Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
I always thought the same thing about her (Guarneschelli). However, I saw an episode of Best Thing I Ever Ate, where she cooked something for her staff at Butter, and I was impressed with the way she interacted with the camera and the food that she prepared. I don't care for her show, and can't really stand her on Chopped.
I guess ferran adria also
What I was trying to say, before I got infracted upon, is that I hadn't heard of him prior to y'all talking about him in this thread, with the exception of seeing him as a judge on Top Chef. I had no idea he was actually a chef, and because of that, I had a negative opinion of him from having seen him on that show. Had I known he was a big-name chef, I'd have not "judged" him as harshly.
He seemed like a food snob.
He is, and rightfully so. As someone mentioned earlier, he is one of the top 2 or 3 chefs in America right now.
Just for the record, I did not issue an infraction.
Whilst you may not have known who the man was (and I don't know him at all) you made a slur against French people - or that was how I and others seem to have read it.
I must of missed something, cuz I have no idea what the controversy is about, and can't find the original source. Nor am I interested in rehashing it.
What this does demonstrate, however, is the validity of my comments regarding what makes a chef a celebrity. Under Eric's direction, Le Bernardin has earned 3 Michelin stars and 4 NY Times stars. In fact, it has retained those four Times stars for the 20-year life of the restaurant---a feat unmatched by any other restaurant in history. He has three other restaurants, and has written four books (counting the new Avec Eric)
So, while food writers, serious diners, and other chefs certainly know who he is, and his influence on the world of fine dining, it took judging Top Chef for his "fame" to spread. I have little doubt that Gobblygook wasn't the only viewer to not know who he was.
KY, I would take it a step further and say that some of the most talented chefs in the country (and even in the world) are relatively unknown to all but the most hardcore of foodies. For example, I was having a conversation with friends at dinner three nights ago and mentioned Jose Andres, and his influence on the use of small plates at American restaurants. All of the people I was talking to love to cook, but none of them had ever heard of him. We talked a while longer and one said "Wait, didn't he help judge an episode of Top Chef?".
I've not heard or Eric until this thread. But I have neither cable nor satellite so I don't see most of the shows talked about. Local PBS isn't carrying his show right now either. Maybe in a year or two when it's cheaper.
where oh where are the female chefs? please don't say rachael, paula or giadia...they are not chefs...no way, no how
Have to disagree slightly. As much as I dislike her style, Giada is classically trained, and worked many years as a personal chef. Hard to believe, I know.
That aside, there are many great female chefs, but few of them have reached celebrity status of the kind that's being discussed. A few that come to mind just off the top of my head: Ana Sortun, Mary Sue Milliken, Michele Bernstein, Shirley Corriher, JoAnne Weir, Sara Moulton, Durangojo, Lidia Bastianich,....the list goes on and on.
Sara Moulton probably comes closest to the rubric, as an early Food Network star, restaurant chef, cooking instructor, cooking editor of the Today show, and executive editor of Gourmet magazine. Donatella Arpia (sp?) also comes close, even though she's never, to my knowledge, had her own TV show. Lidia, unfortunately, falls into the "world famous in Krakow" category. Amazing, to me, how many foodies do not know who she is.
The most powerful influence on celebrity status remains television. And, unfortunately, women are generally chosen for that media not so much for their talent but on the basis of how well they fill (or spill out of) a D cup.
ky,
you sly old fox you...you're making me blush..you may be happy to know that i don't spill out either...but, back to the conversation. i know that there are many, many, many talented women chefs...guess i was just stating my amazement that they don't seem to dominate the airwaves like their male counterparts... could it be that the women chefs are actually doing the real cooking/teaching somewhere....making a difference rather than 'selling out' for big bucks to be celebs. i am a bit surprised with your like of giada....she is so dorothy, toto and so 'somewhere over the rainbow"...geez, you can practically hear the birds singing! everything is just so rosy all the time.....gag......oh yeah, i too always cook in a low cut cocktail dress and 4 inch heels...one more rant....when she squeezes a lemon, its practically a sex act.....double gag!!!
joey
I'm not really singling you out as this post may seem below. Just that Smith's cooking was very influential to me. His books remain some of my most used. We have very different taste in cooking shows it seems. Welcome to Cheftalk.
