The circumstances that Besim writes about reminds me of what happens when you go to a Broadway play or an opera when someone comes ot on stage and tells you that the lead actor or singer is “indisposed” and is being replaced by an understudy you never heard of. That this situation is happening with increasing frequency in dining’s upper echelons is disconcerting, and with the on-going dilutive nature of so-called fine dining, the opportunities of having a meal at the hands of the great chef are diminishing. As Besim stated, this becomes most glaring with sushi chefs, but why shouldn’t this be relevant to more conventional chefs, especially the ones who charge close to $1000 (or more) per person?
I go back a long way in my interest in, and the consuming of, blow-out meals. The phenomenon of what we are describing takes me back to Alain Chapel saying he became anxious about being away from his kitchen when he had to travel to America to cook at what were, for him, lucrative events. And when Pierre Gagnaire was in Saint-Etienne, he told me that after two days of being away, the quality of his restaurant suffered. Today with certain chefs, you are best off assuming the chef whose name is on the menu won’t be in residence. You will never see Alain Ducasse at the Louis XV in Monaco, and even if he were there, he wouldn’t be the one making the food. Jean-Georges puts his name on many restaurants, but when I go to the one close to where I live, I am likely the only one who knows there aren’t chefs in the kitchen, just like most cafes and brasseries in France. Let’s face it then: Restaurant cuisine is becoming increasingly like the automobile assembly line, even like the one at Rolls-Royce. With sous-vide and the new-fangled ovens that do away with the need for hands-on chefs with “thermometers in their heads”, the name-chef is not a chef as chefs used to be. Added to this is that restaurants by themselves are more often than not break-even or money-losing propositions, relegating owner-chefs to relying on outside sources to get by. I guess the remedy is to go to those diamonds in the rough where the chef isn’t famous, but will provide you a delicious meal, be it innovative in a personal way or the traditional tried-and-true that will all but guarantee that the chef won’t be going anywhere.
In Japanese cuisine, the absence of the master chef is arguably worse that seeing a stand-in.
The brigade system is designed for reproducibility; it's a system-centric model that optimize for consistency. Conversely, high-end sushi and kappo restaurants are 'master-centric', conceptually modelled after Noh, where the shokunin is the main attraction.
The master not being there is akin to buying tickets for a Taylor Swift concert and only getting to see a background singer perform.
It's a thought provoking article. Loved it. And immediately thought about its relevance to my own industry, winemaking.
Consulting winemakers often have nothing to do with the actually process of winemaking. They may be simply pulled in after the wine is made according to a set of protocols and the consultant tastes the wine, then offers suggestions for adjustment. That's it. But it's a good living.
In other cases, the Assistant Winemaker does all the work and the Winemaker simply checks the work along the way, having been stuck in an office doing paperwork. Sort of a Master and Apprentice situation, this is probably the most common. The Assistant at some point will get hired away to do the same thing to someone else at their new gig. This has been the way for most systems around the world, along with Interns.
Another case, the "Winemaker" is merely a title, the individual knowing next to nothing about winemaking and having a production facility make their wine for them. If the wine gets praise, the "Winemaker" gets the glory, but the actual person who made it gets, well, nothing.
This piece is brilliant and highlights the need to de-focus chefs (after all, the star is awarded to their restaurant, not to them - as the floor matters in the award, too, as the cellar and the bar. Or it should) or devise another system, because what is blatantly true is that after a couple of years toiling in the kitchen, individuals that define themselves as chefs are less likely to desire staying in said kitchen as they taste the sweet flavor of international trips, “consulting”, and working a minimum amount for a maximum return (in exposure, satisfaction and cash).
The soul of perfection that is the essence of the perfection of an extraordinary chef with one restaurant, can be missing when his executive chef emulates his essence.
Most diners don't know and don't care and that is good for the chef as all of this is hard work and for a break even proposition. The solution is simple for those that do care: Ask if/when a "practicing chef" will or wont be there and change your plans to dine when the chef is there.
