I thought I addressed your concern in your first paragraph in the first paragraph of my previous post.
Your idea of “inventive” cuisine is not what I am talking about for contemporary cuisine in Paris. In fact, I have noted above that there is no equivalent in SF, NY, London, and probably almost every place outside of France or Japan that I know of.
How I miss John Talbott’s writing.
I think I did understand what you were saying @onzieme…Just was saying that the kind of “tourist” you are describing can be found in any culture, in any part of the world, so to make disparaging generalizations about people here on H.O., even if there are some of us here a bit timid about eating out of the box, just doesn’t feel good, if one happens to be a member of that culture. And I agree with your characterization of “For many people visiting Paris…” etc., but my point is that you could easily substitute New York for Paris in that sentence, and it would still be true.
So, okay, fine to criticize people who only go to “trad” places in Paris (though as I read, I think there might be some disagreement about to what that that term refers), but maybe better to nudge out into trying something new or different without putting down someone who only knows about “traditional” French food from reading or eating their hometown version.
And oh dear, @Steve, I did not mean to imply that I was only eating burgers in Carp, I was poking some fun at Julia Child as deified, rarified, exemplar of French food! So hard sometimes to tell tone in written communication. Here it feels like you are defining “trad” French as one thing, and @onzieme is describing it as another, unless I am misreading again?
Ah, interesting, so here we get to defining the terms…“inventive” cuisine is not bound to a culture? You are positing it seems that “modern” is not culturally bound, but “traditional” is. I think that might not be right. Modern/Inventive French food is clearly different than Modern/Inventive Chinese food, no?
Unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean with inventive cuisine, I don’t think I agree with this. Look, for example, at the Nordic cuisine, made famous by restaurants like Noma (Copenhagen), Koks (Faroe Islands) and DILL (Reykjavik). I would say that’s contemporary and inventive, yet it’s all about local ingredients and using what’s in season. It very much has a sense of place.
Well, I might as well “weigh in” here (waistline pun intended), if for no other reason than to confuse people about which Steve is which (I’m the Brooklyn one, with the R last name). At any rate, there seem to be quite a few tangents running simultaneously on this thread, with no way (or desire) to address them all. Suffice it to say that I think I agree with the bulk of what various people are saying but have some quibbles around the edges on 2 specifics:
As for the back & forth on broader posting questions, I understand that we all have our feelings vis a vis what we would like to see written on the board, but no discussion board has ever managed to meet each of our wants. I prefer to just accept that folks will say what they will (how they will) and try to get what I can from their content & opine only on anything I think relevant to a food discussion, while basically trying to ignore the other “stuff”. I, personally, don’t see anything to gain in doing otherwise. And, yes, I don’t always succeed in following my own advice. Like this paragraph, for example. 
All this is kind of mind numbing, why so many words to say simple things. As a long time lurker here and on CH, on my own I can apply the proper “windage” to opinions stated here. You do not need to protect me from other posters!
What I will say is:; If you have chased Parn away from posting here, you will not be forgiven!
Totally agree. What is now called ‘inventive’ cuisine is an international style that’s more or less defined by the wish to be distinguished either by Michelin, or the 50Best, or Instagrammers, and is exactly the same the world over. It has, as you say, no sense of place, except for a few local touches thrown in, preferrably ‘foraged’, because that is part of the kit, but not in a way that really gives you any sense of the place where you are eating.
(post deleted by author)
This is a good example, for ‘New Nordic’ is not Nordic at all, if we consider its origins. It was created some years back from the interactions of non-Scandinavian consultants and spin doctors with tourist boards and is only very minimally based on any Nordic food culture or tradition, although it does borrow on the practice of foraging which is done the world over. And it worked beautifully on an international level, but it is not a good example of a cuisine that gives you 'a sense of place".
After Scandinavia, the efforts of these consultants were directed towards South America and particularly Peru, but they were not quite as successful, precisely because there was not only a tremendous diversity of ingredients, but also a strong awareness of a local cuisine whose ‘sense of place’ couldn’t be erased by the new guidelines. Also because there was some local resistance to that, from local food scholars among others.
(More about these subjects in the fascinating writings of German journalist Jörg Zipprick, in which is collected his intensive research of ‘modernist’, ‘molecular’, ‘tecnoemocional’ and ‘New Nordic’ cuisines, their roots, their backgrounds, and their origins.)