My all time favorite is Nathalie Dupree. I learned to cook from her PBS series. I dislike those who are merely combining ingredients - Jeff Smith (who seemed to rely upon his assistants for actual cooking knowledge) and Emeril come to mind in that category.
(snip)
I find I pay more attention to the "Every Day Cooking" chefs (a Martha Stewart production on PBS) than any others. I get more ideas for the type of cooking I like to do from that show than most.
(snip)
There used to be a woman on PBS, Ciao Italia, or something like that. I learned a lot from her too.
PS, I just looked it up. Ciao Italia is still on, just not our market I guess.
Mary Ann Esposito is her name.
(snip) How could I forget Martin Yan?? from Yan Can Cook.
Smith is who interested me in cooking and taught me to cook. I agree he didn't stress nor teach technique, but he did have it. The key to Smith in my view was he relished the food history and culture. Not the why's and wherefore's of cooking itself but how the food intermingled and celebrated the culture.
To say that Smith merely combined ingredients is to ignore the food that means the most to most of the world. It was often peasant and simple, but that's the core of all the great cuisines of the world. I wouldn't argue that Craig Wollam is arguably more talented in crafting or figuring out the recipe. But I still enjoy the youtube clips of Jeff Smith. He loved the food and was excited about it and it came through in the shows.
Every Day Food is a mixed bag to me. Some good, some mediocre and some bad. Outside of baking John is an idiot. Crap skills with the knife, poor knowledge. I mostly skip it now as they don't reflect what I want from a cooking show. It went downhill when they moved to the newer fancy kitchen and started costuming and makeup more for the cooks.
I watched a lot of Ciao Italia when i was first getting interested in cooking. It didn't take long though before she struck me as in over her head. I don't see much technique there even with the newer series being broadcast in my area.
Yan I enjoy watching. I don't cook from him much as he's adulterated and simplified much of his recipes in ways that don't usually work for me. His Chinatown cookbook is certainly an exception to that generalization as is Martin Yan's China. His later work is definitely his best.
Yan and Smith have had the biggest impact on my cooking of any TV chefs.
I probably watch more Lidia right now than anyone. She was one of the sources for Jeff's Italian cookbook so he knew where to go to get the best. Daisy Martinez was an assistant cook on Lidia's show for a while. Not that she ever got screentime. I liked her Daisy Cook's series and need to read her new book. Daisy does fill out her high intensity colored clothes, just to confirm some of KYH's observations.
I have a question for all of you. Do we in the US really care if the TV chef is presenting "authentic" ethnic food? I don't. All I care about is that it is good to eat!
Batali, Bastionich, and Bayless (3B's!) come to mind in this category. I mean some of those ingredients are things the US cook is likely to summarily reject. Like those dried fishes that Batali always seems to include. I want chefs to cook with things I'm likely to find in my market here in the US. OTOH, if it is truly delicious, I want to know about it. But authentic for authenticity's sake? I don't think I'm interested.
if my memory serves me correctly wasn't jeff smith charged with sexual assault on young boys?...like his cooking protege's.....never was a fan of his, but after that came out, i was so thoroughly disgusted...can only hope he's been rehabilitated, if you believe thats even possible, or is in jail using his whisk for something more useful than whipping young boys....
joey
The case against Jeff is interesting. Some assistant chefs, teenagers, made the initial sexual harrasment complaint. Finally 7 plaintiffs brought forth a civil case. Not a criminal case which raises certain doubts in my mind about their case. They settled out of court. Some info I ran across on line once indicated that the settlement was for 2.1 million dollars. Divided 7 ways and with attorney's fees, they settled for very little money compared to the travails of sexual abuse. And again, no criminal charges, no abuse charges, just civil harassment. I have no verification for that sum of money of course so it's just hearsay.
