The basic question is, seems to me, how do you define "authentic," putting aside any specific instance.
In the first place, almost all ethnic cuisines are drawn too broadly. We say "Indian" or "Chinese" or "African" as if these were monolithic wholes. In fact, each of them is composed of a diversity of cultures, cuisines, and worldviews.
Why is it that we don't say "European?" Simply because we recognize the differences between French and German; English and Baltic; Italian and.....whoops. Now we're back to the basic question. Is there a French, or a German, or an English, or an Italian cuisine? Of course not. There are, within each of those countries, regional differences.
Looking to identify those regional differences, what we find is not so much specific recipes (although those certainly do exist), but, rather, an approach to preparing food. How is it that the people in X province look at the preparation of available foodstuffs, and how does it differ from the people in Y province?
There is another aspect of the problem. In any specifically identifyable regional cuisine we recognize that each housewife prepares a dish slightly differently, doing something that makes it her own. Not only do we recognize these differences, our tendency is to applaud them. Why, then, are we unwilling to make the same allowances for a restauranteer?
So, perhaps that's really the answer. "Authentic" is whether or not the cuisine in the restaurant reflects the outlook of the ethnicity it purports to portray---given the constrictions of available foodstuffs and the taste-orientation of the customer base. If it does; if the menu is true to the culinary outlook of the ethnicity, then I, for one, would call it authentic.
Last edited by KYHeirloomer; 06-29-2007 at 02:26 PM.
|