Papa Bayless gets cranky [authenticity]

LA Weekly food critic Jonathan Gold and Rick Bayless have been in a minor skirmish this week over whether Bayless claimed to be finally bringing 'authentic' Mexican cuisine to Los Angeles with new restaurant Red O (try using the onsite phpBB search function for that name):

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/foodie/2010/0 ... ss_bit.php

The excerpts and blog comments may be of interest to Chicago readers; I enjoyed the snark of this Bayless rejoinder:

I know it's all the rage for journalists to go into unsupported hyperbole, but I never said I was going to introduce Southern California to "authentic" Mexican cuisine. I said I was going to bring the flavors of Frontera Grill to Los Angeles. Which is completely true. I guess getting a Pulitzer doesn't mean your [el sic] beholden to truth. But I'm sure it made for a "fun" evening for all gathered there. Such is the state of modern journalism.

I generally agree with Rick's side of the story, but this particular comment is almost a Daleyesque indictment of the media, which usually loves the Bayless. I'm sure he'll re-mellow with some vegetal bliss shortly, toe-mah-tee-yohs or otherwise.

edited to add subtitle

my first job in LA in 1986 was at Border Grill. yep, it was Mexican street food for white people. still is, AFAIK, Too Hot Tamales made their careers on it. (ironically, they came Jovan Trboyevic's kitchen here) Topolobampo is screwing around molecular cuisine now, I don't know what's authentic about that. It was insanely presumptive to have said he was intrigued to bring the flavors of central and southern Mexico to southern CA. It's all there, but perhaps not in Topolo style and price. It's easy to mispeak during a sound bite. But I really wonder how the rich foods that play well to our cold Chicago winters and fat asses will play to the ever present sunshine and hopelessly skinny of LA.

The woman that used to hand paint the Frontera T-shirts and was the chef at the old Soul Kitchen, went back to LA to become the exec chef at Border Grill in Santa Monica. It's a small world. She's since moved on.

But coming from a BBQ background, Bayless really missed the BBQ boat this summer. He probably could have put everyone to shame.

(editted for spelling)

dk wrote:(editted for spelling)

missed this one

Wow, if he's getting snippy now


One can only imagine how bad it'll be in twenty years



Relax - just a joke. I'm a big Bayless fan.

dk wrote:Topolobampo is screwing around molecular cuisine now

I was dubious when I read this, but checking the menu at Topolobampo, I see "huitlacoche dust" and "sweet corn air" (and lots of normal sounding stuff in quotes, like "chilaquiles" and "custard") which certainly suggests a more molecularly gastronomical Bayless than I've known from past visits to his many places.

seebee wrote:I'm a big Bayless fan.

groupie

-Dan

David Hammond wrote:

dk wrote:Topolobampo is screwing around molecular cuisine now

I was dubious when I read this, but checking the menu at Topolobampo, I see "huitlacoche dust" and "sweet corn air" (and lots of normal sounding stuff in quotes, like "chilaquiles" and "custard") which certainly suggests a more molecularly gastronomical Bayless than I've known from past visits to his many places.

He's also now rinsing his chopped onions to "get rid of all that stuff about onions that people hate," like flavor:

http://www.rickbayless.com/blog/

(first video, @ 2:30)

chefs in mexico city are doing innovative things. does that not count as authentic mexican?

teatpuller wrote:chefs in mexico city are doing innovative things. does that not count as authentic mexican?

"Authentic," as I understand the word, means means that something conforms to our understanding of reality or the facts. The "reality" or "facts" of a dish like, say, chile relleno are closely connected with the dish's history, what people understand to be the meaning of the dish. If I aerosolize the cheese and pump it into a balloon made of chile (created like Moto's carrot and beet balloons by swirling an actual balloon covered with the vegetable paste in a super-cooled pot), what we have is a very innovative and very inauthentic rendition of a dish that might be called a "chili relleno," but which bears little relation to our traditional understanding of what the dish is.

I don't believe the ethnicity of the chef or the location of the dish's preparation has anything to do with whether the dish is authentic or not. If Bayless is using corn smut dust and corn air, then I say more power to him, I trust his culinary judgment, but I think you'd be hard pressed to call either of those ingredients "authentic" to Mexican tradition. They're different, and could be delicious and interesting, but they're not authentic.

Ok. I withdraw the question.

teatpuller wrote:Ok. I withdraw the question.

Didn't mean to beat down your question, which I'm glad you posed because it made me think about what it means for a dish to be "authentic." We talk a lot on this board about "authenticity," and it's a very slippery concept to apply primarily because there's sometimes disagreement about the "facts" of a dish's preparation.