So maybe we could agree about some subtle difference between “inventive” cuisine, which people seem to understand as less culturally based and “modern” cuisine, which people seem to see as being tied absolutely to one culture or another? Maybe, in the latter case, it could be a couple of cultures melded together–I’m thinking about a slew of modern French restaurants in Paris that have all kinds of Asian influences?
Well, you know, in terms of food, I like everything. That sounds like banging into an open door, I know, but that’s pretty much my credo. I truly had my mind blown by Ferran Adria’s menus, but I loathed the various knockoffs and the trend that followed. I can be extatic about good traditional fare or very inventive/creative stuff, as long as the latter is really that: creative, not the reflect of a trend. These two concepts, which now everyone blends together, are actually opposite to each other.
As for ‘modern’, I sincerely never managed to understand what the word really means. I cherish a quotation of Ronald Searle’s about food: “When it’s good, it’s always new.”
Ultimately, my goal is to expand my own knowledge of the local cuisine wherever I go.
In terms of France, I encourage people to explore the traditional but not the familiar. If you are traveling, try foods you can’t get where you live. Those are some of the best meals of my life, and they don’t include French Onion Soup. No, it is not better in Paris.
So go ahead and seek out modern Michelin stars if you want, but I suggest getting to know the real cuisine it is based on, not the cartoon version you find as you get further from the source.
Beautifully written, Carmenere. It expresses so much of what I feel, better than I could. Plus you have introduced me to a wonderful quote that I will cherish.
Part of that quote speaks to the idea I have long recognized: we often have a misplaced idea of creativity. It is not reserved for an unusual pairing, like grapefruit with chicken livers. When a chef creates a sublime experience for the eater, that chef infuses even the most traditional dishes with their own invention.
It is like acting. There is the dish you are preparing, and there is a chef. And what is created can be a third entity, which is neither simply the traditional food nor the simply the chef’s own handiwork. The same when an actor portrays a role that might have been written years ago and performed by many others before.
The actor does not have to create new words in order for the creative process to have an effect on the outcome.
You both say it so well. I was also thinking before I read @Steve’s post about the creative process in theater. Specifically about the first act of Sondheim’s “Sunday in the Park with George.” It is creatively about the creative “artistic process,” and somehow, through it’s creative score/artistic creation allows us to witness the birth of an old technique (pointillism) as it is thrillingly being born. And we are presented, at the end of the act, with the extraordinary achievement of seeing Seurat’s famous painting of a slice of Parisian life in thrilling 3-D, a totally modern, creative interpretation set to music.
You probably could even extend that thought to the 2nd Act & use it as an example of “modern” gone haywire.
Ha ha! I was trying to stay safe, but I’d have to agree with you there.
(post deleted by author)
I understand and appreciate what you are saying and how it can be your point of view. But very few of us had the opportunity and luxury of experiencing Adria’s food in situ. To deny legitimacy to all homage to and subsequent derivatives of his concepts is to deny millions of diners access to his ideas, and allow only a privileged few in on his creativity.
I am thankful to all of the young chefs who have cooked incredible plates for us, standing on the shoulders of those who went before them, as they insert their own individualities into iconic dishes. Because a concept can become iconic, there will always be “trends”, since each chef exerts his thinking onto what went before. For me, “new” is greatly overrated and often obscures close assessment of excellence, as we are taken in by what is clever. I am content with food that is simply delicious, “sigh inducing”, regardless of how many other chefs have tried it before.
That’s not exactly my point. I meant to say that the style of restaurant cooking that Adria created (with the help of a shady influencer who wished, as in earlier periods of the 20th century, to materialize “the food of the future”, please allow me not to develop on that), was initially a scam of sorts, but a scam in which there were true bursts of genius. It just happened to be so. Like an accident, somehow. Now take out the genius, and you’ve got the scam, and deliciousness definitely wasn’t the matter. Whoever would like to experience what I’m referring to can try the remaining ‘tecnoemocional’ restaurants on either coast of the Iberian peninsula, and see what I mean. At any rate, I’m not going back to any of them. (It never really caught on in France, again I won’t develop on why it never did.)
Of course, no relation whatsoever with the wide-ranged collection of ‘young chefs’ who have cooked 'incredible plates" for you, that is a completely different matter. I am referring to something specific. Not all of these young chef you refer to cooked in that style, or ‘trend’. Very few of them, I’m sure.
(However, the result of inflation and of the terrifying rise of product costs have somehow inspired some of the more recent ones to dive back into the ‘trend’ for cost control reasons, and I’ve seen a bit too much of that in France these last few months. Hopefully it won’t last too long.)
