You have conflated two different conclusions. The conclusion that the chicken is dry might be objective. But his conclusion that dry is better than moist would be subjective because there is a vast consensus that moist chicken is better than dry chicken because it has more flavor. Do you not agree that moist chicken tastes better than dry chicken? In fact I don't usually order chicken at restaurants because it is typically dried out.
.
I am going to be offline until this evening so do not think I am being rde by not responding. That includes Habini's very good post which I will respond to as soon as I get back online.

Even after reading several pages of this thread, I’m still not sure what the point of the original post/idea really is? Are you lamenting the absence of a restaurant that is unwilling (or unable?) to use only the most high-quality (expensive) ingredients in their “ethnic” preparations? Surely these restaurants must exist somewhere – maybe in the most exclusive enclaves of Hong Kong or Mexico City, perhaps? On a certain level, isn’t this what is being pursued by Rick Bayless, or the implied aspiration of Arun’s (though, arguably not realized)? Is there any doubt that it CAN be done - achieving levels of nuance/refinement – even with “lowly” “ethnic” cuisine? Open one up, and I’m sure you’ll be the talk of the town for a week or two. I guess it boils down to what is the “point” of the “ethnic” restaurant – well prepared classics or risking the label of “fusion”? Other than that exploration, most of this thread comes off as “Hey, why don’t all you yokels just buy a Porsche, they’re sooo much better!”

I just wanna say one thing....while good, I prefer Thai from many ethnic restaurants than the dinner I had at NEXT.

Steve,

I'm no judge of tacos, but I am a judge of judging, and in my judge's judgment, you are a piss poor judge of tacos.

I assumed your chicken taco example was a joke -- I mean, the context of this whole thing is that you are a clear-eyed epicure seeing over the trees that obstruct others' view because you sit atop the shoulders of Gallic culinary giants; you have both the hard-earned experience and the God-given palate to distinguish the great from the good and see the bad for what it is. And, of all tacos, you eat chicken. The taco that hardly exists in authenic, good, or otherwise objectively relevant taquerias.

I don't really disagree with many of your conclusions. It's how you get there that is sometimes fascinating. For all your demands on others that they provide facts, your proof tends toward inherently unreliable anecdote from biased, second-hand sources as well as purported archetypal real-world examples that seem to betray a lack of sophistication with the particular cuisine at issue in the example.

That said, you've said a lot here, and it's certainly not all stage-chef scuttlebutt and flawed analogies. I should keep my mouth shut, because I'm just barely an observer here. I just thought using chicken as a benchmark for taqueros, the way a patisserie might be judged by its croissant, was too funny to ignore in the context of this thread. If the chicken thing was a troll, well done, I rose to it.

Dmnkly wrote:Are these not empirical facts (the food was prepared in this manner) leading to a subjective conclusion...?

Steve Plotnicki wrote:The conclusion that the chicken is dry might be objective. But his conclusion that dry is better than moist would be subjective...

Precisely what I've been saying! Glad that we agree on this point.

Dmnkly wrote:...because there is a vast consensus that moist chicken is better than dry chicken because it has more flavor.

Ah, well, perhaps not.

I submit to you, Steve, that your definition of "objective" -- wherein that which is and isn't objective is dependent upon on the vast consensus of informed opinion -- is not, according to vast consensus of informed opinion, the definition of "objective." But setting aside that irony and the fact that I've gone far too deep into this particular rabbit hole (for which I apologize), I believe I can work with what you've expressed to circle back in a manner that ties in to what JeffB and Habibi are saying, which is where I had hoped to end up.

It seems to me that this issue of objectivity (and what does or does not constitute objectivity) is a distraction from what you truly value, which is informed opinion. Clearly, you are extremely informed when it comes to French, fine dining, modernist cuisine and the like. I doubt anybody here will dispute that. And as such, you have a very informed opinion on those subjects. Yet you've made massive, sweeping generalizations here about cuisines like Mexican and Thai -- going so far to state them as fact, not opinion -- which is why the first question I asked was if you know how fish sauce is made.

