What did you eat last night for dinner?

[Piobaire]



"But if we cannot decide which of two mountains whose peaks are hidden by clouds is higher than the other, cannot we decide that a mountain is higher than a molehill?"

But first you much teach them to look up.

 

[itsstillmatt]



hmmm, how do you draw the line between fetishization and "pomp"? i mean, for some people, those plates that you put up are pure pomp ... i think they're beautiful, but i think you have to admit that it's beauty for beauty's sake. or am i completely misunderstanding your use of "pomp"?

I'm not sure the answer to that question. I guess it falls under the category of what I cannot verbalize well, and where the lines of demarkation exist. I also have to look at my pictures to see, because there are certainly some that fall on the wrong side, and I mainly know that by what it feels like to sit there at dinner with my wife while I'm eating them.

 

[mordecai]

Beauty is a fine goal as long as it is well conceived. I can't think of a dish that Matt has shown wherein its visible aesthetics would interfere with or damage the quality of flavor, or cause one to question the method of eating it. There is a distinction between using the visible beauty of ingredients to create something, and of fetishizing the aesthetics of theose ingredients, making them seem as though their presence on a plate means something on its own. Not sure if that makes sense.

 

[foodguy]

so it seems like what we're getting at is at what point does fetishization cross the line from enhancing the original intent to obscuring it? that's a really fair question, but to a certain extent, it's one that is only answerable by the individual. someone whose only experience of eating is sandwiches might well look at one of matt's plates and say WTF? Those of us who have eaten a little more broad-mindedly look at it different.
in a way, this is a very fashion-oriented discussion. it's like the difference between runway fashion and what is actually sold. push the envelope too far, and you're just demonstrating where the limits of the envelope are. or maybe suggesting the possibility that they haven't yet been reached. i know very, very good chefs who loathe the very idea of el bulli (and no, they're not all named alice waters). some appreciate it in the way a writer might appreciate that french novel that doesn't include the letter "i" (or somesuch). some actually find it enjoyable. or so i've heard.

 

[gomestar]

I had a New York style taco salad.

 

[Fuuma]



I don't think he is leaving out that room. I am having trouble putting words to what he is saying, but I think he is drawing the distinction between the fetishization/fascination of/with food (which he doesn't condone but knows exists inside the historical framework of our society) and the fetishization not of food but of pomp, which he sees as more related to greater societal problems. It is where the spectacle exceeds everything. Maybe I am wrong, but that is what I read. Maybe I read it that way because the increase in spectacle is what makes me eat less in fine dining restaurants now than at any other time (see comments on wine pairings in wine thread.) In all honesty, while I might not agree with his personal lines of demarcation, I do agree with the sentiment.
tldr version: he is complaining about silk sweatpants silkscreened with faux-denim texture and not about stacking obsessions.

Something along those lines. In a very pragmatical manner I have to say I don't want food to be the topic of conversation during a meal unless it is done in the most passing manner "duck is delicious!" "nice plating!", want to avoid logistical problems that act as similar roadblocks (how the **** do I eat this? What is it anyway?) and prefer the whole thing to be experiential (in the moment) rather than about remembrance (about documenting, storing memories to be gotten out at a later date, etc).

 

[Fuuma]



so it seems like what we're getting at is at what point does fetishization cross the line from enhancing the original intent to obscuring it? that's a really fair question, but to a certain extent, it's one that is only answerable by the individual. someone whose only experience of eating is sandwiches might well look at one of matt's plates and say WTF? Those of us who have eaten a little more broad-mindedly look at it different.
in a way, this is a very fashion-oriented discussion. it's like the difference between runway fashion and what is actually sold. push the envelope too far, and you're just demonstrating where the limits of the envelope are. or maybe suggesting the possibility that they haven't yet been reached. i know very, very good chefs who loathe the very idea of el bulli (and no, they're not all named alice waters). some appreciate it in the way a writer might appreciate that french novel that doesn't include the letter "i" (or somesuch). some actually find it enjoyable. or so i've heard.

Letter "e": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Void

 

[foodguy]



Something along those lines. In a very pragmatical manner I have to say I don't want food to be the topic of conversation during a meal unless it is done in the most passing manner "duck is delicious!" "nice plating!", want to avoid logistical problems that act as similar roadblocks (how the **** do I eat this? What is it anyway?) and prefer the whole thing to be experiential (in the moment) rather than about remembrance (about documenting, storing memories to be gotten out at a later date, etc).

that seems to me to be a really practical approach and i don't mean that in a nice way. certainly, a dinner where nobody talks of anything but the food is boring. but at the same time, great food exists in a context and to ignore the context seems to be limiting the experience. just as an example: the other night i was eating at a not at at all experimental restaurant, and they had a really terrific dish of burrata topped with caviar, with some minced shallot, parsley and mimosa. it was absolutely delicious, but it was also interesting theoretically in that what we were eating was essentially a traditional caviar service in which the sour cream had been replaced by this creamy cheese. because of this different context, the relationships of the flavors were made clearer. So we commented on it and then went back to gossiping about people we knew.

