Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
This Sunday at 3 pm I’ll be at Chicago’s famed Steppenwolf Theater for a discussion with Grant Achatz, not only one of the foremost proponents of The New Cuisine, formerly known as Molecular Gastronomy or Avant Garde cuisine (more about terminology later), but arguably its best American practitioner. Grant was flipping burgers professionally before he was a teenager. I met him when he was a line cook at The French Laundry in 1997. I devoted a chapter to him in my last book, The Reach of a Chef. His has been a compelling trajectory to watch in the American Food Revolution. We’ll be talking about this New Cuisine (I’m skeptical about a lot of it), about where it may be going and why, as well as a subject that continues to fascinate me: the chef in the age of celebrity
Details on event in The Chicago Sun-Times.
Interview of me in Chicagoist (one of Grant to come).
Michael Nagrant, a freelance writer, runs a site I like a lot, hungrymag.com—details the event as well as links to his podcasts of interviews with me (listen to how good pork belly confit SOUNDS—you don’t have to see it or smell it to know how good it is!) and with Grant.
Some well-known chefs recently said that “Preparing and serving food could be the most complex and comprehensive of the performing arts.” Fitting then for a chef such as Grant to take the stage of one of the country’s best performing arts theaters. Happy to consider topics/questions for Grant here for anyone planning to attend.
Thanks for posting the links to the interviews. Awesome. And it was cool to listen to you cook as you talked.
JoP
You neglected to mention this guy is a cutie patootie. (Sorry, I’m from Texas. We say things like that about our chefs down here.)
Okay Michael, I’m going to bust your balls a bit.
I just tried to listen to the podcast of your lunch with Michael Nagrant and Jesus man, what made you think that anyone would want to listen to you guys chat about food while you ate?
I mean, I could hear the food moving around in your mouth while you were chewing.
Yuck!
And did I hear you say that the first time you heard of confit was from a chef in Cleveland?
bob,
parker bosley was the cleveland chef who first described confit to me,1992–i even went out and got the ducks myself (the man who raised them them also delivered firewood to my house yesterday,i’m glad to say, fine man, ray rullo). YOU were the one, you pretentious bastard, who advocated half pork fat in your confit, which i at first thought impressive but now realize was was just you’re being a tightwad chef, as pork fat is cheaper, but less flavorful than duckfat.
you swine.
Tightwad? Perhaps. But I believe i used pork fat bec. i never had enough duck fat for the quantities I had to make. Often I’d have to confit the legs for up to 10 cases of duck (120 legs)and there was no way to render enough duck fat for that.
For smaller quantities of confit I always used the fat from the animal I had butchered. (I suppose I never told you that.)
Of course I suppose I could have bought duck fat from someone, but then that would have driven up the food cost. So touche mon frere! Tightwad I must be.
“Look at Rocco Dispirito. Now he’s pitching cars. It’s the latest example in what I like to call the “great chef tragedy.”"
So very aptly put Michael. Sad, but a true.
“Look at Rocco Dispirito. Now he’s pitching cars. It’s the latest example in what I like to call the “great chef tragedy.”"
So very aptly put Michael. Sad, but a true.
I, like you Michael, am skeptical about this whole avant garde cuisine so I will be curious as to what comes out of your discussion with Chef Achatz.
I really enjoyed the Nagrant interview link. I am one of ‘those boors’ that followed a link to this page to read Mr. Bourdain (my crush is reknown – I got multiple links to your site), but what you have to say is witty and engaging. This interview is a great example of things I get to ponder and think about because you’ve shared your ideas.
I’m just a regular wife and mom who took over cooking when I was ten because I couldn’t bear to eat one more spam sandwich or chewy, grey piece of steak out of my mom’s kitchen. That was almost thirty years ago, but I’m no chef — yeah, I do love growing, buying, preparing and serving great food. Yes, I probably work really hard at being mediocre. Although hopelessly bourgoise, I do prefer natural or heirloom ingredients, try to support local growers and am reasonably educable.
So thanks for the blog, even a home cook like me devours your ideas (and preparing meals three times a day, seven days a week, I need inspiration sometimes). It’s becoming part of my routine.
I read an article a while back that Grant’s starting to move away from Progressive/Molecular/whatever you wanna call it. I’d be interested to hear more about his motivations for that and where he’s going with his new direction.