You suggested upthread that almost all Thai restaurants are too cheap to make their own fish sauce. Do you know of any that do? I'm not aware of any though some probably exist. But presuming they do, why are there so few? My understanding is and has always been that making fish sauce requires multiple months -- often in the neighborhood of a year -- of fermenting in the hot sun (hence thaiobsessed's joke). It takes a very long time to produce and there are geographical and climactic constraints involved in its production. So your criticism of cheap Thai restaurants for using bottled fish sauce would be akin to criticizing a fine French restaurant for using bottled wine or purchasing bottled olive oil. Some ingredients -- like wine and olive oil -- are best left to those who specialize in them and produce them elsewhere. Sure, a kitchen could crush their own olives and ferment their own wine. But why do so when they can get a better product from somebody who does nothing but make wine or olive oil all day every day? Unless I've missed something quite remarkable, making fish sauce isn't something that's preferable (or, in many cases, even possible) for any restaurant to produce in house, regardless of cost.

Now, fish sauce is a cornerstone of Thai cuisine. In fact, it's arguably the singlemost important ingredient in the cuisine, and yet it seems that you are not familiar with how it's produced. This would be like somebody speaking to you in an authoritative fashion about French cuisine and telling you that you don't possess their knowledge when, in fact, they don't know that wine is made with grapes. If I've misunderstood, please correct me. But whether or not I am on this particular point, the general question holds, and it is this:

How informed are you about cuisines like Thai, Mexican, and others you have called less sophisticated and/or inferior, and if you are not highly informed about them, how are you in any position -- by your own definitions of informed opinion -- to argue their place in world cuisine with those who know even the most rudimentary things about them, much less some folks here who have spent a great deal of time studying them, eating them here and in their native countries, and cooking them, doubtless far more than you? In short, when it comes to Mexican, Thai et. al., on what basis are you in a position to call your statements informed opinion, much less fact?

To be clear, I welcome your opinions, however informed they may be. I'm interested in hearing them. It's just that you seem unwilling to allow your opinions to be subjected to the same scrutiny as you subject others', and that's really going to be necessary for there to be a constructive conversation, I think.

Dmnkly wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:Are these not empirical facts (the food was prepared in this manner) leading to a subjective conclusion...?

Steve Plotnicki wrote:The conclusion that the chicken is dry might be objective. But his conclusion that dry is better than moist would be subjective...

Precisely what I've been saying! Glad that we agree on this point.

Dmnkly wrote:...because there is a vast consensus that moist chicken is better than dry chicken because it has more flavor.

Ah, well, perhaps not.

I submit to you, Steve, that your definition of "objective" -- wherein that which is and isn't objective can change depending on the vast consensus of informed opinion -- is not, according to vast consensus, the definition of "objective." But setting aside that irony and the fact that I've gone far too deep into this particular rabbit hole (for which I apologize), I believe I can work with what you've expressed to circle back in a manner that ties in to what JeffB and Habibi are saying, which is where I hoped to end up.

This reminds me of music criticism. While certainly the vast majority of learned critics and fans would opine that Pink Floyd has more merit than Milli Vanilli, and would accuse anyone disagreeing of bad taste, ignorance about music, etc., it is still just an opinion -- subjective. There is no objective truth that one band is better than the other. Each listener has his own opinion, and each is equally valid.

Why is the original claim in this thread restricted to "ethnic" restaurants? If the claim is that most (relatively) inexpensive restaurants could be better by spending more on the food and labor inputs (which I don't fundamentally disagree with), isn't this true of the vast majority of restaurants, ethnic, non-ethnic, or otherwise?

Also, even taking the point that you could make better food by spending more, the claim that you cannot make very good food at (relatively) low cost is still suspect. In my subjective opinion, and the subjective opinions of many people whose food opinions I respect, you can spend $10 or less on very good versions of ramen, beef noodle soup, order of xiaolongbao. This is food that I would happily choose over considerably more expensive meals (leaving price aside). Could they be made better with better ingredients etc.? Maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the product, but they are still very very good as is.