So, David, how would you identify "authentic" chili? There are so many variations to even the basic ingredients. Beans or no beans? Tomatoes? Chili-grind beef or diced chuck? Maybe all these variations are authentic.

I like most chili preparations, but save me from any using chicken, turkey, tofu, twelve kinds of hot sauce, sausage, etc. Is that because they aren"t "authentic"?

History tells us chile was invented by chuckwagon cooks as a means to use nearly-spoiled beef, and furthers the story with the introduction of the Texas Chile Queens. But that story doesn't include chili in a can, consisting of beans, bean paste, tomato paste, low quality beef, chili powder. The ingredients are at least close to authentic, but it sure doesn't taste like it!

It's an interesting question. Where does authenticity stop?

For the record, I'm not a fan of huitlacoche or corn foam. But at least the corn smut is indigenous to Mexican cuisine.

little500 wrote:So, David, how would you identify "authentic" chili? There are so many variations to even the basic ingredients. Beans or no beans? Tomatoes? Chili-grind beef or diced chuck? Maybe all these variations are authentic.

I like most chili preparations, but save me from any using chicken, turkey, tofu, twelve kinds of hot sauce, sausage, etc. Is that because they aren"t "authentic"?

History tells us chile was invented by chuckwagon cooks as a means to use nearly-spoiled beef, and furthers the story with the introduction of the Texas Chile Queens. But that story doesn't include chili in a can, consisting of beans, bean paste, tomato paste, low quality beef, chili powder. The ingredients are at least close to authentic, but it sure doesn't taste like it!

It's an interesting question. Where does authenticity stop?

For the record, I'm not a fan of huitlacoche or corn foam. But at least the corn smut is indigenous to Mexican cuisine.

This is a discussion I've wanted to have for a long time. Pinning down the "authentic" features of a dish is a huge challenge – it’s a frickin’ epistemological nightmare – because “facts” are in some ways a matter of consensus and “facts all come with a point of view.” With some questions of authenticity like “What is an authentic Chicago hot dog?” or “What is an authentic deep dish pizza?” the answers seem pretty easy because these are relatively recent and fairly well documented culinary developments and there’s general consensus about what defines the paradigm.

With chili, it’s way harder because the genesis of the dish is less certain, and there’s loads of regional variation (as there cannot be, for instance, with a CHICAGO hot dog). This issue is clouded by militant proponents of specific ingredient mixes, specifically those who like the beans and those who don’t. Me, I like beans, which I suspect may have been an original part of the mix (because beans are cheap, and chili is a feed-the-masses meal), but that’s not why I like beans in my chili. I like them because they offer variation in each spoonful, and I will like them whether or not they’re authentic.

Authentic does not equal good. Lard and sugar on bread is authentic Depression food – I’m going to hold off on eating that particular menu item until I have to.

That said, I think people who dismiss a dish because “it isn’t authentic” may be missing the point if the innovation makes a better tasting thing.

Nonetheless, I love eating what seems to be the traditional, canonical version of a dish; the weight of history is behind it, and when you eat it, you feel like you’re connecting with the culture and the people who gave birth to the food, out of necessity, because of available resources, because of some historical imperative. Now, that doesn’t mean I’m going to love the taste, but I love tasting it.

Not sure what you mean by “where does authenticity stop,” because the issue of authenticity is more about where foods start.

David Hammond wrote:Not sure what you mean by “where does authenticity stop,” because the issue of authenticity is more about where foods start.

Let's take the Chicago hot dog. It's been discussed elsewhere on LTH that the Vienna/Royko standard that includes tomatoes, pickle spear and celery salt is a relatively recent creation. If you go back to the older mid-century stands and Vienna signage, it's mustard, onion, relish and maybe some hot peppers.

So the question about where authenticity stops is extremely relevant. Did it stop in 1955 when it was mustard, onions, relish and hot peppers? Did it stop in 1976 when it was all of the above plus tomatoes, pickle spear, celery salt and a poppyseed bun? Did it stop in 1990 when it might also include lettuce and cucumbers?

When you have a dish that grows and changes over time, what point along that timeline is authentic? And can what's authentic change?

The Chicago hot dog is a great example because some of those ingredients certainly weren't part of the dish's origins, but at some point they became so widely accepted that for most people, a more recent preparation replaced an older one as more "authentic." It's not always about where foods start.

