David Chang himself throws me for a Strange Loop. On the one hand he is a genius and I'm so intrigued by his take on food, but then he'll talk about how he loves gas station hotdogs or orange chicken from Panda Express. I love that he can be pretentious in his unpretentiousness.
If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend the PBS series The Mind of a Chef. The first season is all about David Chang, narated by Anthony Bourdain. It's on Netflix and at least the Ramen episode is on Daily Motion.
I've always held that if you don't enjoy something across a wide range of the spectrum on which it exists, you can't really call yourself an enthusiast.
If you say you're a sushi connoisseur, but you only like top-shelf sushi prepared by world renowned chefs, then you don't really like sushi. You just like nice things. If you say you're a wine aficionado, but you will only drink wine that you've read is good, you don't really like wine.
Does a steak enthusiast need to enjoy a thin cut of pure gristle, cooked until it’s blackened on both sides? Or a haut cuisine “deconstructed steak” which can be eaten in one bite?
Does a coffee aficionado need to enjoy a cup from the local 24-hour diner which was made by over-extracting cheap stale beans and then leaving the pot to sit on a hot pad for hours? Or a cup of instant coffee mixed with non-dairy creamer and two tablespoons of sugar?
Would a code connoisseur need to have an aesthetic appreciation for a corporate 500 kloc Java project that does nothing useful?
* * *
Someone who is deeply satisfied to eat anything called “sushi” is just a very hungry person, and someone who has an insatiable thirst for every type of wine is an alcoholic.
Or in other words, there’s a big gray area here. There is a very wide range of quality in most things, from «entirely unpalatable and probably poisonous» to «divine once-in-a-lifetime experience», as well as a wide range in particular tastes and preferences. Different people have different standards, and that’s okay.
One group of people can like student art films with no action and long philosophical monologue voiceovers by entirely unlikeable characters. Another group of people can like superhero movies with a predictable plot, flat characterization, and lots of explosions. Both groups can plausibly say they like “movies”.
Your reaction to the parent says more about you than the point the parent was trying to make.
>[If] you only like top-shelf sushi prepared by world renowned chefs....
>[If] you will only drink wine that you've read is good...
Both of those are examples of a second-handed appreciation for the subject matter. In the first case, the person is substituting pricing signals and reviewer opinions for their own independent judgement. In the second case, the person is not only substituting reviewer opinions for their own judgement, but also denying themselves even the opportunity to learn how to judge the subject.
An enthusiast or connoisseur is a person with a first-handed view of a subject. In order to develop a first-handed view, a broad understanding of the material, associated topics, and direct experience with the full breadth of a subject is necessary.
In the case of sushi, the enthusiast needs to understand the varying quality of sushi available, methods and techniques of preparation, the flavor profiles of fish, the effect of garnishes and sauces, and so forth. You can't appreciate great sushi until you understand bad/mediocre/good sushi.
In the case of wine, the enthusiast should have extensive experience with wines at many price points, understand the production methods, understand types of fermentation, know the various types of grapes, and so forth.
In my experience, enthusiasts for a specific topic are almost never snobs. I've met beer enthusiasts who don't necessarily enjoy common beers, but they are nevertheless in awe of the production process and uniform quality. I've met wine connoisseurs who dislike many $30 bottles but generally enjoy $2 wine from Trader Joes (aka two-buck-chuck).
It's amusing that you had to even respond - both commenters simply painted two extreme strawmen, both worthless:
* A snobby connoisseur who refuses to consume nothing but the very best in every category (The implication not that their palette is ACTUALLY so well-refined, but rather that they refuse to give anything "lesser" the time of day)
* A ravenous addict who consumes absolutely anything (The implication not that they are low maintenance and preference-less, but that they are driven by almost mental illness)
I'll add the point that if all you've ever eaten is the best of the best, you don't really appreciate something as much as if you've experienced the middle or lower ends.
Anecdote: I dry age my own steaks, and I've realized that people don't really appreciate them as much as if they're eaten side by side with a "control" steak that's unaged.