Finally, the claim that "French food and molecular gastronomy" are superior to all other cuisines is wholly unsupported. I don't subscribe to the "you can't say one cuisine is better than another" school of thought (it would be hard e.g. to deny that French food is better than English food). But the elevation of French, and especially of MG, seems to me to be, at best, a wholly personal and deeply subjective opinion (the defense of this by comparing of Achatz to the "typical Mexican chef" seems bizarre).

Steve Plotnicki wrote:It has nothing to do with ethnic.

My mistake. The title of the thread mentions the word ethnic and you discussed Thai, Indian, French and Mexican cuisines. I just felt my peeps were a little left out. I'm just sayin' you can let the Eastern Europeans represent too.

It has to do with cheap and most ethnic restaurants are cheap.

So it isn't about ethnic just about ethnic restaurants? I mentioned a number of Eastern European cuisines in my original post that are ethnic as well ethnic restaurants.

In order for food to be special it has to be made with care. That means using ingredients that have been raised with care, and then handling them with care to make a finished product. If that can be done for $7, then I agree with you.

Totally agree there. I can't attest that Beograd Cafe made it with care but I can say it was a damn good burek. Other places my father has brought me bureks from in the city just do not compare. I have no idea why. I have zero clue as to whether Beograd is using higher end ingredients. I suspect the same as other restaurants that serve burek in the city in pretty much the same price range. Perhaps they do do it with much more care or maybe they use the same cheap ingredients and add something extra. Again who knows, who cares? Especially when, at the end of the day, it's still a damn fine good $7 burek.

There is a place in Arthur Avenue in the Bronx called Tony & Tina's. It's a pizzeria run by Albanians and they make really good boureks. Cheese, spinach & pumpkin if I recall correctly. They cost $4 and are especially good if you manage to catch a batch as they come out of the oven. But as much as I enjoy them, they are not made with artisanal ingredients. My liking to eat them does not change the fact that I would prefer to have access to a more expensive bourek that is made with a higher degree of care.

I have to say speaking as someone who's parents are Albanians who come from the farthest tip of Montenegro, a burek with so called artisanal ingredients would not be a burek to me. Simply because the higher end ingredients you imagine would make it taste better would most likely not be authentic or native to the region. You're talking to a girl who's relatives still milk their own cows, sometimes maybe make their own feta cheese and churn out their own honey and, believe me, none of it is in the category of artisanal especially in a country where most bureks in restaurants are not priced beyond a couple of Euros. But the next time I go back I must make the quest for the most expensive burek in all of the former Yugoslavia and see if there is a taste and quality difference.

So let me ask you a question: If you were to find boureks that were made the way I am describing, and they were so delicious that you were willing to create a new bourek paradigm, how would you feel about that?

Again not authentic to me for reasons explained above so it might taste just great but it still won't feel like a burek to me. Take a look at the first part of my screenname. Kajmak (Spelled the right way) is a delicious cheese spread using standard ingredients. There are varying degrees of quality. I prefer the soupier feel as opposed to the more dense feel. What are the differences? Doubting it has to do with the quality of ingredients used more so than how it is being churned out. My suspicions have always been the latter. Believe me, I have tried many brands here and abroad.

Italian is my favorite food and one of my go to pizza places (Villa Nova) uses Member's Mark olive oil. Member's Mark is a brand found at Sam's Club. Does that stop me from thinking it is still a damn good pizza? Would I care if they used better olive oil? Probably not, but I'd have to see if it turned out just as delectable. My point is, cheapness doesn't always stop the food from tasting its best but how it is prepared does.

Habibi wrote:What is not true is that French cuisine is better than Mexican or Arab cuisine because it has achieved a greater level of academic discourse with itself or because its techniques better capture and convey the "purity" of its ingredients. Those views are built from decrepit, Euro-centric positions that have for centuries dismissed the "other" as savage and banal, incapable of creative or intellectual thought.

