A Departure, a comment on our financial situation.

Sorry for this but i do think in a way it is important to our industry, especially as profits, pay and customer numbers fall. I haven't read anything asking this question, but it probably exisits. Ddid our current financial situation (globally) really begin with Enron? I just finished watching "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" and i began to wonder if there are connections between our current financial problems and what Enron did. Enron created new ways of trading. Some of the banks we have come to associate with our current financial problems where in cohorts with enron to create false profits. My basic question is did the creative proceses Enron used just morph into a different market? Do you remember rolling black outs? Those where created by Enron and their traders. Banks like Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and Citibank had helped to bankroll Enrons problemed bottom line and are now in financial hardship (finally). Did the financial world learn something from the down fall of Enron and what is it they learned? It seems to me that debt trading and debt derivitives are an extension of mark to market accounting. That is claiming future profits on current investments, which is especially troublsome because future values can very rarly be accuretly determined. Now hold on, because this gets complicated. So i want to sell you debt, but not just one persons debt, but let us say i take 1000 home loans, then i break them them up into percentages of valuation. not based on the probability of defualt or risk but on the future valuation of the payback (assuming everyone pays back debt in full no matter their current financial situation) and the future profits of full payback. This is in the closest way i can explain a derivitive, or to derive current value based off of future returns. Seems questionable to me to claim a value based off of an unkown. all value for me should be based off of current valuations, but currently (espiecaly now)that is not a world we live in. Those toxic assets, they aren't gone but just written off the books and those vast profits aren't really there either. It seems another magic show is being put on to prop up the world financial sector that has been broken for a very long time. Enron created new, irresposible and fraduanlent ways of accounting for current costs through future gains that aren't in any way garanteed. Just looking at the financial figures of Enron executives compared to losses of the employees and "regular investors" is very analogious to our current situation with large payouts to executives while the corporation looses vast sums of money. It is really hard to calcutate current costs especially in our current market as prices of fuel, labor, etc. fluctuate. Just imagine how much harder, or the magic that is required to calculate future profits.It amounts to a guessing game. Just look back to a year ago and the costs of living a year ago. How much did you spend on fuel, food, education, clothing, power, water, etc...well how much of your income went to bills? Now did that go down in a year? My guess is yes. Fuel itself is at least $1.00 less a gallon, price of food has gone up, earnings have probably gone down but because of lack of bonuses and pay raises if not pay reduction or unemployment. Now some would say the in the end it balances out and superficually i would agree, but on the finer points or on examination of details it appears that that we are suffering the cost of our hubris. Or of the hubris of the rich and powerful. If an analyst didn't see this downfall coming (i have been talking about it for atleast 5 years) then what kind of analyst are they? And the downfall isn't finished. The price of commercial realestate and the price of residential rentals must come down to reflect the current realestate valuations, layoffs will continue and the US will probably reach an unemployment level above 10% maybe even up to 12%-13%. If Enron and the past recessions, depressions and recoveries have taught us anything it is that regulation is very important. Now granted, I'm on the extream here. I can't think of any reason why anyone human needs to make more than $2 million ($2,000,000.00-just look at all those zeros) a year. What possibly could you need that takes up all that resource. It seems to me that executives have lost sight of one of the most important aspects of leadership, take care of those who take care of you. If you make 10 million a year there is no reason why anyone in your company should make below $50,000,00.00 (50 thousand) a year. i mean really are you that self important and selfish? Or is it that we inhabit a world of managers with few leaders? Many people would argue that such a cap would in return cap the pay of workers. But that would only happen if we let it. if the workers had more money to spend they would spend it. The only way top down economics works is if you expand the top and eliminate the bottom. The more people with money the more people to spend money and to save and to invest. This seems simple but arguments about merit, valuation of contribution and the idea of the american dream persist to make it a limited number at the top. It seems to me the a revaluation of the american dream is what is called for. We need to revaluate what is important to us as society, not as individuals. If we call to make resposible those at the forefront of our down fall then we are all resposible. If knowledge and its application is the true reward then we need to refocuse on education. President Obama was correct is asking the country to refocuse ourselves but we seem to lack the will to sacrifice that is required. We will have to pay more for less in the future. But if you want quality then quality is worth the price. Are you ready to pay for Quality?