Similarly to your dry aged steak anecdote, I has two bottles of the same brand of port, one aged 10 years and the other 20. The 10 year tasted great to me, but once I had it alongside the 20 year, I realized the 10 year had a somewhat unpleasant aftertaste which I hadn't noticed drinking it on its own.
I don't know what to even say about this. But I think the point was that you don't necessarily have to be "deeply satisfied" by a whole range of things, but realize that there are good parts of just about everything. Not to mention there was probably a little hyperbole understood in there.
For example: I love beer and consider myself a beer enthusiast. I've brewed it and know all about just every aspect of it. I have traveled to remote monasteries in Belgium to try excellent beers, and enjoyed drinking Dos Equis on a hot summer day by the pool. Most self-described "beer snobs" look down on beers like Corona and the like in favor of some "craft" IPA. Dos Equis isn't my favorite beer, but I recognize its good qualities and when a situation calls for it.
I think the poster was just saying that enthusiasts enjoy many aspects of something across a wide range and don't have to gravitate toward only the "divine once-in-a-lifetime" things.
My point is it’s fine for a “connoisseur” to only like sushi made of the freshest highest quality fish, perfectly cooked rice, real wasabi, etc., prepared by a specialist and eaten immediately, at a $$$$ restaurant.
It’s also fine for a different “connoisseur” to enjoy store-bought California rolls made from imitation crab and left sitting on a shelf until the rice is stale.
It’s overly reductionist and pretty patronizing to insist that the former doesn’t really like sushi while the latter does (No True Scotsman, and all that).
* * *
P.S. The mainstream brands of Mexican beer are pretty good. Most of the big Mexican breweries were started by German immigrants in the mid-19th century, and there is now a long beer tradition there. Corona’s extensive marketing to the US about tropical getaways and lime slices, etc. has nothing to do with their product or their brand in Mexico, and I find it fairly silly, but it was extremely successful.
>>My point is it’s fine for a “connoisseur” to only like sushi made of the freshest highest quality fish, perfectly cooked rice, real wasabi, etc., prepared by a specialist and eaten immediately, at a $$$$ restaurant.
I disagree for two reasons. First, it is important for any connoisseur to experience a wide range in order to truly appreciate the items on the finer end of the spectrum. Someone who only eats high end sushi is a pretender, not a connoisseur.
Second, low-end restaurants sometimes contain amazing dishes that any connoisseur may enjoy. Similarly, cheap wines have won blind-taste competitions before, even when they were pitched against high-end, expensive wines.
>it’s fine for a “connoisseur” to only like sushi made of the freshest highest quality fish
There are quite a few chefs who believe the best sushi is from fish that has been 'curing' in the cooler a few days.[1] not necessarily the freshest fish. That's because the fish takes on more flavors as it ages. The notion of fish needing to be fresh is more prevalent in north American than it is in Japan.
Remember, some of the first sushi quality fish were flown over in planes back in the early '70s as a way for JAL to make money on the cargo hold of their planes.
I think the number of replies to this is because the basic point is almost correct but not conveyed quite correctly.
If the post said "...if you CAN enjoy something across...spectrum..." it would be more accurate. You don't HAVE to enjoy something across a wide spectrum, you just have to be open to the possibility and have given it a try. If you aren't open then exclusion from 'connoisseur' etc is probably granted.
I submit that a 'snob' is someone who holds contempt for someone who is not knowledgable in their area of interest. A 'geek' is someone who is excited to teach others about their area of interest.
I contend that a snob is a person who has an articulable reason why they don't like something. Hopefully this isn't too obscure of a reference, but for example I don't like Primus not because they suck, but because I don't like the drummer's snare sound. This makes me a snob about Primus' music.
Your view runs counter to the dictionary definition of snob, which includes a strong negative connotation:
1. a person who imitates, cultivates, or slavishly admires social superiors and is condescending or overbearing to others.
2. a person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field.
In the first case, a snob substitutes the views of the social elite for his own judgement. In the second case, a snob declares himself a member of the social elite because he holds different views. In both cases, what makes the person a snob is that they are not judging the material qua the material; indeed they are not concerned with the material at all. Instead, they are concerned with social advantage.