Habibi you are simply wrong. Let's take Japanese food instead of French for a moment. If you and I went to visit the Tsukiji Fish market in Tokyo in order to shop for tuna, we would find that the wholesalers slice and dice the tuna into so many different sections that it would make our heads spin. Not only that, the tunas would be sorted by where they came from and how much fat content there is. And we would find chefs who are willing to pay thousands of dollars for unique cuts of specially sourced tuna. It's the same with wine. Look at the vineyards in Burgundy which have been divided into unique terroirs. And not only is there a difference between say Charmes-Chambertin and Mazis-Chambertin, winemakers fight for specific locations in the vineyards because they yield beter results. 'Arabic cuisine simply doesn't have that type of nuance to it. Neither does Mexican. Indian and Thai comes closest because the spice pastes and mixtures are highly sophisticated. But they fall short because of the ingredients they use, and how the ingredients interact with the spice mixtures which cover up the natural qualities of the ingredients.

Now you might disagree with a conclusion that what I described about sushi is more evolved than what you will find with the fish they sell at the market in Mexico City. But if we can't agree that the example I gave is evidence of superior sophistication, we can't have this discussion. Either we agree that the world is ordered as fish lovers see it, or you want to discard all of the anecdotal evidence that allows someone to draw an inference about quality. Putting that simply, nobody is paying $3000 for hunk of hamachi in Mexico City but they are paying it in Japan. In fact if you were to go to a high quality sushi restaurant in Mexico City and order fatty hamachi belly, I assure you that the fish they serve you will be sourced from Tokyo.

Maybe I should change the example to something more concrete. Considering that the Chicago Exchange is the top market for comodity futures in the world, would you say that it is one of the benchmarks that demonstrates that Chicago is a more sophisticated city than say Addis Ababa? Or should we consider trading rugs for beads as being as sophisticated as selling soy bean futures backed up by credit default swaps to insure them?

JeffB - I was using pollo as an example. I could have used chorizo, lengua, bistecca or gorditas. The point is about freshness, not the ingredient. My taco of choice happens to be suedero. But I don't know any carts that make it because you need a brazier. In order to have suedero I have to travel all the way to Taco Mix on 116th street which is a mile away from my apartment. The taco cart I frequent is only 3 blocks away from my apartment.

Dom - The reason people have informed opinions is because they look at things objectively. I know you are trying to tease the two apart to make some point but I don't know how you can do that.

Informed Opinion = Objective View of Things

Otherwise my answer to you is the same as my answer to Habbi. If you don' think that cutting a tuna into 50 different parts is evidence of a more sophisticed approach than a culture that cuts it merely into tuna steaks. I don't know how we reconcile this discussion.

Objectivity in food has to do with noticing some type of unique feature that is present. That might be an ingredient, or the way the ingredient is treated. Those are concrete aspects of cuisine. But saying something is good because it has been practiced for centuries is anthropological, not culinary, and it has absolutely no impact on whether food tastes good or not. And you don't need to be an expert in something to notice that is complex. I know nothing about raga but I can tell you it is highly complex based on the type of syncopation it uses. But I do know alot about the blues and I can tell you that it is a very simple music that evokes very complex and visceral emotions in people.


Kajmac - You told me they don't have artisanal ingredients in Albania and then you told me they make their boureks with artisanal ingredients that come right from the farm. Please explain.

This is so tedious and there will never be any resolution.

This is so tedious and there will never be any resolution.

So very much this. +1

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Dom - My answer to you is the same as my answer to Habbi. If you don;t think that cutting a tuna into 50 different parts is evidence of a more sophisticed approach than a culture that cuts it merely into tuna steaks., I don't know how we reconcile this discussion.

Though this completely (and, I suspect, intentionally) ignores my question, on your last point, I am forced to agree.

Thanks for the conversation.

Dom I revised my post above. I posted the original prematurely as I was getting on a flight. Now I have updated it.

Let me ask you, what evidence do you have that Mexican and Thai are sophisticated cuisines?

Let me ask you, what evidence do you have that Mexican and Thai are sophisticated cuisines?

This thread is an extended in-joke. . .right?

Dmnkly wrote:If I may attempt to clarify, I suspect much of the outrage in this thread is the result of subtext that has not been clearly expressed, or perhaps it's been miscommunicated. If Steve would indulge a question, I think it would provide a great deal of clarity.