A Simple Question

The not so current trend of reinventing traditional dishes has exploded in a new way in the Bay Area, hot dogs anyone? Of course it may have started with pizzas, burgers,salads and Chez Panisse but the move to terrain usually occupied by large food manufacturers, chains and home cooks is both exciding and very telling. What is in one way a response to the current economic environment (on everybody's minds if not pocketbooks) looks, from another perspective, as a continuation and exploration of ingredients and technique. The Bay Area is familiar with simple food and superb ingredients (superb is a great word, isn't it?). We are lucky and seem to know it. Restaurants, chefs, grocery stores, consumers, etc. all seem to be focusing on the local, seasonal ingredients movement known to some as slow food. Although in a restaurant I’m not sure the word slow is really applicable. This isn't news to anyone, but is it technique or product that drives creation? I once had a conversation with a coworker about the difference between the NY and Bay Area food scene. He contended that technique drove the NY scene and product the Bay Area. I've been thinking a lot about this ever since. A little bit of childhood whimsy plays in the cooking of food that is, in my humble opinion, always driven by technique. Without good technique based on solid fundamentals even exceptional produce can't save you. If you’re cooking simply, only using a few ingredients with very little manipulation a mistake is glaring. Do chefs look at produce or protein and wonder what can be done with it, sure. That may even be and often is the starting point of a dish, but not always. There are many ways to approach a dish and none of them is the right one. Just as there are many ways to cook one item, there are many ways to approach the creative process. Sometimes it is trying to save money and find something to do with scrap, sometimes it is a desire to try a certain technique, sometime simple boredom and sometimes the product will lead the way, but without solid fundamentals of basic technique nothing will succeed. If the creative process starts with a question then questions and answers are found in technique and if that isn't solid neither will be. Everything may be driven by technique but in the end I think the most important part is curiosity, yep that childhood whimsy part. Without it questions aren't asked, answers never found and new perspectives are rare. Technique just provides a frame work for questions and tools for invention. Plato once said that necessity is the mother of invention and isn't eating a basic necessity?

Food Writing

Like many I try to read as many reviews per week as I can, along with Newsweek, cookbooks, recipe books, blogs, and keeping up with current events it's a wonder I get anything done. But what purpose does food journalism serve? To keep industry standards? Advertisement for a restaurant/chef? Some form of political favor trading? Education of the public and professional alike? Or a complex amalgamation and then some? I read reviews to keep abreast of new restaurants opening, how menus and public food interest is changing and because I don't go out much. Who has the time or money with two young children, a job, a wife (my reading) and everything that comes with these. I would love to go out, visit restaurants not only to experience food but for the whole experience of service, decor, atmosphere and all the little details of a night out. But alas, I keep myself content by cooking at home (a lot really) and reading about someone else's experience. I do keep in mind that I am reading another’s experience. The person writing has their own standards, things that make or break an experience, they may be having a horrible day or even a great one, both of which will influence how they perceive the meal they had, past life experience, temperament, the writers own guidelines as to what makes a good meal, dinning alone, with good friends, with a lover, how much where they plied with alcohol. It goes on and on, a long list, too long to really get into, not that I haven't tried and not that you couldn't figure it out yourself. So what purpose does food journalism serve? With web sites like Yelp, City Search, Urbanspoon, and all the blogs out there do we really need professional reviewers? Are lists like the Chronicles top 100 really needed? As for professional reviewers I think they still serve a purpose, although we may disagree with them they are professional dinners. We may curse their decisions, point to glaring blind spots they have for certain chefs or restaurants (chefs from Chez Panisse are an example) but we know their standards and their blind spots. When I read a review on yelp or on a blog I tend to take it with a healthy pinch of salt when Bauer, Bruni, Sietsema, or other critics review a place I know where they come from, they have a history I can go back to, compare latest reviews to their history I’m not as skeptical. Professional reviewers are also plugged into the industry in ways most are not. They hear the rumors, check the facts and go out more than most can ever afford. I think the most important question is what will the future of critical review be? With newspapers closing and print in danger how will reviewers change the way they deliver their message? I'm sure it will move more online and with the possibility of ads and the increased public awareness of cuisine and good eating, life style blogs and web pages will probably increase. This means less professional voices and with the number of restaurants in the bay area alone (not to mention the nation) it will be increasingly harder to get an overall view of the industry. The free weeklies, web sites like yelp and blogs offer a business model for newspapers in trouble and a move to web centric content may also decrease the cost of publication. But most of the country isn't as well connected as the bay area. It will be a sad day if professional review with all its educated insight and knowledge goes to the background, how fast publications move to a new business model, how the public and the tech industry reacts to these change and how the restaurant industry respond will all have a great affect on this. So a big question, how do you get your information?

