Even better: less apple in small pieces > AMAZING!
Hmm.
(not a fan of most haute cuisine, since I understand it's highly specislised cooking and not about filling your stomach, it's about taste. But I suspect a lot of places are about serving less and charging more than actually upping the quality - having had the high end if you go to the not-that-much-cheaper places the quality drops, and not exponentially...:-/
So thus I prefer the more honest simple places, because then you know what you get, and don't go hungry!)
I cannot say that I have ever gone to any restaurant of any caliber and left hungry.
Haute cuisine is expensive to create commercially because it is very hard to find people who "get it" in a consistent way. There is dis-economy of scale because to really make it work, everyone in the establishment has to be on board, and that's hard to achieve.
There are definitely a lot of bad and expensive restaurants out there. I admire Tyler Cowen for pointing out that some of the finest cuisine in the US is to be had in inexpensive ethnic strip-mall restaurants. But in places that have real competition for quality, haute cusine principles matter a lot even if the setting is casual. Where such competition is absent, standards degrade quickly.
Haute cuisine is worthwhile precisely when and because it is "honest and simple". That is not the same as "easy" or "cheap", in fact it is nearly the opposite.
Must have been about 1970, I was on the Taconic State Pkwy at dinnertime, and got off at the first exit whose sign said food. It was a joint attached to a motel -- and it was wonderful. A little loaf of fresh-baked bread on a breadboard. The peas not overcooked. I overheard the headwaiter giving instructions, and it was clear that he was the one who had performed the feat of morale-building. He must have been down on his luck.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
snousle
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-08-10 12:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-10 02:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-10 02:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-10 03:23 am (UTC)Hmm.
(not a fan of most haute cuisine, since I understand it's highly specislised cooking and not about filling your stomach, it's about taste. But I suspect a lot of places are about serving less and charging more than actually upping the quality - having had the high end if you go to the not-that-much-cheaper places the quality drops, and not exponentially...:-/
So thus I prefer the more honest simple places, because then you know what you get, and don't go hungry!)
no subject
Date: 2012-08-10 03:38 am (UTC)Haute cuisine is expensive to create commercially because it is very hard to find people who "get it" in a consistent way. There is dis-economy of scale because to really make it work, everyone in the establishment has to be on board, and that's hard to achieve.
There are definitely a lot of bad and expensive restaurants out there. I admire Tyler Cowen for pointing out that some of the finest cuisine in the US is to be had in inexpensive ethnic strip-mall restaurants. But in places that have real competition for quality, haute cusine principles matter a lot even if the setting is casual. Where such competition is absent, standards degrade quickly.
Haute cuisine is worthwhile precisely when and because it is "honest and simple". That is not the same as "easy" or "cheap", in fact it is nearly the opposite.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-11 12:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-11 07:50 am (UTC)*NOM* *NOM* *NOM*