Jeff Smith died in 2004.
He may have a been a sexual scumbag, but his food contributions are not related to that issue.
I have a question for all of you. Do we in the US really care if the TV chef is presenting "authentic" ethnic food?
We've had a number of questions about authenticity and the consensus is that it's largely an illusion. Authentic to which grandma in which region and so on.
However, there are aspects of authenticity that have merit, generally as it impacts taste. Does extra virgin olive oil taste different that plain olive oil? Than canola oil? Then use what has the right taste for the dish.
It is in this regard that I dinged Martin Yan. He had simplified so much of the recipes (mostly in the early stages of his career) that they lack enough of the right flavors. However, he made some reasonable choices in that regard as availability of the "authentic" ingredients wasn't good for a nationwide audience. Similarly I have a Kenneth Lo cookbook from 1970 or 1971. it's very different Chinese cooking from anything today as he's adapting strenuously to limited availability. He picked dishes very carefully for their portability to the limited options.
And Grace Young in her latest cookbook (Stirfrying to the Sky's Edge) focuses on how the Chinese expats have integrated the local ingredients into their daily cooking to substitute for what they can't get. Is it authentic Chinese food anymore? No and she doesn't contest that it is, but that it is good.
Can you tell I like Chinese cooking?
Very good question here:
I have a question for all of you. Do we in the US really care if the TV chef is presenting "authentic" ethnic food? I don't. All I care about is that it is good to eat!
Batali, Bastianich, and Bayless (3B's!) come to mind in this category. I mean some of those ingredients are things the US cook is likely to summarily reject. Like those dried fishes that Batali always seems to include. I want chefs to cook with things I'm likely to find in my market here in the US. OTOH, if it is truly delicious, I want to know about it. But authentic for authenticity's sake? I don't think I'm interested.
I think this points to an important divide in the whole "celebrity chef" thing. I think celebrity chefs come in three varieties: authenticity mavens, teachers, and "talents."
With the word "talent" I'm referring to a phenomenon you see in many part of the world, in which the people who appear on TV constantly are there because they're there because they're talented --- which we know because they're there, and so on in a circle. In Japan, people like this are called "talents": they are people who are known for being that person you see on TV, period. They're all attractive in some way, but that's all you can say with any confidence. I think a lot of the celebrity chefs people here -- i.e. people who actually take cooking seriously -- can't stand are "talents."
Then you've got authenticity mavens: Batali and Bayless are great examples. Bastianich to some degree, though she does take New York Italian-American red-sauce cooking as an authentic style of its own, for which I give her a lot of credit.
Then you've got teachers, of whom Julia Child and Jacques Pepin are the greatest exemplars.
Now focusing on the question asked, you might notice that there is a lot of effort by what we might call the "food media" to locate all chefs in terms of authenticity. Some, like Batali and Bayless, eat this up and make use of it. I intend no criticism here: they're very good at what they do, and they are running businesses that do well when they succeed.
Gordon Ramsay, if you see the original British version of Kitchen Nightmares, constantly insisted that people stress authenticity, but in that case it largely seems to be an ethic of simplicity and directness: don't try to do 18 different cuisines in a mishmash, stick to your roots and cook straight. But Ramsay isn't actually averse to fusion, he's just saying that people who are basically totally incompetent and losing their shirts trying to run failing restaurants should stop trying to be cute.
But what about the teachers? If you pay attention and read a lot (and watch interviews and such), you may note that there is a lot of effort to locate Julia Child and Jacques Pepin in terms of "authentic French cuisine." I've seen remarks that it took years for Child throw off the "straight-jacket" of French cuisine. But she didn't and didn't want to: in her own view, she cooked basically French-style, adapted for what she liked and could get in America. Sure, she wasn't interested in those distinctively French fights about what is "authentic" bouillabaisse or cassoulet, but that's not "French cuisine" -- it's local fighting, town against town. Pepin has spent years mentioning to anyone who will listen that he isn't certain that he cooks French any more, but that in fact also he isn't quite sure what that's supposed to mean anyway, because la nouvelle cuisine so drastically altered all norms. And yet the "food media" insists that it's all about the authentic.