Mistakes

It's your first night on the pasta station, 60 + on the books (good, a slow night you think) you have thirteen dishes to remember, not only the ingredients and steps of each dish but how long each dish takes, how to organize yourself and all the little details so that each dish comes out perfect (or as close as you can come this time around). The night starts out slow, you taste each pasta and sauce making sure that everything is okay. You have your expo taste and look to make sure you have the right sauce consistency, portion size and that everything is just so. You've been working well; dishes are going out on time, looking and tasting good. Then an order comes in and you realize you miscounted how many spags you have. You've just made a rookie mistake. First you didn't keep a running count, second you didn't put it on count so now two customers are unhappy, your restaurant may have to comp a meal or drink, costing them money and the rest of the table is waiting for their food while your mistake is fixed. This can ruin a night. Of course you will beat yourself and get mad or frustrated, then you'll probably go through and double check all you placè making sure the mistake doesn't happen again, and to be sure, the next time around your going to double or triple check your counts, maybe write them down, you won't let this happen again, never again (at least until the next time). Mistakes happen; it is the only thing I know for sure. It is inevitable with as much going on in a kitchen, each cook not only trying to keep track of him or herself but also of each other, something can and often does go wrong. It is what happens during and after that really matters. Do you work the problem then let it go, coming back to it after service or does it take you and the rest of the line down like into a truly gruesome and hard fight. Often times when a server says they need something on the fly the first thing cooks or the chef may do is try to find out what went wrong. For me I first want to fix the problem, get the food out, and then find out what went wrong. Learning from these mistakes is what makes us better, it helps us to see and get ahead of potential problems. Once you've cost your restaurant money, your guest’s happiness and your fellow cook’s time you'll make sure it doesn't happen again. Some chefs will yell and scream until the problem is fixed, some will just push through, working the problem then talk about it after, finding out what went wrong and what steps can be taken to ensure it goes smoother next time. Neither is truly right or wrong, it really is a matter a personal style. Some chefs are yellers, and some cooks don't work well unless being pushed, and pushed hard. Other chefs are quiet, won't yell but will let you learn and help guide you. I've worked for both and when I get yelled I made sure to fix the problem and work to never let it happen again. I did become very fast and learn how to work the line when I was being yelled at, I didn't learn how to work the problem, how to push past it and recover so that the rest of the night went smoothly. Yelling made a bad problem worse for me, made it harder to recover and move through. I don't like to yell, I have yelled and it is hard not to when it seems everything is falling apart and you are doing everything you can to just hold it together but generally I don't like yelling it adds stress and confusion to an already stressful situation. It also causes communication confusion. My new home communicates and shares info on a level I haven't seen yet. The sous chef told me what he will tell the exec about my first night on pasta, this is helpful. It allows me to focus not only on what I need to improve, but also lets me know if my perspective is in line with everyone else’s. This is all part of the learning process, and isn't that what mistakes are all about?

Starting Over

How do you enter a new kitchen? Do you go in thinking you know how to do the job, that you have nothing left to learn or do you go in open minded, looking to learn everything you can, sidelining your ego and pretending (at least for a little time) that you need to relearn how to do everything? Do you think some tasks are beyond your skills or are you willing to do everything and anything just to learn and contribute? Coming into a new kitchen is a balance between using knowledge and experience and learning the thought process and procedures of the kitchen. Every kitchen has its own pace, its own standards and reasoning. The reasoning behind decisions is important to learn and asking questions is as important as keeping a sharp knife. Since starting in a new kitchen and returning to being a line cook I've had to try to navigate the personalities of the other cooks, the menu philosophy, the style, methods and reasons of my new home. I started in the best possible location, pantry. The cold station presents the best location to see how a kitchen operates and learn the expectations. I think that every cook starting in a new kitchen should start here. It is the station that all cooks first work, and the station that usually starts the meal. First impressions are made, expectations are set and the pace can all be influenced by the pantry cook. The acidity and seasoning level of cold items can also help to understand the tastes of the kitchen. Pantry also helps to teach plating philosophies. Portion size and plate layout are important things to learn. Not only can they help guide you as you move through the other stations, in keeping mental counts and in prep work but can also help in conceptualizing new dishes, and if you want to contribute to a kitchen all of this is important. The end question for me is what type of cook are you? Do you cook just to earn a pay check, doing just the bare minimum and enough to get by or are you part of the team, trying to learn as much as possible just so you can play your part, and play it well.

