Quote:
Originally Posted by Brittany  which leads me to think that the majority of chefs don't have a clue as to what they are doing or talking about. |
I'm always reluctant to use the words "majority", "most," etc. without documentation. I don't know what kind of clue the majority of chefs do or don't have.
But keep in mind two things:
First: The title "chef" applies to anybody from the guy flipping pancakes in a chain restaurant, to the top kitchen executive in a 5-star restaurant. So the level of training, skill, knowledge and creativity varies greatly.
Two: Given that, and considering that chefs all stea... eh, borrow, from each other (how do you think food trends get going?), it's understandable that widespread misuse takes place.
Let's posit this scenario: A mid-level line chef picks up the misuse of a particular term. To use one of yours, let's say carpaccio. He watches Iron Chef and hears the term applied to, oh, a vegetable. Then he gets the opportunity to open his own place, or is hired as a senior chef in a different restaurant. He wants to impress. So he develops his own vegetable-based "carpaccio." He thinks anything thinly sliced and laid out on a platter is a carpaccio. And so, too, will anyone he trains from that point on. And the ripple effect takes over.
Who is to blame? Nobody you can point a finger at. It's part of the generalized dumbing down of culinary skills throughout North America. I recently went through 25 years worth of cooking magazines all at once. Seven or eight titles that I'd been collecting through the years. When you do that certain things glare out at you. One is the accelerating misuse of terms and techniques.
Another is the simplistic way many recipes are presented---with the recognition that today's audience is coming back to cooking, rather than growing up with it. But, at what point does "In a small pan, over high heat, saute the onions in a little oil" stop being necessary and become insulting? And when does ".....saute in a little stock" become acceptible usage?
Another is that few printed recipes are proofread---either that or they're not kitchen tested. Maybe both. But the fact remains that an incredibly high percentage of them contain errors in either the ingredients list, the directions, or both. Many of them misuse terms and techniques. Then other magazines pick them up (so much for the copyright laws), complete with errors, and perpetrate the crime.
The question is, how many people coming into the industry as chefs and caterers learned their basic skills from those magazines? Obviously we can't answer that question. But it certainly has contributed to the problem.