To my mind, this conception that authenticity is a mark of quality is extremely destructive of modern cuisine, in America especially. Notice how strongly racial this is, for example. Watch Chopped, Top Chef, and so forth, and notice who gets criticized for not being authentic --- sometimes marked as not "cooking with your roots." Who is it? Not white people with names like Smith. But god help you if your name is Chan and you don't draw on some kind of Asian flavors. Watch how Morimoto Masaharu is treated on Iron Chef: he's presented as the Authentic Master of All Things Japanese, the Wise Sage and so on. Morimoto? The guy was known in Japan, when he was on the Japanese Iron Chef show, for being weird, for not being Japanese, for being a fusion guy. He's Nobu Matsuhisa's protege, after all. He's the guy who served hot dogs on Iron Chef, when the theme was foods celebrating the Boys' Festival --- his argument being, "have you ever known a little boy who doesn't like hot dogs?" The judges thought that was pretty hysterical: here's "Iron Chef Japanese" serving hot dogs in honor of a Japanese folk festival! But Morimoto in the US is treated like Mr. Japanese.
Look at how "ethnic" foods drift in this country. These days, everyone has Chinese takeout available, more or less. So authenticity mavens started insisting that (a) that isn't real Chinese food, and (b) Thai food is better. Then Pad Thai showed up at the deli counter, and suddenly Thai food was less cool and interesting. Mexican food is basically divided into "authentic" and "what's served at any restaurant non-foodie white people might have heard of." But what on earth would "authentic" Mexican or Chinese food be? These are not monolithic places with narrow food styles or practices. The point of the label isn't whether the food is good or not, it's whether non-foodie white people know about it and whether the people cooking it are dark-skinned and staying in their appropriate place serving upscale white people.
So yes, in answer to IndyGal's question, apparently a lot of people in the US do care quite a lot whether something is or isn't authentic. On the whole, they care about this because they've been told to care about it. And they mostly use it as a way to (a) show their own special inside knowledge, (b) sneer at the proles who don't eat "ethnic" foods of certain varieties, and (c) assuage their own sense of white guilt by being able to tell themselves that they're at one with minorities because they eat the food.
As far as I'm concerned, the only value in the notion of authenticity with respect to quality arises when you have no idea what to do with something. Someone hands you a gobo root, a good thing to start with is to find out what people who grow and eat the stuff regularly have traditionally done with it. Try that, their way --- authentically. Once you know its properties, incorporate it into what you like to cook, however that works for you. Authenticity for authenticity's sake? IndyGal doesn't think she's interested --- whereas for me, I think it's despicable.
I would take it a step further and say that some of the most talented chefs in the country (and even in the world) are relatively unknown to all but the most hardcore of foodies.
No disagreement there, Tyler. We can all make lists, I wager, of great chefs that few others would recognize.
But Jose Andres? That's incredible. The man is the single most important influence on the small plates and tapas movement in America. Interestingly, he has had his own shows, such as Made In Spain.
i am a bit surprised with your like of giada....
Joey, you're misreading me. I have little use for her. Was just pointing out that, unlike the others you named, she is both trained, and has worked as, a chef.
you may be happy to know that i don't spill out either
Which merely explains why you don't have your own TV show. 
guess i was just stating my amazement that they don't seem to dominate the airwaves like their male counterparts...
Perhaps its just a reflection of the industry at large? Although we like to pretend otherwise, the fact is it's still a male dominated industry.
Ever watch Chopped? The judging (indeed, the very selection of contestents) is so biased against women you have to wonder why they bother having any compete---except, perhaps, as a way of setting them up to lose.
Oh My God! Chris. Do you really see the authenticity issue in terms of race? That's pretty scary.
