You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Nossiter's "Liquid Memory"
- Thread starter SFJoe
- Start date
originally posted by VLM: To me that was just a tangential point and a natural outcome of the greater point which is the sclerosis in French society since Mitterand (and in reaction to 1968).
Ok, I haven't read the book so I don't know how he structures his arguments and I was mainly curious to see how vehemently Tom would defend French cuisine.
I can sort of see how this would flow as a minor point from the larger 'sclerosis' argument. Although I must admit to being generally skeptical about these 'sclerosis' arguments that often look on the past in too rosy a perspective. But I guess I should look at the book first.
I was wondering if Thai was being attributed to French influence. Among others, as iterated by Mark.
Having just spent three weeks in Basque lands, I have to say that not only was the hype justified (and that's not easy, considering the deafening hype), but they're making a pretty strong cross-border argument for a Great Cuisine. And I don't just mean at the starry/"name" restaurants, either. Though maybe I'm getting this all wrong, and this is really Spanish or French cuisine transmogrified, and thus not "great" by whatever standard is being applied here. I admit I'd need a definition of a Great Cuisine to proceed along these lines.
Rahsaan, I'll say this: I think, among major tourist destinations in the West, the one that probably requires the most research in order to have a good meal is Venice. But France in general, and Paris in particular, are catching up, and that's upsetting. A function of the dizzying number of options? Perhaps. But I'd peg my chances of success on a random stop much higher in San Francisco than I would in the cities I've visited in France. That's only one metric, and possibly not even an important one, but for me it's meaningful to an extent.
Donostia-San Sebastin kicks both of their asses into the next millennium, by the way.
If it's part of Tom's argument that France would do better to re-embrace the classics they're known for, rather than think they're being edgy and au courant by adding ginger to the crme brle, I'd agree.
Having just spent three weeks in Basque lands, I have to say that not only was the hype justified (and that's not easy, considering the deafening hype), but they're making a pretty strong cross-border argument for a Great Cuisine. And I don't just mean at the starry/"name" restaurants, either. Though maybe I'm getting this all wrong, and this is really Spanish or French cuisine transmogrified, and thus not "great" by whatever standard is being applied here. I admit I'd need a definition of a Great Cuisine to proceed along these lines.
Rahsaan, I'll say this: I think, among major tourist destinations in the West, the one that probably requires the most research in order to have a good meal is Venice. But France in general, and Paris in particular, are catching up, and that's upsetting. A function of the dizzying number of options? Perhaps. But I'd peg my chances of success on a random stop much higher in San Francisco than I would in the cities I've visited in France. That's only one metric, and possibly not even an important one, but for me it's meaningful to an extent.
Donostia-San Sebastin kicks both of their asses into the next millennium, by the way.
If it's part of Tom's argument that France would do better to re-embrace the classics they're known for, rather than think they're being edgy and au courant by adding ginger to the crme brle, I'd agree.
originally posted by Thor:
Rahsaan, I'll say this: I think, among major tourist destinations, the one that probably requires the most research in order to have a good meal is Venice. But France in general, and Paris in particular, are catching up. A function of the dizzying number of options? Perhaps. But I'd peg my chances of success on a random stop much higher in San Francisco than I would in the cities I've visited in France. That's only one metric, and possibly not even an important one, but for me it's meaningful to an extent..
Oh, I'm not defending France. From my casual understanding of these things it seems clear that France is no longer at the top of the global culinary hierarchy.
From my casual understanding, that is partially because of broader industrialization and economic changes have affected French lifestyles/consumption patterns. But also because the rest of the world has gotten a lot better.
I was just curious about the arguments in the book. I understand Steinberger has a lot to say about the specifics of Michelin restaurants, and I'm not very well versed in that niche market.
I can guess what he means by 'sclerosis' and will reiterate that I often find such arguments misguided. But I haven't seen all the details.