I'm not sure there is a word for someone who judges a subject based on the merits. An enthusiast?
Your view runs counter to the dictionary definition of snob
I'm fine with that.
If you want to make "elites" a foundation for a definition, you might as well just roll both of those up into "bourgeois," thought #2 is arguably more "asshole."
For me, an enthusiast might be someone who finds reasons to be into something (the opposite of my def of snob), but I don't think there's a word for simply liking stuff that is good. "Not completely depressed," perhaps.
that is a fantastic gauge and one i live by. for example film critics: if you do not appreciate most films that you watch, then you are in the wrong field.
I have a $3k espresso machine but I also love gas station coffee -- there's something about it sitting on a bunn burner for probably 6 hours that adds something to the flavor, or maybe I just associate that flavor with super-early-morning travel, getting up to pick up a friend at 4am, having the blearyness stripped back by the caffeine.
Nice things -- like fancy coffee makers -- are nice, but so are other things.
I dont see a dichotomy in that at all. Nostalgia has great pull. His household didn't have great cooks. Eating hot dogs and other fast food isn't about the taste per se, but rather the whole they represent. So, yeah, he can sincerely enjoy a hot dog, just like the nine year old David enjoyed a hot dog with his family. As an adult, who is a renowned chef, he can also summon other more culinary aspects and gastronomy to enjoy more sophisticated aspects of eating.
A lot of commoner food (like ketchup and soy sauce) would be revolutionary if they were discovered today. Ketchup is the perfect blend of umami (tomato), salt and vinegar. Soy sauce goes well with most anything. Many of the fancy sauces you pay bank are not as good as soy sauce or ketchup. They become common because they are sooo good but also a little boring once you get used to it.
Combining orange and chicken is simple but powerful because they are favorite foods for many people and they have completely different flavor profiles (of course orange chicken could be executed better than Panda Express!).
Sometimes the only real problem with "commoner food" is that, being commercialized, they lose variety, which can lead to that boredom you speak of.
Take ketchup. From what I understand, a century ago, making homemade ketchup was a lot more common, and there was quite a bit more variety in the spices used. (This old cookbook -- http://digital.lib.msu.edu/projects/cookbooks/books/settleme... -- has three recipes for "catsup" on page 439-440 alone.) One of my great grand-aunts regularly made ketchup in Indiana, and it was very different from commercial ketchup. A fair bit runnier (no xantham gum), a fair bit "sweeter" (it used regular sugar instead of corn syrup / HFCS which may have contributed to this), and nice notes of garlic.
Commercial store bought ketchup, meanwhile, unfortunately seems stuck either being Heinz ketchup, or imitating Heinz ketchup.
Interesting. Ketchup is actually one of the products that I'm most picky about. When I come to store, I have a choice of 5 - 20 different varieties (depending on the store size); each of them tastes different, every company has a different idea about its consistency (some are dense, some are almost as thin as tomato juice). If they've lost variety, they must have done that over an orthogonal variable I don't even realize could be a spectrum.
My mum always made her own ketchup. I distinctly remember helping as a kid - picking the tomatoes, washing them, hand grinding them and stirring the pot. The whole house would smell deliciously of tomatoes all day long. A sauce evoking that memory would have a strong impact on me.
This is slightly off-topic to the main, but related to things with David Chang in...
The HBO series 'Treme', set in a neighbourhood of New Orleans post-Katrina, prominently features David Chang playing a fictionalised version of himself. One of the main characters spends the second season working under him in New York. Quite odd.
Orange chicken at Panda contains wheat, soy, egg, and dairy products. [0] These are all things that are commonly used in fast food to thicken up the taste. Wheat, soy and dairy also have a small element of physical addiction from opioids - it's not just that people like the taste of these things.
Much like us software engineers - don't we like to dabble with embedded, memory limited systems, up to heavily distributed who knows where on earth machines. Or from real-time, to long heavy batch jobs.
Or at least I like reading about the whole spectrum, not only part of it.