Hmmmm, let's see. By your own words, those right at the center of the authenticity controversy (if controversy it is) include Julia Child, Jacques Pepin, Lidia Bastianich, Mario Batali, and Rick Bayless---brown skinned people every one, right?
Watch Chopped........notice who gets criticized for not being authentic
Hmmmmmm? Does anyone with the brains God gave a turnip take anything said by the Chopped judges seriously? Soon as they act consistently for two dishes in a row I'll start considering their comments meaningful. I mean really! Scott Conant as Worlds Greatest Authority! Gimme a break.
Authenticity is way overrated. At what point in history do we go back and say "That's when authentic food started"? If that's the case, then unseasoned meat on a stick over a fire is the most authentic food.
The only time the "authentic" moniker is acceptable, in my mind, is when talking about a very specific dish. For example, bananas sauteed in butter, brown sugar, and rum, served over vanilla ice cream is "authentic" bananas foster. Making the same dish with other various flavors means that, while made in the bananas foster style, it would be improper to call that variation "authentic". However, it would be foolish to say that the variation is not "authentic" New Orleans food, as there are hundreds of variations found in the city.
See the distinction?
Hang on, you're misreading me.
Oh My God! Chris. Do you really see the authenticity issue in terms of race? That's pretty scary.
Hmmmm, let's see. By your own words, those right at the center of the authenticity controversy (if controversy it is) include Julia Child, Jacques Pepin, Lidia Bastianich, Mario Batali, and Rick Bayless---brown skinned people every one, right?
Watch Chopped........notice who gets criticized for not being authentic
Hmmmmmm? Does anyone with the brains God gave a turnip take anything said by the Chopped judges seriously? Soon as they act consistently for two dishes in a row I'll start considering their comments meaningful. I mean really! Scott Conant as Worlds Greatest Authority! Gimme a break.
What the Chopped judges say is indicative of a lot of what I'm calling the "food media." They're mediocre at best --- and so are the vast majority of people doing this stuff. Some very, very good chefs capitalize on this authenticity business, some disdain it, some ignore it, whatever. That's a separate issue.
It's not precisely "race" in the usual American sense, i.e. melanin pigmentation and eye shape. But if your name is Antinetti you are going to get a lot of pressure to cook "authentic" Italian food because that's your "heritage" and so on. If your name is Smith, you can do more or less what you like and claim to be "celebrating" things.
Do you remember Top Chef #3, the one won by a guy named Hung or Huen or the like? The guy was a well-trained paid-up French chef, basically. Classical training and skills, very solid. When they did the competition at the French Culinary Institute, where they were handed a chicken and an onion and told to go be French, he just massacred everyone, because he knew what he was doing. Okay, now cast your mind back. Remember what the judges kept saying? Again and again, they told him that his problem was that he wasn't cooking from the heart, from his soul. He wasn't showing who he was, what he was all about, deep down. And it was totally obvious (and in fact explicit much of the time) what this meant: "Your family is from Southeast Asia, your mother cooks Vietnamese [or was it Thai? I forget] food, and you are cooking classic French. This is a lie: you must draw on Southeast Asia to be authentic." Now ask yourself whether the judges do that -- on any of those shows -- if the contestant is a white guy named Smith. In that same season, or perhaps the next, there was an Australian. He eventually got cut when they did this thing of cooking for kids, and he made curry, which the kids loved. They cut him, in significant measure because Tom Whatsisface and Padma Thing said, "but this is nothing like curry from South or Southeast Asia, what the heck is this?" And the guy basically said, "um, no, it's curry like everyone in Australia grew up on." "No," they said, "curry is from South and Southeast Asia, and if you cook it you must cook it authentically, and the fact that you don't know that tells us you are a bad chef." I was cracking up, because this guy obviously had no idea what they were talking about: from his point of view, he was doing exactly what they always tell everyone else of not-exactly-American descent to do, i.e. cooking from the heart, from his roots, from who he is. But his version of not-exactly-American doesn't count on that score because he's a WASP -- albeit one from the opposite side of the earth.