You often return in your work to the theme of is it/isn’t it ART. But I don’t understand the way you use these terms. First of all, to say that something is ART is to imply that it isn’t its opposite – which perhaps we can call artisanship. I would say that whereas art by definition has fundamentally no purpose other than itself and its own existence (which is not the same as saying it has not value), artisanship is primarily functional, utilitarian, but can be secondarily decorative, or have some meta qualities. A gargoyle on notre dame, for example, is primarily for helping to drain away water – that it was created by some of the best stone workers of the time – and so also beautiful – is not beside the point, but is not the point itself either. Ditto the wood carvings in the old cathedral in Barcelona – stunning work, but done by artisans, not artists. It has a function: either structural, ornate, or part of the church narrative. It was commissioned as much for this function, as it was for the craftman’s aesthetic ability. It is not primarily functionless – as would be a Henry Moore sculpture, for example. You can’t ascribe ‘beauty’ as a function. That’s not to say that the two can’t merge. But there seems to be an insistence that ART is worthy and the non-art is – what? Spurious? Merely utilitarian? [Incidentally I think a lot of this "what's it good for" reflex came from the puritans during our British civil war - and was inherited gladly by our pondly neighbours.]
Second of all, why is the labeling of something as ART in American culture so superior to labeling something as artisanal? So many seem obsessed with these labels – something is ‘artistic’ or ‘creative’ when it’s nothing of the kind. But the label carries its own, spurious kind of weight.
One possible definition of ‘Food as Art’ could be that it carries not some aesthetic goal (or has crossed an invisible line judged by the self-anointed), but that it actually carries NO NUTRITIONAL PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. You hear Pierre Troisgros talk about MG cooking, and you’ll hear him talking about a lack of classical balance or digestability. In contrast, at the 2006 Madrid Fusion conference, Adria said: ““maybe one day people will come to my restaurant not for nourishment, but for an intellectual experience.”
So maybe that is the key. But it would be interesting to think about how or why this notion of ART as a be-all and end-all superlative keeps being used by those who don’t want to be labled as its opposite, when it seems to me that artisans have created a significantly more beautiful world than artists have, if only by the value people ascribe to what they have created.
I see he is pretty cute too
.
Darn, would love to hop a plan to Chi for that one. Will it be recorded? Bet it’s going to be compelling as hell.
annie, i believe the local npr affiliate will be taping it.
moby, too big a comment to respond to fully on a thursday morning. i was especially interested in your comment about why we want to label something art. i think more than anything, I’ve simply resisted labeling food as art because it was thoughtless and meaningless. i want people to think about it, i want people to be able to give clear reasonses as to why food and cooking can be an art.
Moby
I really liked your musings on art and food. Intimations of narcissism and egocentric self- indulgence moved to the side for a moment: you remind me of myself on those days when my brain is working.
Yet I think that your discussion was a bit more comprehensive than it needed to be.
A simple syllogism should settle the question of whether or not food can be art.
A) Any thing or human behavior called “art” communicates with the observer i.e
“it speaks.” Therefore,
B) Any food that speaks is art, and
C) Since not all food speaks,
D) Only some food is art.
It naturally follows that because it is a human behavior cooking that speaks is art too.
Of course I understand that assumption A gives me away as a product of the late 20th century and drops me right into Andy Warhol’s lap. But what of it? Do I really need to dial my definition of art back to include all the ways it has been defined across all of the centuries? Jeeze, I hope not.
Reductionist, philosophical clap-trap? Maybe.
Moby
I just recognized a small problem in my syllogism. I think that any food, or any thing for that matter, will find someone who hears it. Someone it speaks to. So by extension all food is art.
Now while I don’t have much of problem with thinking that all food is art, it’s not very fair to the people who are working like beavers to create existential food and dining experiences.
So I think that I have to add the notion of “high vs low art.” Both speak, but not with equal clarity, eloquence and value.
High art is more obviously full of stuff that in low art may be muddled or missing. In high art we can see evidence of the creator’s high technical skills and awareness of the historical antecedents of the form. There is also tremendously persuasive evidence of the creator’s care for the form. Some people say that in order for art to be high art, there has to be a complex message, but I don’t agree. There’s a lot of great art out there that seems to be saying nothing more or less than “look at me” or “eat me.” -No offense intended
From the dictionary:
art:
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
Michael, my apologies to your morning. I hope it was recoverable.
Bob – I was trying to narrow the scope of the term art – because it’s over used to such a degree; but also comment on its poorer but actually much more successful cousin, artisanship. (Keller is to the American Ballet Company what McDonalds is to Britney Spears etc.)
