Do chefs matter?
Mdlrvrmuncher just posed this intriguing question under the Change of Chef at Cinghiale post and asked me to comment, although it seems somewhat rhetorical to me:
Elizabeth: I don't call myself a foodie as I am to old for that. (I remember running home from school to watch Julie Child on WNET). Exactly when did the chef's name become more important than the food? (Please comment.) As this change shows most chef's are excellent technicians. WIth the exception of the first caveman who used fire, Escoffier and that weird stuff going on in Spain, I am not sure who has had an original idea toward food.
First of all, I'm not going to be able to say anything in the case of Cinghiale, because I haven't eaten there yet. Someone else will have to comment on before and after Chef Frigerio. (Please post below.)
I also can't say exactly when restaurant chefs (as opposed to Julia) became stars in their own right; but if I had to take a guess, I would say in the United States...
(Photo courtesy of the Chez Panisse Web site)
Comments
This is the most overrated place in Baltimore right now. Ate with other foodie friends of ours and they agreed. Just because it is Cindy Wolf And Tony foreman does not make it a good restaurant. The space is beautiful!
Posted by: susan | November 12, 2007 7:11 PM
there are a significant portion of chefs who use their palette to create and mix flavor profiles. technical cooking training comes from many years as a line cook in a reputable restaurant. there is only 1 way to make a demi, to sear a skin on fish for crispy texture. that is straight forward technical training. i'm not a fan of a "chef" using a cookbook, downloading from the food network and calling it his/her own. that's why you have a palette and the training amongst the gods of the industry to refine/understand that palette. can a cookbook or a download accomplish this, probably not...
Posted by: curious4food | November 13, 2007 9:24 AM