I'm awfully surprised that this effort 2 pages ago did not work as planned.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:

Habibi wrote:What is not true is that French cuisine is better than Mexican or Arab cuisine because it has achieved a greater level of academic discourse with itself or because its techniques better capture and convey the "purity" of its ingredients. Those views are built from decrepit, Euro-centric positions that have for centuries dismissed the "other" as savage and banal, incapable of creative or intellectual thought.

Habibi you are simply wrong.

And this right here is where you, Steve, lose any pretense of credibility.
Your refusal to see that your opinions are nothing more than that, opinions, reveals that you have no interest in rational discussion.
You have decided that you are the arbiter of good taste and anyone who disagrees is, in your words, “simply wrong”.
You phrase the original question in terms on “ethnic” food and then backpedal when called on it with statements like “ethnic has nothing to do with it”.
The root of the issue is that at the most basic level you're not concerned with the topic at hand at all, you're concerned with proving to everyone that you're right and therefor superior.

Yes Zoid you're right. I pointed out that cheap, ethnic restaurants use canned and bottled sauces because I wanted to feel superior to everyone here. It's not because those restaurants aren't good as good as restaurants that make their sauces by hand. I am simply making believe that they are bad just so I can pull rank on everyone.

By the way, Milli Vanilli are not as good as Pink Floyd. While people are entitled to hold that opinion, the act of holding it would make that person a certified dumbass.

I'm pleased we can finally bring this thread to closure.
Thank you.

The OP seems to have a remarkably simplistic, ill-informed and ultimately provincial view about food and cookery in general* and French cuisine in particular, though one hopes he expresses this despite knowing better for the 'thrill' of being a troll. Most cuisines have, of course, a certain degree of social differentiation -- higher (more costly) sub-cuisines vs. lower (less costly) sub cuisines. In his most recent post, the OP seems to be saying that all French cuisine is monolithically sophisticated and nuanced. It isn't. If the OP had ever spent any non-touristic time in France, experiencing the variety of culinary life in France outside of the at times delightful, at times boring bourgeois institution of the haute-cuisine restaurant, he would presumably have twigged to that fact.

That said, there are, I believe, cuisines which are relatively more nuanced than others, there are cultures which expend greater amounts of energy -- psychic and otherwise -- on producing and preparing and discussing food, but to reduce this all to the sort of argument about cost-point of restaurants that the OP makes is really just simplistic, naive, uninteresting and supremely bourgeois.

If one wishes to revel in French cuisine without the side of bullshit, one ought to do as the chefs themselves do and seek the simpler fare of home-cookery, which in the end is not all that different from the home-cookery of the many other cultures which expend an extra measure of energy on their cuisine.

Antonius

*

Let me ask you, what evidence do you have that Mexican and Thai are sophisticated cuisines?

Thai and Mexican cuisines are not sophisticated? LOL As in the case of "French cuisine," one is dealing with an overarching term that covers a number of varieties, some of which are more and less sophisticated, nuanced, richly sourced, etc. For someone to assume that cuisines unfamiliar to him/her are lacking in sophistication is the height of provincial barbarism, as Habibi seemed to say upthread a ways... In the end, one wonders: is the person who uttered this comment really claiming to know something about food and cookery in general???

I didn't say they weren't sophisticated, I asked him if he had any evidence that they are sophisticated since he claimed that they are. I want to see if he can some up with empirical and objective evidence to prove his point.

Your point about home cookery is flat out wrong. Peasant art is simply not as sophisticated as high art and home cooking is basically peasant culture. That doesn't mean that peasant art is without merit. But it is clearly lacking in the intellectual and technical components that you find in high art. To dismiss that view as bourgeois is actually what is oversimplistic because it tries to equate Josh Adam's 48 sous vide short ribs with my mothers pot roast. To do what Josh does you have to study the culinary arts, To do what my mother did, all you had to do was call up Grandma and ask for the recipe.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Your point about home cookery is flat out wrong.

Once again you fail to differentiate your opinion from fact. No surprise here. You know better than everyone else.

Zoid you are making a silly point. While someone can claim that Happy Birthday is a better piece of music than Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, that person will not be able to offer any type of credible evidence to make that case. So even though the person who claims that Beethoven is superior is also merely stating an opinion, he is stating a credible one. In fact that opinion is so widely held that that society treats it as an objective fact, even thought it is merely an opinion.