A beautifully crafted piece of furniture can ’speak’ to people, but it’s not art. Great architecture can speak to people. Also, not art. But this doesn’t denigrate what those things actually are – we should stop using ‘Art’ as the final complement. It isn’t. A baby cow, cut in half, dipped in formaldehyde and placed in a glass display case – presently owned by the Saatchi gallery – now THAT is art (and I’m not discussing the value of the piece, just the designation). Guernica by Picasso is art. And even the recent piece Piss Christ (you can google it) is Art.
What it isn’t, is dinner.
But a chair is a chair. A building is a building. And a steak is a steak, no matter how ethereal your bordelaise sauce might be. ‘Speaking ‘is beside the point. All human endevour might communicate something to that person willing to listen.
I would suggest that Art is something else, and not the aspirational complement that people use it for.
Dave – I wouldn’t take a dictionary definition of art too seriously, as I wouldn’t take one trying to describe haute cuisine. It’s a lowest common denominator at best, but not much more. Anyway, my apologies for the length. Thanks Michael.
To talk about art is to talk about god. As soon as you start to define it you start making mistakes.
(and I have a BFA which I only mention to underscore the amount of times in class, out of class, sober, not… that I have pitched an arguement on one side of this conversation or the other).
It holds true for food as much as painting.
As far as Achatz goes, I’m just coming to terms with the performance quotient of his food… it’s there… then it’s gone. Wha?
Moby,
I think that it’s useful intellectual exercise to to try to narrow the definition of art (or any word for that matter) but at some point you have to return to its broader meaning to get real clarity.
(Which is what Dave Loomis did when he pulled out his dictionary.)
For example
While I agree completely that “Piss Christ,” “Guernica” and all the other examples you mentioned are most definitely “art” I’ve got to take exception to the idea that a dining chair, a building or any overtly utilitarian object must be described as “artisanal” objects and not art.
Take Warhol’s “Brillo Boxes.” When that work first hit the market, it was widely regarded as not real art but commercial art. Nothing more or less than over sized eye catching packages for Brillo. Nowadays they are widely regarded as real art. What changed?
Well I’m no expert but I think that as more and more people looked at those boxes they began to see that they were no ordinary Brillo boxes. These were boxes that had been meticulously hand crafted, and exhibited by someone who was obviously trying to send a message. They began to hear those boxes speak in a loud and clear voice. (I’m not going to go into message here. I don’t have the time.)
And there are plenty of chairs, buildings, toilet bowls and every type of utilitarian object imaginable that are or may become art if your accept the idea that I earlier but clumsily laid out, that anything can be art if it shows that the creator possessed technical mastery, awareness of historical antecedents and it provokes a the observer to muse deeply about it and it’s meaning.
(I’m not sure I made this latter point clear.)
Josh-
On the other hand, perhaps you are correct when you wrote that any attempt to describe art sets you up for mistakes. But then again I think that the meaning of any word becomes intangible when you think deeply about it. And I think I know why.
Written words are nothing more than symbols that stand for ideas and objects. Same for spoken words, which are sounds that allude to ideas. So the bottom line is that all words are metaphors that only indicate what we are thinking, not the thoughts themselves.
So any attempt to describe reality is always going to fall short of the mark. It kind of sucks.
OK, michael now you are saying that pork fat is not as good anyway. I’ve been doing it half and half because you mentioned something about it in your Charcuterie book. You need to recant that statement in your next edition.
never meant to imply pork fat wasn’t good. properly rendered from a good ohio hog, i’d have a warm shot of it to start the day.
but it’s more neutral (and neutrality is can be part of its effectiveness) than duck fat.
I forgot to add that I was using it in confit. If I was making duck confit should I use all duck fat then and for pork belly confit should I stick to pork fat?
for duck confit, all duck fat is best, for pork, all pork.
Ruhlman:
What about squirrel?
i don’t see why squirrel wouldn’t make a great confit (you’d need to use pork fat though) and rillettes.
M.Ruhlman, thanks for this opportunity. I will be in the audience Sunday and I have just read The Reach of a Chef which I enjoyed. Here are a few questions that maybe you would consider.
Do you and or Chef Achatz think the CIA in Hyde Park will in the near future include an “ out-there-food “ class, which would teach the uses of Agar, Aliginate and foams?
