Bare with me...
How to Paint the Mona Lisa
1. Get a canvas, frame, paints, oils, palate and brushes, and a stool to sit on.2. Create a grid on the canvas onto which the background will be painted.3. Paint the background.4. Start at the top of the head andf work downwards.5. Finish with shoulders.
Ok...
Throughout my career I've analysed literally thousands of recipes in books, magazines, online and even on TV. What has always struck me as odd about these recipes is that unless the chef boasts a keen scientific insight in how how ingredients behave, an awareness of procude quality (especially that used by the recipe author), and the physical dynamics of cooking equipment (similar to the recipe author), and staffing levels to deliver such recipes, they have as much chance of creating the Mona Lisa as they do a perfect copy of the recipe they seek to emulate.
It's my view that professional recipes need to be taught over time rather than be 'copied', and if professional chefs wish to truly nail recipes from the icons who inspire them, they need to relate to the recipe with a depth of empathy that is quite frankly spiritual.
For over a decade I chatted with dissapointed chefs with 1 Rosette who in trying to attempt a 3 Star recipe fell miserably short without understanding why. The industry is not short of such mis matches of intent and delivery.
Proffesional chefs need to realise that before the recipe comes the honing of skill. A concert violinist practices scales and arpeggios required for a particular peice before tackling said peice. This doesn't happen enough in modern kitchens.
So the question for you... is... given that a recipe in itself is no longer enough to ensure success, how should recipes be communicated so that chefs can check if they're good enough to attempt them, and more importantly, understand the journey of the recipe and the quality of their output?
"For over a decade I chatted with dissapointed chefs with 1 Rosette who in trying to attempt a 3 Star recipe fell miserably short without understanding why. The industry is not short of such mis matches of intent and delivery."
Gordon, what advice would you give to the one-rosette chefs you refer to, to assist them with winning firther rosettes?
Thanks Mark...
It's important for chefs to accurately benchmark themselves and understand how their skills apply to their rescources and more importantly their market. Cooking is an extension of a chefs personality so it's obvious to me when the chef is trying to be someone/thing he/she is not. So the advice would be to cook the dishes that work, the dishes in which the chef and ingredients connect. When a chef can understand what works and what doesn't a chef can look at a new recipe and instantly see which parts of the recipe apply to what they do best. If it's all alien... then keep away.
There is also the chef who applies old technology and processes to cutting edge ideas. This doesn't work either.
Chefs who are mindful of their strengths and weaknesses find harmony in what they do. Their dishes will deliver balance and intuitive harmony.
Unless I'm reading you wrong, Gordon, you're suggesting that a chef is innately destined to reach a certain level of culinary excellence, come what may. But surely, trying to be "something he/she is not" is the best way to stretch themselves and extend their powers?
Good point. I think any chef can acheive any level of cookery if they have structured learning, development and full understanding. If chefs don't accept there are techniques and skills yet to be learnt then they might indirectly limit their ability to stretch effectively.
Industry knowledge and dining out is a good way to assess their place in all of this. Chefs can eat anothers dish or look at a photo and think 'How do they do that?'. The next step is to rationalise the process or recipe, understand the produce and equipment dynamics and assess the chances of emulating the standard successfully. If they do this properly, then they will move on up. If they don't I doubt they will.
That's really interesting. Reminds me of when I studied French at school and the teacher used to encourage us to listen to French radio whenever we could. At first, you'd struggle to pick out familar words but after a while you became attuned to the speed of delivery and were able to get a sense of what was being discussed.
In your scenario, dining out regularly and studying the food you eat is the equivalent as listening to the radio. Examine dishes and try to calculate how they were made often enough, and after a while you are bound to learn from the exercise. It's a bit like reverse engineering in software design.
You've got me thinking Gordon: it would be interesting to set up a competition whereby chefs are presented with dishes and have to describe how they were made, and with what ingredients.
Spot on Mark... It's the poor (not the good) reverse engineering that you describe that can be a millstone around learning behaviours in chefs. If they think a lot more about dishes as you suggest, the mist will clear and recipes will be paths to follow rather than vague sign posts.
I'm not being generic about all chefs here. It's clear that a great many chefs get it right.
Ok thought I might join in.
my food has been rated in the past at 2 rosettes, and am well aware of the requirements of maintaining that level and strive to push myslef a little further each and every day. I now work in a private members club so have the double edged sword of not having to care a damn about the 'level' and wanting the accredited recongnition I had before.
I have always tried to keep the company of cooks whom I consider my peers, and gleam a great amount of information though conversation, the rest is going nuts through high-end cookbooks, I am lucky I guess that it is quite rare for me to have an utter faliure, sure I have got to the end of a recipe and thought, bugger looks nothing like it, but then find solice in 2 things, 1) it's my first go and 2) how long did it take you to dress it for that picture in the first place, too many times I have dined out to find the dish in question from the book, looks 'nearly like' the dish in front of me.
When I attempt a dish either told to me or from a book, I will work out the why, and get everything together, to me more improtant is if it went wrong, why did it, then disecting each step until the fail point, using experience then a decision can usually be made as to whether a number of things happened.
1) often didn't read that bit of the recipe correctly or got ahead of myslef and 'thought it would be ok'. My Bad
2)don't posess the skill level required - yet, good example of this is mozzarella balloons, sods to make, but on a simpler vain Warka (or Bric) pastry, equally needs a certain number of cock-ups before the correct result is achieved.
3) The most annoying !!! the written recipe misses out a vital ingredient or step, this was common in books of 10-15 years ago, thankfully less so now, bloody infuriating when you find this out, and why print the damn thing in the first place, money grabber. All due respect to the best cookbook of all time White heat, but the mashed potato in the basics section at the back, only ever use it when a commis upsets me, great wallpaper paste.
I agree that a certain level of skill is lacking in teachings these days and far too many chefs are trying to make a spherification before they can make the sauce, this is our responsibility within the industry to address at all levels, however I find that if I tackle a challenging recipe from a book (latest being the black truffle explosion from alinea) I find that after some trial and tribulation I am indeed improved.
Wow, I' d never even heard of a mozzarella balloon, but just went online and found this video. Fab idea!
You've opened the flood gates now Mark. Based on the same theme you might like this video... who needs an N20 charger. This is a dish that could take off?
Inspired response.