 

[edinatlanta]



But first you much teach them to look up.

never gets old.

i am about to make some skirt steak burritos with a chimichurri sauce. however, i wasn't thinking at the store yesterday and got cilantro, not flat leaf parsley (NO EDINAPHAIL) but its still quite good. would benefit from some parsley instead though.

 

[Fuuma]



that seems to me to be a really practical approach and i don't mean that in a nice way. certainly, a dinner where nobody talks of anything but the food is boring. but at the same time, great food exists in a context and to ignore the context seems to be limiting the experience. just as an example: the other night i was eating at a not at at all experimental restaurant, and they had a really terrific dish of burrata topped with caviar, with some minced shallot, parsley and mimosa. it was absolutely delicious, but it was also interesting theoretically in that what we were eating was essentially a traditional caviar service in which the sour cream had been replaced by this creamy cheese. because of this different context, the relationships of the flavors were made clearer. So we commented on it and then went back to gossiping about people we knew.

I want to limit, well delineate the experience, food is talking too much space in public and private discourse. It has become this annoying sign of both worldliness and (affected) cultural capital. Something that has the potentiality to be social cement even bring about togetherness and should puts us in the present (you know those zen -when I drink I drink, when I eat I eat, when I talk I talk- sayings) is merely yet another tool of distinction AND of storing memories for later mental jerkoff coupled with list checking.

I understand that in a sense I am asking food to be like french service (almost invisible when done well) but we still taste it, no?

ps: I'm sorry that whenever I jump into food/coffee -coffee fanatics are the worst-/wine threads I keep circling the same theme instead of participating, I guess I should abstain as it is both impolite and outside the scope of such threads.

 

[itsstillmatt]



I want to limit, well delineate the experience, food is talking too much space in public and private discourse. It has become this annoying sign of both worldliness and (affected) cultural capital. Something that has the potentiality to be social cement even bring about togetherness and should puts us in the present (you know those zen -when I drink I drink, when I eat I eat, when I talk I talk- sayings) is merely yet another tool of distinction AND of storing memories for later mental jerkoff coupled with list checking.

I'm not sure the things you mention are mutually exclusive. They are in some contexts, but not in others.

 

[erictheobscure]



storing memories for later mental jerkoff coupled with list checking.

But these are a few of my favorite things.

 

[Piobaire]



Something along those lines. In a very pragmatical manner I have to say I don't want food to be the topic of conversation during a meal unless it is done in the most passing manner "duck is delicious!" "nice plating!", want to avoid logistical problems that act as similar roadblocks (how the **** do I eat this? What is it anyway?) and prefer the whole thing to be experiential (in the moment) rather than about remembrance (about documenting, storing memories to be gotten out at a later date, etc).

Having a strict set of parameters that a meal must fall into so as to not be this or that, or only this (experiential) is itself quite restricting. Saying that there cannot be different types/levels of food/food preperation and different reasons and types of meals limiting them to just one class of being. Some of the best meals in my life I cannot remember what I ate because of the company I shared it with, of the location/scenery, etc. Conversely, some of the greatest cooking I had was not only an in the moment experience but also a source for remembrance, not just for the food, but for the setting and company.

 

[itsstillmatt]

I had pizza for dinner last night, and when we ordered the waiter told us that if we added sausage to the pizza it would be called something else, and that something else was on the list of the top 100 things to eat in San Francisco. Is this what you mean? Honestly, from what I have seen the worldliness aspect of the phenomenon is something that seems like would be the case to somebody who hasn't seen the phenomenon up close, when the exclusivity is wrapped up in something very different. Not sure the word for it yet.

 

[foodguy]



I want to limit, well delineate the experience, food is talking too much space in public and private discourse. It has become this annoying sign of both worldliness and (affected) cultural capital. Something that has the potentiality to be social cement even bring about togetherness and should puts us in the present (you know those zen -when I drink I drink, when I eat I eat, when I talk I talk- sayings) is merely yet another tool of distinction AND of storing memories for later mental jerkoff coupled with list checking.
I understand that in a sense I am asking food to be like french service (almost invisible when done well) but we still taste it, no?
ps: I'm sorry that whenever I jump into food/coffee -coffee fanatics are the worst-/wine threads I keep circling the same theme instead of participating, I guess I should abstain as it is both impolite and outside the scope of such threads.

sorry, but the tl;dr version is: i don't like it, so it's wrong.
you could make the same argument about almost anything -- bands (can you dance to it?), books (does the plot move?), philosophy (ok, now that we've settled how many angels can dance on the head of a pin), and, certainly, fashion (does it keep my butt warm?). i would certainly never suggest that everyone take up food as a passion. but if you have that passion, i think you certainly should be allowed to enjoy it.