With normal foodie discourse, rather than TV shows, you get the same thing inflected differently. Much of it is snobbery: I know all about sushi, I know the names of all the fish in Japanese, I know the right way to dip this and that, I'm so clever and superior. Look up the phrase "sushi bullies" and think how these chefs get away with behavior like this -- behavior, by the way, that would have them out of business in Tokyo. But when "authentic" meets "ethnic," it normally also means cheap eats. Note the constant approval of the wonderfulness of street food, for example -- and the total unwillingness of those same foodie snobs to eat scrapple from a pushcart in NYC. But the "right" way to make, let's say, tacos is to be "authentic" about it: if the foodie snob disdains a local tacqueria as not "authentic" and therefore not good, chances are this is because the tacos do not match what the foodie takes to be the "normal" street foods of Mexico. Which means, conversely, that a good taco place is one that does not change.
Try this: Skim the web and look at food reviews of sushi restaurants -- not just published stuff, but blogs and whatnot. Skim widely. Look for the word "authentic." Correlate accolades and flames on this score with the chef's name. What do you think you will find? Right: an authentic sushi place is one with a Japanese chef, of course. Try it with tacquerias and the like too. Now think how Bayless does it: apart from being a terrific chef, he constantly stresses authenticity and the fact that he keeps going back to Mexico to get more authentic recipes and bring them back. What he's doing -- and very well, too -- is overcoming the problem of doing authentic Mexican without actually being Mexican, and at the same time he's re-packaging "authentic Mexican" so that it's expensive and upscale -- which last he would have one heck of a hard time doing if he were named Rodrigues and had a Latino accent.
You honestly don't see this, KYH?
Yep, Alton Brown gets my vote, too. The more a cook explains, the more I like. And boy does he try to explain. I like his corny jokes, too, and the funny chicken inhis kitchen. I don't agree with everything he does. But I do like how he has food scientists on his show.
I learned how to cook from television (Madeleine Kamman, Jacques Pepin and Julia Child all on PBS). In the 7th grade, I used to cut school just to watch cooking shows. This continued in college, too, when the TVFN made it's debut.
__________________
<a href="http://www.starscapes.com">business opportunity</a>
<a href="http://www.seomediasite.com">search engine optimisation consultancy</a>
I would take it a step further and say that some of the most talented chefs in the country (and even in the world) are relatively unknown to all but the most hardcore of foodies.
No disagreement there, Tyler. We can all make lists, I wager, of great chefs that few others would recognize.
But Jose Andres? That's incredible. The man is the single most important influence on the small plates and tapas movement in America. Interestingly, he has had his own shows, such as Made In Spain.
i am a bit surprised with your like of giada....
Joey, you're misreading me. I have little use for her. Was just pointing out that, unlike the others you named, she is both trained, and has worked as, a chef.
you may be happy to know that i don't spill out either
Which merely explains why you don't have your own TV show.
guess i was just stating my amazement that they don't seem to dominate the airwaves like their male counterparts...
Perhaps its just a reflection of the industry at large? Although we like to pretend otherwise, the fact is it's still a male dominated industry.
Ever watch Chopped? The judging (indeed, the very selection of contestents) is so biased against women you have to wonder why they bother having any compete---
except, perhaps, as a way of setting them up to lose.
lo siento ky...
you'd think i'd know by now to 'look before i leap'.... to reread the post before answering....have you read the tribute to michael batterberry in the new issue of food arts? real nice.....
joey
My new Food Arts arrived yesterday, Joey, and is still in the polywrap.
No matter how highly they praise him in it, though, it isn't high enough. The man will be sorely missed.
Thank you Chris. I had no idea when I posted this I'd get such a well thought out response. Lots of - ahem - food for thought there.
Chris, I don't get Bravo, and rarely get to see Top Chef. So have no opinion as to how or why they make comments.