I'm not Mr Hammond, but may I?

au·then·tic  –adjective
1. not false or copied; genuine; real: an authentic antique.
2. having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified: an authentic document of the Middle Ages; an authentic work of the old master.
3. entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy: an authentic report on poverty in Africa.
Origin:
1300–50; < LL authenticus < Gk authentikós original, primary, at first hand, equiv. to authént ( ēs ) one who does things himself ( aut- aut- + -hentēs doer) + -ikos -ic; r. ME autentik (< AF) < ML autenticus

I'm gonna be my own authority on authenticity cuz it's all Gk to me anyways. I'd say there is no authentic in cuisine, but maybe there is traditional. Bayless didn't use the word authentic, but he implied a mighty insult w/ this: "how the true flavors of Mexico, from central and southern Mexico, would play in Southern California." As if he were representing "true flavors". But again, I don't fault the guy for a bad sound bite.
There were no cattle in the New World, or tomatos in Italy, or potatos in Ireland, so how far back must one go to be authentic or true?

edittted to addd: when did "authentic" become a marketing term?

Dmnkly wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Not sure what you mean by “where does authenticity stop,” because the issue of authenticity is more about where foods start.

Let's take the Chicago hot dog. It's been discussed elsewhere on LTH that the Vienna/Royko standard that includes tomatoes, pickle spear and celery salt is a relatively recent creation. If you go back to the older mid-century stands and Vienna signage, it's mustard, onion, relish and maybe some hot peppers.

So the question about where authenticity stops is extremely relevant. Did it stop in 1955 when it was mustard, onions, relish and hot peppers? Did it stop in 1976 when it was all of the above plus tomatoes, pickle spear, celery salt and a poppyseed bun? Did it stop in 1990 when it might also include lettuce and cucumbers?

When you have a dish that grows and changes over time, what point along that timeline is authentic? And can what's authentic change?

The Chicago hot dog is a great example because some of those ingredients certainly weren't part of the dish's origins, but at some point they became so widely accepted that for most people, a more recent preparation replaced an older one as more "authentic." It's not always about where foods start.

Dom, I do believe consensus is part of it, and as consensus can shift, I agree, so can the definition of what is "authentic." It can't stop. Where it starts may be less important. It's in flux. So how can you really pin down "authenticity," or is it just a fake concept, a term of art at best and at worst, a construct that inhibits innovation and enforces status quo?

Would love to stay and chat, really, but The Wife wants to get me to a showing of, ironically, "Inception."

"dmkly:When you have a dish that grows and changes over time, what point along that timeline is authentic? And can what's authentic change?"

What he said...................

Good discussion. Still don't like huitlacoche.

David Hammond wrote:

dk wrote:Topolobampo is screwing around molecular cuisine now

I was dubious when I read this, but checking the menu at Topolobampo, I see "huitlacoche dust" and "sweet corn air" (and lots of normal sounding stuff in quotes, like "chilaquiles" and "custard") which certainly suggests a more molecularly gastronomical Bayless than I've known from past visits to his many places.

huitlacoche dust? yowza. I should be getting royalties from Green Acres for introducing them to the joys of $10/oz smut.

behold wimperoo's post from 8/1:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2961&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30

I just keep wondering where are all the missing items listed in the descriptions. did wimperoo eat them before taking the pictures? were all those items listed on the menu? where are the chanterelles in the arctic char photo? where are the black beans w/ avocado leaf in the pork dish? what's that stuff that looks like brown sugar? and since when does a pipian highlight the corn? that's just weird.
at least there's no brunoise jello cubes like in GAF's meal from Oct 2009.
obviously, Bayless has some young guy coming up w/ the dishes, but if it sells and makes 'em happy, who cares? My first bowl of Frontera's tortilla soup 20+ years ago was the best thing I've ever eaten there.

edit to add: OMG the soup is $9.50 now? rotflmao
http://www.rickbayless.com/menu/layout?id=4#popup

David Hammond wrote:Dom, I do believe consensus is part of it, and as consensus can shift, I agree, so can the definition of what is "authentic." It can't stop. Where it starts may be less important. It's in flux. So how can you really pin down "authenticity," or is it just a fake concept, a term of art at best and at worst, a construct that inhibits innovation and enforces status quo?

Check your totem.

I'm not trying to suggest that authenticity is meaningless. I think it's meaningful as long as it isn't used as a value judgment. Authentic (whatever that means) isn't inherently good or better. I just mean to suggest that the term is more nebulous than the absolute fashion in which it's typically used, and on that we seem to agree.

In the case of the Chicago hot dog, I'm of the opinion that both are authentic, given that both represent very distinct preparations that have been popularly and widely considered discrete styles and have stood the test of time. And perhaps the "test of time" is the key.... that it's remained distinctive and well-defined long enough to be frozen in time and considered part of the pantheon of traditional dishes.

