My childhood home in suburban Chicago always smelled like whatever we were cooking. Visiting us meant cloaking yourself in the scent of haam daan ju yoke beng, a dish of steamed pork and salted egg, or the perfume of mapodoufu, tofu and minced pork with a spicy chili and fermented black bean sauce.

I didn’t mind the smells growing up because I wasn’t aware of them. That is, until a high school friend declared my house smelled of “Chinese grossness.”

The comment clung to me like the smell in my home.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... ?tid=sm_tw

Had lunch recently with another LTHer, and as we waited for our food I suggested that sometimes "good" and "authentic" get confused in discussions, because I felt something could be absolutely authentic without being very good.

In the context of the meal, I had narrowed the definition of authentic to something that reproduces an experience that at least a few people at a specific time and place could identify as being what they expect. I saw how happy the Asian diners in the establishment were -- and are every time I visit -- and how they stand in line to wait for a table to get generally pretty good but not outstanding food. And it occurred to me that "authentic" has to do more with memories than with quality. Most people grow up eating okay food, rather than amazing. The steaming bowls of noodles surrounding me would, in fact, be more authentic to the diners than something that tasted much better to someone else.

It reminded me of when I was in Charleston, SC. I hunted down local specialties at all the most highly recommended places. Lots of serious "wow" moments. Then I headed out to the islands, to sample Gullah food as prepared by the people for whom it is the traditional cuisine. It was clear from the working folks crowding the places I stopped that this was where the locals ate. It was pretty good -- but it wasn't as good as what I had in town. So I think it is important to remember that "authentic" doesn't, even within a sufficiently narrow definition, necessarily mean "best of class." I have no doubt that the folks enjoying the Gullah food-- or the folks slurping the noodles in that Asian restaurant -- were having an authentic experience. Even in my neighborhood growing up, no two moms made tuna salad the same. (And I might go so far as to say that really outstanding food will almost never be authentic, if we speak of it as what one grew up with.)

Another thing I think affects our concept of authenticity is expectations -- both cultural and what we've learned to like. This is slightly different from memory, because we’re judging things based on what we think, rather than on long years and cherished experience.

The example that came to mind during the original conversation was a dinner I had about a decade ago in France. I was traveling with a friend who is the director of the Napoleonic Alliance. He had arranged a dinner at Valençay, in Tallyrand’s grand dining room, that reproduced a formal dinner once served by Antonin Careme. It was astonishing – cream of truffle soup with half a lobster tail, fois gras terrine with fig conserves, venison – and so on. Just amazing ingredients and absolutely true to the original recipes. But it was hard to not be a tiny bit disappointed by the taste, simply because we’ve gotten so accustomed to everyone at the high end of the culinary realm adding a little something extra to everything we eat – a dash of some imported spice, some fruit from the far side of the world, some influence or technique from a different culture. I enjoyed it tremendously, but being truly authentic actually made it harder for the food to meet the expectations of my palate.

Toss in world travels where I’ve seen all sorts of things added to dishes that fit well within the culture but would be rejected as not authentic if you tried to sell them in Chicago, and I think that what is truly the most authentic thing in the world is never rejecting a new food. Use anything that is available. Fusion cuisine is the history of the world. I think Mongolia is the only place I’ve had a meal unaffected by outside influences – just meat and heat.

All that said, I understand what, at heart, people mean by saying “authentic” – they are trying to connect with that experience of the people who grew up with the food – that sense of being “inside” the culture. I love doing that, too – I just realize that often that won’t introduce me to the culture’s best food.

Which actually reminds me of a quote from Adrian Miller’s book Soul Food: Miller was quoting Chef Louis Szathmary, who said that “All immigrants from all parts of the world arriving in the United States started to replace their everyday national dishes with their homeland’s special holiday and festival dishes and Sunday meals.” Szathmary went on to say that he felt that the special dishes helped them remember the most pleasant aspects of the “old country.” Plus special things like meat were much cheaper in the U.S. So there is a degree to which even the people who come here and cook the food from back home are actually not living authentically.

And yet, I will still search for that which connects with the cultures and memories of others – that search for the “authentic.” And I’ll enjoy it all.

Cynthia wrote:something could be absolutely authentic without being very good.

