetbreads and brains and cockscombs is a reversion to how upscale dining used to be).
I agree with your first point - but would expand this further to classical - or basically normal - ingredients. I love squab - and I order it whenever I can to see how different chefs prepare it. Agree about the squab at L'Atelier (which I tried in May). OTOH - some chefs' attempts to use the ingredient are a total flop IMO. Maybe to call one's self a chef - one ought to be able to do an Iron Chef kind of test and prepare at least 5 dishes containing 20 common ingredients.
Not sure about your second point. There is an unfortunate tendency for high end restaurants in the US to go 100% tasting menu - which is very limiting IMO. I much prefer a 3-5 course menu where there are at least 5-10 choices of main courses. Robyn
#56
Posted 08 July 2009 - 07:58 PM
Chanterelle speaks of the time it opened, it continues to serve the same food in the same way. the dining scene has evolved with new flavors, techniques, presentation, etc.
fashion is cyclical, of course, so we see dishes, ingredients and preparations come back. and, gasp, there will be time when pork belly falls out of favor too.
#57
Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:32 PM
Then - after they have become old hat even at Ruby Tuesday - sometimes they come back - with any luck in a more thoughtful way than they were presented originally. I think sun dried tomatoes fall into that category. Robyn
#58
Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:40 PM
I wish I could remember who it was.
#59
Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:42 PM
I have some of those books - and I think you'll find a lot of classical recipes in them. Like Coq au Vin in the Cooking of Provincial France (a recipe I've prepared many times in the almost 40 years since I bought the series). You're not exactly talking Sandra Lee recipes or anything like that. So are you saying that Coq au Vin is "out of style"? It is certainly an old dish - but one worth eating IMO. Robyn
#60
Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:45 PM
I wish I could remember who it was.
I saw this too. And its going to drive me crazy.

Help

