And l think you're correct that the term is, unfortunately, too often used to dismiss innovation and creativity, but I think there's value in honoring the classics, because they earned that title for a reason. It's the culinary equivalent of listening to the wisdom of your elders. Grandpa may or may not be a crazy old coot, but either way he can probably teach you a thing or two.

It seems there’s “a sequence of authenticities” within the life of a food type. The Chicago hot dog is an excellent example of a food type that, over time, has changed (though really only once, as far as we know) from a stripped-down Gene and Jude’s type preparation to a more dragged-through-the-garden version that has become more often recognized (now, and not without some dispute) as the iconic version of this street food.

To some extent, time honors a dish when that dish has been around long enough to be recognized as the “way it’s supposed to be.” The consensus, built up over time, enshrines a certain way of making the dish as the right way, the way we “eat it here,” authentic.

“Authenticity” is a value if the goal is to determine how a dish is really supposed to be prepared. This is not to say that the authentic version tastes better than some variation, but just that sometimes, especially for our tribe, locating the paradigm is important.

PS. About "totem," I thought "Inception" was the most overblown swamp of predictable, pornographically ultra-violent, unimaginative bilge I've had the misfortune to wade through. I did like the ending, not only because I thought it suggested more subtlety than did most "levels" of this parking garage of a movie, but because it meant I could go home.

David Hammond wrote:I thought "Inception" was the most overblown swamp of predictable, pornographically ultra-violent, unimaginative bilge I've had the misfortune to wade through. I did like the ending, not only because I thought it suggested more subtlety than did most "levels" of this parking garage of a movie, but because it meant I could go home.

I think you need to cleanse your palate with "The Expendables."

Authenticity can encompass more than one view of a food. And there is a difference between "authentic" and "traditional" and "quintessential."

In the case of the Chicago hot dog, say, the original Fluky's vegetable-stand version had raw cucumbers on it. Now, most places in Chicago don't serve it that way, today, but a few do, and I wouldn't say they are inauthentic, merely variants. But if you put ketchup on a hot dog or sauerkraut or bacon bits -- that does invalidate it as an authentic Chicago dog.

Also, authenticity is rooted in both place and time. I know somebody who worked at Prairie, the restaurant that started the Heartland locavore movement. Their idea was to serve all authentic Midwestern cuisine (to the point that they didn't offer ocean fish), but my friend said they did a lot of arguing about just what constituted "Midwestern" in terms of food style, and whether that meant farm fare circa 1900 or contemporary food that was merely made from locally sourced ingredients.

You can buy Illinois-grown shrimp, but most people don't think of shrimp as "authentic" Heartland fare. And yet, shrimp DeJonghe has the oldest pedigree of any Chicago dish.

LAZ wrote:if you put ketchup on a hot dog...that does invalidate it as an authentic Chicago dog.

One would be hard pressed to argue with that…and yet, last night at Carm’s booth at Taste of Melrose Park, I read the sign and then…



…I witnessed this:



Could the no-catsup Chicago hot dog paradigm be shifting, if just a little, around the edges?

I probably will not express this sentiment the best way possible -

I'm starting to think that many of the people who use the word "authentic" only use it because they have no other way to express what they'd like to say - much like the way the word "foodie" is thrown about these days.

seebee wrote:I probably will not express this sentiment the best way possible -

I'm starting to think that many of the people who use the word "authentic" only use it because they have no other way to express what they'd like to say - much like the way the word "foodie" is thrown about these days.

That may be true, but that doesn't invalidate the term "authentic" or mean it has no meaning.

Superdawg addresses the Chicago hot dog question nicely. They will give you ketchup in foil paks, but you gotta put it on the dawg yourself. Kinda like if you wanna pee on the Mona Lisa, OK, but we ain't gonna help ya.

has nayone looked at the Red O website yet?

http://www.redorestaurant.com/#/home

dk wrote:has nayone looked at the Red O website yet?

http://www.redorestaurant.com/#/home

Yeah, that Vivid Candi site design features a soundtrack that has been artificially overdubbed with old record scratch and pop noises to sound vintage. There's a word I'm looking for to describe it...damn, tip of the tongue, gone now.

David Hammond wrote:I witnessed this:



Could the no-catsup Chicago hot dog paradigm be shifting, if just a little, around the edges?

Not if the customers are children, as your photo seems to indicate.

she looks pretty unhappy about it, too, like she was tempted to ban them from her stand until their 18th birthday.