Theoretically, I agree, but the validity of this claim depends upon a person's ability to recognize a food as "absolutely authentic," which is rarely possible: http://resto.newcity.com/2015/11/20/a-genuine-myth-if-they-call-it-authentic-its-probably-baloney/

On this topic, here's an interesting analysis of how and why Yelpers use the word "authentic," when it's likely many have little idea what it means: http://www.utne.com/food/yelpers-authentic-cuisine-zm0z15wzdeh.aspx?newsletter=1&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=UTR+Uplifter+1.18.2015&utm_term=UTR+eNews

Me, I try not use the word "authentic" any more because it's just too damn slippery.

David Hammond wrote:Theoretically, I agree, but the validity of this claim depends upon a person's ability to recognize a food as "absolutely authentic," which is rarely possible: . . .

Or good, for that matter, which seems even more subjective.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Theoretically, I agree, but the validity of this claim depends upon a person's ability to recognize a food as "absolutely authentic," which is rarely possible: . . .

Or good, for that matter, which seems even more subjective.

=R=

I agree that "good" is more subjective, and everyone would agree that good is a personal judgment, but what makes "authentic" more problematic is that it presumably refers to an objective standard when, in fact, it almost never does.

While I'd agree that an undefined "authentic" is hard to identify, and I do not myself pursue an undefined authenticity in any realm, but within the very narrow context that I described, there are things that are authentic -- things that resonate for the people who grew up with them. It is more the experience that is authentic, rather than a specific food -- though the food is part of recreating that experience. It tastes like home or the past or a festival. The dictionary defines authentic as "real or genuine, true and accurate, or made to be or look just like an original." To say nothing is authentic is to say that nothing is real or true or accurate. When I write, I don't call things authentic -- I'd say, "They remind me of X." But choosing not to use it because it is imprecise is not the same as denying that anything is authentic. I'd say what is authentic is definitely personal and needs to be carefully defined, but it does exist.

As far as "good" -- if it's that totally personal and undefinable, why do we have GNRs? Or restaurant reviews? Or James Beard Awards? We have these things because there is a general consensus that some places or people do very well what they set out to do. Whether one likes them or not is personal. I don't like beer at all, but I know that there are beers that are generally recognized as being good beers. I know people who didn't really like Alinea, but that doesn't mean Alinea is not good, it just means it's not their preference.

So I don't really buy that we can't say anything is good, and I believe that, when clearly defined, there are things that are authentic, even if in the name of precision, we choose to use other words to communicate the ideas. But most people aren't going to be that precise, and when someone tell me that they want authentic whatever, I don't tell them it's a meaningless request -- I just find a place that will give them an experience that matches as closely as possible the experience of the community that creates that food.

Cynthia, thanks for the thoughtful response and apologies for letting this sit for so long before getting back to it.

Your wrote, “To say nothing is authentic is to say that nothing is real or true or accurate.” I would not say “nothing is authentic,” but I would say it’s very difficult to determine authenticity, and I totally agree that people’s perceptions of what’s “authentic” frequently depend upon their personal experiences with a food (“authentic” chicken soup is the way my grandmother made it, or “authentic” General Tso’s chicken is the first version I had in Chinatown circa 1980). What this suggests, however, is that any meaningful discussion of authenticity is nearly impossible as it all depends upon individual biography.

But I don’t think a judgement of authenticity always depends upon individual biography.

There are some foods that are fairly well documented, so their authenticity (how true they are to form) can be determined with some accuracy.

The best documented dishes are fairly recent restaurant creations, and the “authenticity” of those dishes can be determined with some precision. Consider shrimp de Jonghe or the Big Mac. Both those dishes are well documented and well known, and most of us would agree that using Krab in one or Ranch dressing in the other would yield an inauthentic product, meaning a product that is not “true” to the generally accepted version of that product.

But things get murkier as one goes back in time. I recently found out that Oysters Rockefeller, for instance, probably did not contain spinach when this preparation was first served at Antoine’s well over a century ago – yet it’s now so commonly served that way that to serve Oysters Rock without spinach would be deemed by many to be “inauthentic.”

You wrote, “So I don't really buy that we can't say anything is good, and I believe that, when clearly defined, there are things that are authentic, even if in the name of precision, we choose to use other words to communicate the ideas. But most people aren't going to be that precise.”

Of course, you can say something is good – it’s just frequently indefensible in any intelligible way.

And yes, when “clearly defined,” it’s possible to make judgments about what’s authentic and what’s not authentic. Problem is, it’s almost never clearly defined, making most such judgements baloney…unless you’re relying on own personal experiences to define authenticity, in which case the position is indefensible in any intelligible way.