Mark, I'm not making a qualitative judgement, merely an evolutionary one- though you are right about some Indian traditions, certainly, and I was guilty of thinking of cuisine as haute cuisine-of course no one can ignore the contribution of the Muslim world to all that you mention, though I am no expert on Peruvian food.
originally posted by Thor:
If it's part of Tom's argument that France would do better to re-embrace the classics they're known for, rather than think they're being edgy and au courant by adding ginger to the crme brle, I'd agree.
I don't know about that. Sure it may seem desperate to come late to the party and do a poor job of latching onto trends. But 'sticking to the classics' is never a particular good idea for success in my view. Things are always moving, changing, and updating, and you need to reinterpret the classics in light of contemporary society (so yes, I don't hold literalist views about the Constitution either!).
From my understanding, French cuisine became famous because they had an extravagant court in the 17th and 18th centuries and it became modern when they developed systematized restaurant kitchens in the 19th and 20th centuries.
That's not going to be enough for the 21st century.
Thor, Thai cuisine is a demonstrable product of the Muslim world meeting the Chinese, among many other elements. The new wave of Spanish food is an interesting phenomenon-I would say that it's entirely rooted in french tradition except in the fact that those involved really do try quite hard to incorporate new elements, the thing at which the French kitchen has always been pretty bad, of which your gingered creme brulee is a good example.
There is no question at all that things have declined horribly in France in the last twenty years, mostly because younger people are more interested in doing other things. One could make a huge case for great cuisines being a result of sexual repression, and this is an aspect of life that has changed very considerably in France.
There is no question at all that things have declined horribly in France in the last twenty years, mostly because younger people are more interested in doing other things. One could make a huge case for great cuisines being a result of sexual repression, and this is an aspect of life that has changed very considerably in France.
If the standard is "who are chefs/food folk referencing?" it's rather obviously not, in favor of several sub-regions of Spain. There's a whole U.S.-centric argument to be made here that France was never the actual leader, given the prevalence of Italian restaurants, but that's a different issue.Oh, I'm not defending France. From my casual understanding of these things it seems clear that France is no longer at the top of the global culinary hierarchy.
I can't sensibly include Asian cuisines here because I think one ends up making entirely separate arguments about influence. So I'll restrict myself to European cuisines.
I can't knowledgeably speak to the former. The latter, quite possibly. When we were in San Sebastin, we had an interesting conversation in a pintxos bar with a French specialty food merchant (who gave me the grippe, but that's a separate complaint). He said, and I quote exactly, "we French think you Americans eat badly, but it's not true." There was some conversation, and then: "yes, you're right, we French think everyone who is not French eats badly, but people who say that haven't been anywhere and tried to eat well wherever they are." I think that's a general truism not at all specific to the French, but I also think there's something French about that belief that hamstrings their cuisine from both a chef and a consumer standpoint. I don't think the Great Chefs™ of France think this (and in fact, their actual words suggest frustration and angst over this issue). But I could also be unduly extrapolating from my own personal feelings, and wrong about everything.From my casual understanding, that is partially because of broader industrialization and economic changes have affected French lifestyles/consumption patterns. But also because the rest of the world has gotten a lot better.
Alas, I haven't read it.I was just curious about the arguments in the book.
That's a whole different issue, for sure. I find Michelin useful in France, but largely for a specific sort of cuisine. There's a whine in their London guide about how some specific restaurant's rating disproves the contention that they're rewarding only one type of cuisine. I believe I actually laughed out loud, reading it.I understand Steinberger has a lot to say about the specifics of Michelin restaurants, and I'm not very well versed in that niche market.
Italy seems to do OK. I would "rather" (a loaded term with exceptions) eat in Italy than in France all that often, for a lot of reasons that I expect you, as a non-meatitarian, might understand more than most. My suspicion is that clear classicism in certain venues would free others to move afield..."that guy down the street is doing the Auvergne classics, but here we're not chained to the same ideas." Instead, what I find is a whole lot of restaurants serving very minor variations on the same thing that don't actually improve that thing, and in fact serve to distract from the fact that they didn't do the "thing" as well as a classicist might.I don't know about that. Sure it may seem desperate to come late to the party and do a poor job of latching onto trends. But 'sticking to the classics' is never a particular good idea for success in my view.