He's also an enormous asshole. He refuses to make anything vegetarian, even though everything is prepared to order. E.g. the spicy noodles at the noodle bar just have some crumbled sausage sprinkled on top, but if you ask for the dish without the sausage he will kick you out of the restaurant.
I'm not even a vegetarian, but there's no reason to go out of your way to be a dick towards people who are actually making a considerable personal sacrifice for the benefit of others.
¨Considerable personal sacrifice for the benefit of others?¨
It´s his restaurant. You knew it coming in. He´s not an asshole, he cares about how his food tastes. If you´re not willing to accomodate his wishes, maybe make another considerable personal sacrifice and not go into his restaurant to be served in the way you want. Last I checked, his restaurants are always full. Why would he want your business?
My take from the article was that he actually cares about how people experience the food that he makes. Still, vegetarian cooking is hard. Doing justice to vegetables within a restaurant workflow is hard. Very few restaurants can pull it off. If he simply feels that he can't do it justice, he's probably right. Those things might be regarded as the province of home cooking.
Yep. In order to make a vegan dish that matches the complexity of a meat dish, you essentially have to recreate the entire life of an animal in a kitchen in a single day. You need to create the same complexity with heat, knife, and diversity of ingredients that the animal would've created over months and months of metabolism and grazing. It's extremely difficult, and there is a reason people prefer to just throw a piece of meat on the grill rather than risk their hand at plant-based cooking.
An entire falafel sandwich begins to approach the complexity of a simple fried egg, but doesn't even quite get there. And a chicken can create an egg in a day.
I say all of this lovingly, as a long time vegan. I have a lot of respect for animals.
I am vegetarian (leaning mostly toward veganism) myself and this seems a bit of an overkill... Would you mind explain this a bit more or posting a link to some resource explaining this? I am curious.
Happy to explain more. Let me know what part seems unclear.
An example:
The cow chews grain. The vegan chef grinds it.
The cow ferments plants and seeds in its stomach. The vegan chef ferments in her crock.
The cow extracts sugars, fats and proteins, via her metabolism. The vegan chef uses presses and filters.
The cow measures salt with her thirst, and integrates proteins and sugars in her mammaries. The vegan chef measures with a teaspoon and integrates ingredients in a blender.
The cow tills seeds under the earth with her hoof. The vegan chef presses them into the garden with a finger.
Meat and animal products are the output of the lives of animals. The inputs are plants. Vegan cooking is recreating this work in a consensual way.
Yeah, ok - excepts that, first of all, non-vegan cooking has more or less the same steps. I.e. you can still decide that your steak needs some more salt, or spices, I never heard of people eating their beef "unflavoured" because the cow measured salt by thirst.
So what triggered my curiosity was that you were presenting this like extra work needed for vegan dishes only. Maybe I misunderstood.
Sure, you can do things to meat to make it taste better. But just applying heat and salt to a nice piece of meat gets you pretty close to the most delicious possible thing you could put in your mouth.
Maybe I can put it this way: Meat starts at an 8, and you can add complexity to get it up to a 10. But a dry soybean starts at a 0. You can get it up to an 8 by doing a lot of vegan chef work. Or you can get it up to an 8 by letting an animal turn it into meat. My point is that someone has to do the work to get it to an 8. If it's not an animal, it's got to be the chef.
I think a good takeaway is "within a restaurant workflow".
Once you start allowing people to customize dishes, it throws service off and makes things exponentially harder to coordinate. "This dish is vegetarian, going to table 6, along with the gluten free entree." Removes the fungibility from the dishes - with the volumes he's doing, it's a lot easier to say "3 pastas ready" and not give special instructions to the line chefs.
I hadn't thought of that, but it's a good point. I was thinking more in terms of the vegetables being palatable by the time they reach the table. It's a rare restaurant that can pull it off.
I like David Chang but this is textbook hipster affectation. What distinguishes hipsterdom is the penchant for both high and low brow tastes. Drinking PBR and whatever microwbrew is popular in the locale that week. Nothing new or unique about this.
If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend the PBS series The Mind of a Chef. The first season is all about David Chang, narated by Anthony Bourdain. It's on Netflix and at least the Ramen episode is on Daily Motion.