You certainly do have a better screen than the one that I'm using at the moment!
But what do you mean by "plus ca change"? Why comment on how similar the food looks? And why is that funny? The food looks like the food at any number of modern places in any number of cities in any number of countries. This shouldn't surprise - it's clear by looking at the cvs of the chefs that the owners want to serve this kind of food. So, yes, it's going to look similar to that kind of food. Of course, the big change appears to be the initial response to the restaurant. Perhaps your initial comment was simply a descriptive, factual observation. Perhaps.
The owners are paying yet again to achieve the same visual effect they got from their first chef; hence "plus ça change."
Looks are the only thing I can comment on. I have not eaten at Atera, nor did I ever eat at Castagna, so I don't know what this chef's food tastes like. And I too "eat with my eyes," so appearances are an important factor in my decision about whether I want to shell out that kind of $$$ for food that looks much like what I (over)paid for before.
It is "funny" to me precisely because the "food looks like the food at any number of modern places in any number of cities in any number of countries." I do not find it surprising, and never said I did. I find that sameness, combined with the discussions of how new and unique this is, as something to laugh at, or at least to shake my head and chuckle about the gullibility of people who thing that dining on twigs and faux rocks is the height of sophistication.
Finally, what's with your BS "Perhaps . . . Perhaps"? If you believe you understand me better than what I say, you need to meet my husband and tell him how to read my truer, deeper inner thoughts.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Combustible grease doesn't exactly float like a cloud. -- joethefoodie, 18 November 2015 - 4:30 PM
notorious stickler -- NY Times
deeply annoying and nitpicking -- Molly O'Neill, One Big Table