On other competition shows I do see such comments. But when they refer to "roots" they are usually talking about how the contestent cooks at his/her home restaurant. A Latino cook, whose restaurant serves that kind of food, steps out of that box, and is less than successful. It's not an assumption that because the cook is Latino that that's his/her roots. It's that that particular cook normally cooks that way.
So, no, I really don't see it the way you suggest.
And, again, nothing said by any Chopped judge carries much weight with me. They're there to show off themselves, rather than to render any sort of fair assessment. If there's any attention to ethnicity and authenticity it's how it reflects the judges biases, not how they see the contestents'.
Chopped as far as I am concerned is all about creativity and imagination. Some of the combinations don' even sound good much less taste. As far as the
judges, I wont even go that route. I have done many test like this but at least the people who put the mystery boxes together, put items in it that would work together.
I suppose I'm on the other side of the spectrum, in regards to authenticity. I have no problem, and often seek out recipes that I look at as authentic. I think authenticity is often undeservingly berated in food forums, for many reasons. I can appreciate that no one recipe can be labeled as the only authentic recipe of a region. In fact, I believe that authentic cooking can be viewed as a living method that has changed throughout the many years as the people, terrain and harvest have changed in that dish...in that region.
When I seek out an authentic recipe I'm not looking for some magical single recipe that stands above all others. I'm looking for something cooked in the traditional method to a part of the world within a specific time in history. A pilaf is a great dish, but there are many things it is not. I love all food and can accept any and all variations. But (to me) there is a traditional method how certain dishes are cooked. Gumbo is made a certain way, paella is made a certain way, tamales are made a certain way.
I believe that a bowl of gumbo is a lot like snowflakes, no two bowls of gumbo are alike. But I do believe that you can request a recipe for an authentic bowl of gumbo without the idea being looked at as an impossible task due to the changing civilizations going back to the beginning of time. Is there an authentic Bolognese sauce recipe? While I don't know if you can say that there is only one correct recipe, but you can make it in a traditional method...or you could brown some ground beef and mix it in a sauce.
Authentic? Perhaps I'm off my rocker...but I'll continue to use the word in my posts 
dan
I don't think Chris is talking about whether or not a particular dish is or is not authentic, Dan. What he's discussing is his perception about the biased expectations of the people who host/judge cooking competitions. And, of course, the snobbery of foodies.
What he's saying, if I'm reading it right, is that the judges hold ethnic competitors to different standards, on the assumption that they cook based on their ethnicity. That a Latino is expected to cook latino food; a Vietnamese to cook the food of Viet Nam, etc. But that they don't have such expectations about mainstream competitors: An Italian can cook, say, French food, with no comment, or a German can cook North African, etc. His contention is that if they were consistent, and unbiased, the standards would be the same. A German would be expected to excell, automatically, in cooking German food. And so forth.
So, it isn't so much about authenticity as it is about bias and race.
Certainly there is some of that. Just because you become a judge on a cooking show doesn't mean you leave your prejudices at the door. From what I've seen of those competitions, however, I think he overstates the case at best.
And as to food snobs, I don't pay much attention to them at all. By definition they don't hold opinions of their own; they only reflect what is fashionable and "in" at any particular time. His discussion of "authentic" sushi is a perfect example. How many of the snobs he points a finger at would have, say ten or 15 years ago, turned up their noses at the very idea of raw fish? Now they're sushi experts (without even realizing that sushi isn't about fish at all). Next week, when a new fad comes down the pike, they'll become authorities on it.
All that aside, the problem with "authentic" is that I don't know what that means. As you say, it should reflect a particular style, an orientation to how ingredients are combined, an overall orientation to food handling. But, unless you draw the lines very tightly, you wind up with a meaningless phrase. What, for instance, is authentic Spanish food? The way it's done in Madrid? Or the way it's done in the Basque country? Which of the seven or eight or ten distinct approaches is "authentic" Italian? At what point does authentic Mexican become Tex-Mex, on one hand, or Mayan on the other?
Are "traditional" and "authentic" actually synonyms? If so, then Ferran Adria's dishes are not authentically Spanish. And the claims that Italo/American cooking is not authentic Italian would have credence---something that would upset my old Sicilian neighbors no end.