In the chapter Edge Cuisine: Grant Achatz, he recounts the meeting of American Chefs at the Barcelona airport. Where upon he meets Wylie Dufresne, Suzanne Goin and Chicago’s Paul Kahan (freaky they met up on that particular day). In which they take a bus ride to El Bulli. Would Chef Grant elaborate a bit more on that dinner and event?
We are having a bit of a blizzard this afternoon, should clear up by Sunday.
Squirrel: The other gray meat!
I’ll be honest; I don’t think I have ever partaken of any rodentia, even rabbits. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be willing, but I’d rather not try roadkill stew or on a stick in some third world country. I’ll leave that to Tony.
Is Tony still picking ass out of his teeth from the Namibia episode? Or is he now picking teeth out of his ass?
>>What about squirrel?
>>Squirrel: The other gray meat!
All the tree rats around me have about .04% body fat, you’d *have* to make a substitution. Just sayin.
Veron
I think the primary reason that Michael made the comment here that using pork fat for duck confit was ill-advised was that he was trying to break my exiguous nuts.
In any case you should use whatever you think tastes best and not trust his judgment. He is after all, just a writer.
“But a chair is a chair. A building is a building.”
I disagree…as do most involved in the arts community. The Toledo Museum of Art’s new Glass Pavilion is a great example of architectural art, a building that is “more” than just a building. http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/arts/design/28sana.html
“There’s a lot of great art out there that seems to be saying nothing more or less than “look at me” or “eat me.” -No offense intended
”
None taken.
Some curators call this kind of art “eye candy” in a dismissive way. In my view, that is tremendously short-sighted.
“Some curators call this kind of art “eye candy” in a dismissive way. In my view, that is tremendously short-sighted”
I could not agree more. Think about paleolithic cave paintings such as the ones at Lascaux. I’m not old enough to have been around when they were created, so I can’t really know what the painters had in mind when they put them up. But I’ll bet that at least some of them were only intended as decoration or “eye candy” and can still be regarded as such. But they are also great, great art.
As for curators and art critics. Well, time is the best test of what is and isn’t great art. I think it’s pretty rare for a curator to “prove” great art and have that proof outlast his/her lifespan.
Jeeze, I’m no great fan of Norman Rockwell but few critics and curators were calling his work fine art during his lifetime. And now the majority consensus is that Rockwell is a master. It’s nuts.
BobdelG –
. Well I did order a ton of duck fat as well as visited our local butcher for some globs of pork fat for rendering. I’m excited to stir up my concoction in my fat vat.
“Well I did order a ton of duck fat as well as visited our local butcher for some globs of pork fat for rendering. I’m excited to stir up my concoction in my fat vat.”
Coolio Veron!
“I disagree…as do most involved in the arts community. The Toledo Museum of Art’s new Glass Pavilion is a great example of architectural art, a building that is “more” than just a building.”
The museum is a great source of pride to those of us here in Toledo. Glass, Jeeps, Mud Hens, and Packos. ( an ethnic and gastronomical feast like no other.) It is an important part of the University of Toledo’s art program. A real treasure.
“Think about paleolithic cave paintings such as the ones at Lascaux.”
Great example, Bob…thanks. I’m going to use that one in future discussions.
My point is being misunderstood. I’m not talking about art so much as I’m talking about the pollution and denigration of language. Calling a museum “a great example of architectural art” is to say that “a great piece of architecture is linguistically or culturally insufficient. It is not. Words have a meaning. Architecture (or carpentry or cooking or book binding) has a meaning. It has a value system.
It’s like saying “a great example of architectural poetry.” As a use of language it starts to become ridiculous. The same goes for food, for chairs, for anything which in any sense can be considered as functional.
Saying that a building (or a chair or a gargoyle or rubber boot for that matter) becomes artistic by being in some sense great is only to debase both the building, the person who designed it, the passion of architecture and the substance and meaning of art.
The fact is the meaning of ‘art,’ as an expression, has become degraded to almost being meaningless by these sorts of assignations. Great architecture has its own realm, its own means of expression, it’s own values. By calling it art, you are only debasing the language, not increasing the value of the object you think you are complementing.
Moby
I think that from the outset your point was pretty clear -to me at least. But I’m not on wholly on board.
I agree that it makes a whole lot of sense to recognize that each
mode of human expression should be judged according to a unique, endogenous criterion. But I’m not comfortable with the idea that taking the finest examples of each and calling them “art” debases their value and the degrades the word.
But what the hell. If you want to call Michelangelo’s David “art” and his Medici Tombs something else, there’s certainly no harm in it. But I’ll bet you’ll raise a lively discussion.