I mean, I make a terrific grade B maple syrup crme brle that draws (so far) unlimited raves, but I don't think I'm moving Vermont cuisine into the modern era by doing so. I'm just changing the sugar source. It's not really all that interesting.
I'm all for reinterpretation. That's why I think what the Basques (and the Catalans) are doing is so interesting. That's not, in general, what the French are going. They're shuffling the pawns around, but it's still the same chessboard.Things are always moving, changing, and updating, and you need to reinterpret the classics in light of contemporary society
Don't you think that kind of elides the argument? I mean, it's a cuisine, and while like any other cuisine it has antecedents and influences (let's talk about the Italians and French cuisine, for example), it's a cuisine, and at its height I'd argue (you may obviously disagree) that it's a Great Cuisine. But if the argument is that Chinese is a Great Cuisine, then obviously Muslim cuisine is a net nefarious influence, because its presence has downgraded Chinese cuisine from a Great Cuisine to a lesser cuisine like Thai. Right? I mean, it follows logically.Thai cuisine is a demonstrable product of the Muslim world meeting the Chinese, among many other elements
I would agree if I saw French restaurants doing what the Basques are doing. I don't, so I have to think otherwise.I would say that it's entirely rooted in french tradition
originally posted by Tom Blach:
Mark, I'm not making a qualitative judgement, merely an evolutionary one
Tom,
I can't see how one can use the term "great" in the discussion of any creative activity without engaging in de facto qualitative judgment. That's a quibble, though, so let's focus on the more interesting contention below:
- though you are right about some Indian traditions, certainly, and I was guilty of thinking of cuisine as haute cuisine-of course no one can ignore the contribution of the Muslim world to all that you mention, though I am no expert on Peruvian food.
The Moghul traditions in India are, of course, directly traceable to the Muslim influx, so we give them biryanis and various cream- and lamb-based dishes. The Spanish are the other big cultural influence, having given India (and much of the rest of the world) the chili pepper, tomato and potato. I'd be interested to hear further discussion about the cross-cultural influences present in Thai cooking, which I'll point out is far from monolithic, having at least three distinct regional variations. For instance, to whom do we ascribe the use of coconut oil/meat/milk, keffir lime, galangal and lemongrass if not the Thai or their antecedents?
Mark Lipton
Doug Padgett
Doug Padgett
Tom's point about French and Chinese cuisine, as I understand it, seems an old one to me. As an undergrad in a Proust class (or maybe a French symbolists class) with a wonderful old prof. named Wallace Fowlie, we were given a version of that argument: of all the world cuisines, only in France and China has food risen to the level of fine art, comparable to music, painting, dance, etc. (Is that what you mean by evolutionary?) Other cuisines remain something less by comparison.
Fowlie, as I recall, like Rahsaan, referenced the French and Chinese courts as the prime movers of cuisine, pushing the development of sophisticated palates among the elite eaters. And Fowlie also linked the great artistic movements of 19th/20th cent France with Parisian food at the time. I can remember in class, people pointing out to him that Italian food was great too. Yes, he said, but it's not art.
I've seen the argument many times since and I always think of Fowlie. Maybe he was right in some sense, though I never really bought it. It ignores too much (India, as noted, and Arab cultures too and the great cuisines of Mexico) and Fowlie, at least, fixed cuisine in the past, implying no possibility of further innovation or influence.
Certainly, the more I travel, and the more phở and tacos and tamales and adobo and sambars and barbeque I eat, the less I agree. Or, at least, the less I think it matters.
Fowlie, as I recall, like Rahsaan, referenced the French and Chinese courts as the prime movers of cuisine, pushing the development of sophisticated palates among the elite eaters. And Fowlie also linked the great artistic movements of 19th/20th cent France with Parisian food at the time. I can remember in class, people pointing out to him that Italian food was great too. Yes, he said, but it's not art.