I've tried a few times to reply to this and every time, life seems to happen and cause me to have to go do something else. So, before the wife or kids come in, let me apologize for any insinuation felt by my post.
While French may be "the language of love", my ears sense sarcasm in the accent very quickly. For the record, German always sounds "mean" to me just because of the sound and accent. So, when I saw this guy as a food snob, the comments he made seemed to reinforce my sense of sarcasm and because of his accent, it was very easy to leave him in the "food snob" category. That is why it "didn't help that he was French". His accent registered negatively. Oddly, it's only the male French accent that seems so condescending. A female French accent is quite attractive. Of course, with my luck, I'll get told that I'm sexist against my own gender and get another infraction :).
Just for the record, I did not issue an infraction.
Whilst you may not have known who the man was (and I don't know him at all) you made a slur against French people - or that was how I and others seem to have read it.
I don't think Chris is talking about whether or not a particular dish is or is not authentic, Dan. What he's discussing is his perception about the biased expectations of the people who host/judge cooking competitions. And, of course, the snobbery of foodies.
Are "traditional" and "authentic" actually synonyms? If so, then Ferran Adria's dishes are not authentically Spanish. And the claims that Italo/American cooking is not authentic Italian would have credence---something that would upset my old Sicilian neighbors no end.
KYH,
I got a little off track reading a few other comments throughout this thread. In regards to the prejudices some judges may have, I don't much care. I can't change their view and can only accept or reject how they judge by choosing to watch their show, or not.
Are "traditional" and "authentic" actually synonyms? I don't know if I would stretch it that far. But to my thinking, authentic cuisine is better described by a method of cooking that is constrained to a region and time in history rather than picking/choosing/approving a particular recipe. In a broad scope you can look at a country or in a smaller, more particular view, you need to look at a region of that country...but I still think in terms of method and ingredients to the region/time rather than recipe.
You and others would be better qualified to interpret a chefs abilities than I am. But I don't see Ferran Adria as being defined as an authentic Spanish chef. There are many great living chefs in our time but I view few of them as pioneers (pushing the forefront, not necessarily the only first). I view Ferran as being a pioneer in tomorrows world cuisine, blending classical training with new techniques. But it is more than merely play and always true to the original flavor, regardless of change in texture or divergence from the usual temperature. To me (yes...who am I) I believe Ferran Adria has moved beyond being called an authentic Spanish chef.
Synthesis of elBulli cuisine...
:),
dan
"Authentic" is certainly an interesting word. While I really enjoy "Mexican food", I have no desire to eat "authentic" Mexican food. To me, beef means steak. In "authentic" Mexican food, they use far more parts of the cow than I have any desire to eat. I don't eat tongues, 'nads, or guts (offal). I like my "meat" cleaned the way I clean fish... discard the head and gut it. I appreciate that there are people who eat the parts I consider to be "trash", but that doesn't mean I intend to join them.
Likewise, "authentic" Italian food in the US seems to be what the big chains put out. Therefore, as an American, my view on what Italian food is, really isn't what Italian food is. We love our bolognese sauce, but best I can tell, a bolognese sauce is actually a meat ragout (or is it ragu'?) with some tomato, but not nearly the amount we've Americanized it into. I also have a feeling that our rendition of lasagna would be thumbed down really quickly as a horrible mockery of a classic dish.
While I find Lidia's Italy to be an enjoyable show and learn a lot from it, it's not knowledge that will serve me in an American restaurant. I think the biggest misconception is that Italian food is from Italy. You have to find a person who appreciates pizza to realize that there are regional pizzas. I'm not saying it's hard to find such a person, just that such a person doesn't talk about how wonderful Domino's is :). America has regional differences on many foods. For some reason, we lump "Italian" food into one big box.
Hi gobblygook,
It looks like our interpretations of the word and of the food is unique to each of us. Not right or wrong...just different interpretations.
dan