Frank Lloyd Wright was a great architect. Is that an opinion or a fact? Dom would argue that technically it is an opinion regardless of how much evidence someone puts forth. But I think that is wrong. I believe in what Gary Fine calls an "obdurate truth" because Wrights influence is so universal that it is reasonable to treat that conclusion as an objective fact.

There is no way to scientifically prove that moist tacos are better than dried out tacos, other than that close to 100% of the people with informed opinions prefer the moist ones. That statistic turns the issue into what I will argue is an objective reality

Conversation overheard in an abbey cerca 1400: "There is no way to scientifically prove that the sun revolves around the earth, other than that close to 100% of the people with informed opinions prefer (they damn well better!) the geocentric version. That statistic (!) turns the issue into what I will argue is an objective reality."

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Let me ask you, what evidence do you have that Mexican and Thai are sophisticated cuisines?

You really had to ask this question? So a culture that can present a multi-course meal intended to stimulate your tastebuds in very different ways through the use of sweet, sour, bitter, spicy and salty flavors somehow lacks sophistication? On that note, I'm checking out. You claim to rely upon empirical evidence to support your assertions, and yet you started this thread by suggesting without even a hint of evidence that Spoon Thai was using unaltered, commercially purchased sauces/pastes. Your post was irresponsible. Your diversion away from your original message is nothing more than throwing gas on the fire.

This thread is so LOL LTH!

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Zoid you are making a silly point. While someone can claim that Happy Birthday is a better piece of music than Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, that person will not be able to offer any type of credible evidence to make that case. So even though the person who claims that Beethoven is superior is also merely stating an opinion, he is stating a credible one. In fact that opinion is so widely held that that society treats it as an objective fact, even thought it is merely an opinion.

If your point is that popular opinion dictates what is credible then Kane West is far superior to Beethoven. It was once a widely held belief that the earth was flat. An opinion is just that, an opinion. Yours carries no more intrinsic weight than anyone else on this board.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Frank Lloyd Wright was a great architect. Is that an opinion or a fact? Dom would argue that technically it is an opinion regardless of how much evidence someone puts forth. But I think that is wrong. I believe in what Gary Fine calls an "obdurate truth" because Wrights influence is so universal that it is reasonable to treat that conclusion as an objective fact.

I suspect you chose FLW because you saw my location was Oak Park, but let's not get into that...

The opinion that FLW was a great architect is an opinion, one that a great many people do not share. Part of architecture is designing buildings that actually stand up, Frank wasn't too good at this alas. Many people find his structures aesthetically pleasing, some find then sterile – again opinion. There is no question that he was influential.

My issue is not your contention that bottled sauces are inferior. Left to that we have no argument.
Your dismissal of entire cultures however is disappointing.
Your presentation of your opinions as irrefutable fact without room for waiver implies you've made up your mind and consider yourself the ultimate authority.
When you say “you're simply wrong” it's not conducive to an effective conversation.

Perhaps I'm wrong, maybe you actually do want a discussion. I haven't seen it yet.

This thread has officially jumped the Plotnicki.

(Out of curiosity, why is this thread not in Other Culinary Chat?)

Which leads to the question -- Did Arnold make his own sauces or use the same supplier as every other diner in Milwaukee?

From what I can gather in this thread, Arnold must have bought sauces, and Al must have made them from scratch.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:I pointed out that cheap, ethnic restaurants use canned and bottled sauces because I wanted to feel superior to everyone here. It's not because those restaurants aren't good as good as restaurants that make their sauces by hand. I am simply making believe that they are bad just so I can pull rank on everyone.

Except, as has been pointed out repeatedly, you don't seem to understand that some of those sauces (like fish sauce, an--if not the--integral ingredient in Thai cooking) would be preposterous, and likely counter-intuitive, to make in-house. Admit that you are ignorant of Thai (and apparently Mexican) cuisine, and absorb the knowledge that various posters throughout this thread have been trying to provide to you. It will serve you well at many a table.