I've seen the argument many times since and I always think of Fowlie. Maybe he was right in some sense, though I never really bought it. It ignores too much (India, as noted, and Arab cultures too and the great cuisines of Mexico) and Fowlie, at least, fixed cuisine in the past, implying no possibility of further innovation or influence.
Certainly, the more I travel, and the more phở and tacos and tamales and adobo and sambars and barbeque I eat, the less I agree. Or, at least, the less I think it matters.
I would dispute that that influence is Spanish-Portuguese certainly, but the potato is undoubtedly a British introduction, and one of the few that is regarded as entirely positive by the entire population. I never cease to astounded by the love my indian in-laws show the potato.
As regards Thai food, of course every culture uses the material at hand. I love Thai food and indeed have cooked and studied it for many years. I nevertheless do not think it a great cuisine, but when asked why I am unable to answer easily-it just seems like one of those things I know, which I accept is pretty poor and I should devote more thought to the subject. It's something to do with it not being seminal, though.
As regards Thai food, of course every culture uses the material at hand. I love Thai food and indeed have cooked and studied it for many years. I nevertheless do not think it a great cuisine, but when asked why I am unable to answer easily-it just seems like one of those things I know, which I accept is pretty poor and I should devote more thought to the subject. It's something to do with it not being seminal, though.
Doug Padgett
Doug Padgett
originally posted by Thor:
Doug, I should add that I really agree with you: it doesn't really matter whether something is a Great Cuisine or not. Too much is too tasty from too many places to care, even as much as we've been doing in this thread.
Thor, that's really what it's about for me, without a doubt.
originally posted by SFJoe:
You can't argue it for influence, but for great dishes I have to mention Oaxaca.
The rest of the argument I can't get out of bed for.
That's an unarguably sound position.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
originally posted by Thor:
So far, the Monoprix is proving to have better seafood than any of the specialist vendors within a similar radius, and that's both kinda sad and fairly revealing.
Thor, that is frightening. I never venture over to the 7th/15th, but surely you can do better than Monoprix?
Here's a start:
Marchs alimentaires.
originally posted by Thor: My suspicion is that clear classicism in certain venues would free others to move afield..."that guy down the street is doing the Auvergne classics, but here we're not chained to the same ideas." Instead, what I find is a whole lot of restaurants serving very minor variations on the same thing that don't actually improve that thing, and in fact serve to distract from the fact that they didn't do the "thing" as well as a classicist might..
I can sort of follow the logic of this argument. Which is interesting. And probably testable.
But my intuition says that the reason people are not doing the "thing" as well as a classicist is because their rent is too expensive, or they want to make more profit to take vacation in Majorca, or whatever.
So save money by purchasing frozen sauces, or pre-baked bread, or what have you. There are a lot more cheap shortcuts available these days and I think if they were available 20-30-40-50-60 etc. years ago people would have used them then as well. Sclerosis or no sclerosis.
No, no, I've had that list for a few months, and have already used it, but I'm not generally in the habit of buying my fish three or four days in advance. A flaw, I suppose. Undoubtedly, the problem is not in the mongers but in my inability to adjust to the European "no, you can't have the thing you want today" mindset. I'll deal.Thor, that is frightening. I never venture over to the 7th/15th, but surely you can do better than Monoprix?
Here's a start:
Marchs alimentaires.
Everything else I've been able to find good and very local sources for. Fish has been iffy. For example, the scallops everywhere but the Monoprix the other day were...well, I'd call them unsaleable, and any more than that would get me sued in more litigious countries.
Just for that, you're getting an all-Monoprix meal when you stop by. Pre-packaged ham slices and week-old tarts for all!
Really? I don't see how that follows. I mean, sure...shortcuts abound, but making a really good dish of thin-sliced potatoes and dairy products isn't that expensive, and I don't see how adding cinnamon sticks and skimping on the potato quality improves things to the extent necessary to pay for Majorca.But my intuition says that the reason people are not doing the "thing" as well as a classicist is because their rent is too expensive, or they want to make more profit to take vacation in Majorca, or whatever.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
Oh, I'm sick tomorrow, actually.