The circumstances that Besim writes about reminds me of what happens when you go to a Broadway play or an opera when someone comes ot on stage and tells you that the lead actor or singer is “indisposed” and is being replaced by an understudy you never heard of. That this situation is happening with increasing frequency in dining’s upper echelons is disconcerting, and with the on-going dilutive nature of so-called fine dining, the opportunities of having a meal at the hands of the great chef are diminishing. As Besim stated, this becomes most glaring with sushi chefs, but why shouldn’t this be relevant to more conventional chefs, especially the ones who charge close to $1000 (or more) per person?
I go back a long way in my interest in, and the consuming of, blow-out meals. The phenomenon of what we are describing takes me back to Alain Chapel saying he became anxious about being away from his kitchen when he had to travel to America to cook at what were, for him, lucrative events. And when Pierre Gagnaire was in Saint-Etienne, he told me that after two days of being away, the quality of his restaurant suffered. Today with certain chefs, you are best off assuming the chef whose name is on the menu won’t be in residence. You will never see Alain Ducasse at the Louis XV in Monaco, and even if he were there, he wouldn’t be the one making the food. Jean-Georges puts his name on many restaurants, but when I go to the one close to where I live, I am likely the only one who knows there aren’t chefs in the kitchen, just like most cafes and brasseries in France. Let’s face it then: Restaurant cuisine is becoming increasingly like the automobile assembly line, even like the one at Rolls-Royce. With sous-vide and the new-fangled ovens that do away with the need for hands-on chefs with “thermometers in their heads”, the name-chef is not a chef as chefs used to be. Added to this is that restaurants by themselves are more often than not break-even or money-losing propositions, relegating owner-chefs to relying on outside sources to get by. I guess the remedy is to go to those diamonds in the rough where the chef isn’t famous, but will provide you a delicious meal, be it innovative in a personal way or the traditional tried-and-true that will all but guarantee that the chef won’t be going anywhere.
In Japanese cuisine, the absence of the master chef is arguably worse that seeing a stand-in.
The brigade system is designed for reproducibility; it's a system-centric model that optimize for consistency. Conversely, high-end sushi and kappo restaurants are 'master-centric', conceptually modelled after Noh, where the shokunin is the main attraction.
The master not being there is akin to buying tickets for a Taylor Swift concert and only getting to see a background singer perform.
It's a thought provoking article. Loved it. And immediately thought about its relevance to my own industry, winemaking.
Consulting winemakers often have nothing to do with the actually process of winemaking. They may be simply pulled in after the wine is made according to a set of protocols and the consultant tastes the wine, then offers suggestions for adjustment. That's it. But it's a good living.
In other cases, the Assistant Winemaker does all the work and the Winemaker simply checks the work along the way, having been stuck in an office doing paperwork. Sort of a Master and Apprentice situation, this is probably the most common. The Assistant at some point will get hired away to do the same thing to someone else at their new gig. This has been the way for most systems around the world, along with Interns.
Another case, the "Winemaker" is merely a title, the individual knowing next to nothing about winemaking and having a production facility make their wine for them. If the wine gets praise, the "Winemaker" gets the glory, but the actual person who made it gets, well, nothing.
Thanks David. Very interesting analogy. I think you should write about it :)
I’ve got something in the works. Thanks for the inspiration
This piece is brilliant and highlights the need to de-focus chefs (after all, the star is awarded to their restaurant, not to them - as the floor matters in the award, too, as the cellar and the bar. Or it should) or devise another system, because what is blatantly true is that after a couple of years toiling in the kitchen, individuals that define themselves as chefs are less likely to desire staying in said kitchen as they taste the sweet flavor of international trips, “consulting”, and working a minimum amount for a maximum return (in exposure, satisfaction and cash).
The soul of perfection that is the essence of the perfection of an extraordinary chef with one restaurant, can be missing when his executive chef emulates his essence.
Most diners don't know and don't care and that is good for the chef as all of this is hard work and for a break even proposition. The solution is simple for those that do care: Ask if/when a "practicing chef" will or wont be there and change your plans to dine when the chef is there.
Journalist asks Paul Bocuse: "Who's in charge of the cooking when you're not there?
Paul Bocuse answers: "The same guy as when I'm there."