The Art v Craft Question

Whether or not what a chef does can be considered art has been a topic of great discussion. Books like Culinary Artistry, Rulman's trilogy, and Becoming a Chef (to name a few) deal with this issue (especially if not directly) and cooks and chefs can often be heard talking about it. Maybe the conversation is more about the difference between craft and art than about whether or not cooking is one or other, but for me all art begins with craft. Picasso first learned techniques, practiced point of view, perspective, scaling, lighting, and all the other elements and effects of visual art. For any artist, the craft of a chosen medium must be learned, practiced and struggled with. The difference between craft and art has nothing to do with medium. An artist can work with paint, metal, wood, clay, fabric, food, music, words and any other material; this doesn't make them an artist. In fact it seems certain forms (painting and sculpture particularly) are demanded less of, or maybe we don't understand enough to demand more. It is much harder to be called a literary artist than a visual artist and for some reason almost all musicians are considered artists?. With art education disappearing all across the country and the word art being debased left and right through phrases like the art of leadership, the art of law, etc.. It isn't surprising that there is some confusion about art, even the art world’s sometime declaration that art is what you make of it causes more problems than it solves. Art isn't just a technique, medium or thought process in the end art is a culmination and transcendence of many things from the techniques and craft to the process and ideas behind the concept. Art is a way of communicating a personal view point. It communicates a specific way of seeing the world. It is based in practice and study of techniques, processes and mediums. Trial and error is as inherent in art as it is in any creative act. I think what really marks the difference is through the act of creation an artist can transcend the craft to comment on some greater human condition, some human universal. The ability to connect with an audience, bring them into your world for a moment, showing the audience something strange and familiar. Can this be done with food? What some seem to think, that food and cooking is outside the realm of art, doesn't take into account the full scope of the profession. This doesn't mean that all chefs or cooks are artists, it just means that the possibility of artistry exists within the scope of the profession. There are some who are without a doubt artists. The chefs that invite us into a world, were service, décor, food and atmosphere come together to create a united experience, for that is all cooking is, providing an experience no matter how momentary that can touch a person in ways that can be remembered for ever. A chef can change a persons thoughts on what food is and can be, we can have a conversation with a person by serving them well prepared and thoughtful food in a well prepared and thoughtful setting with well prepared and thoughtful service that suggests another way of thinking about eating and cooking and the importance and impact of these acts on our lives and society, and this culmination is artistry. It begins with craft and technique. Being able to properly cook and serve food is a feat all it's own that should be applauded (it takes years of practice and study to do such a simple thing). The transcendence into something other should be celebrated. In the end I think it wise not only to recognize craft but to recognize and applauded artistry within any endeavor. Artistry comes from hard work and practice, it comes from failure and success, and in the end it is an experience all its own. This doesn't mean that all cooks and chefs should strive for artistry, craftsmanship is hard enough, but it does mean that when we experience artistry in any form it should be applauded and recognized as such.

Trying out

The stagè is an important part of joining a kitchen. Getting to see how the restaurant operates, how service flows, skill of the cooks, chefs and standards applied are important. It is also important to go show that you can handle yourself, that standing around isn't what you're about, that you want to learn and can take direction and work with others. Myself, I can't get this from one night, I want to go in for three days, spend 10 hours each day with everyone, and get the feeling of the kitchen while giving everyone a chance to get to know me. Then there's the trial meal. Planning and making the meal for owners and chefs, sourcing the product and cooking says a lot about the cook. Not only if the person can cook (which is kind of important) but the thought process behind the meal. The flow of the meal, is it consistent and follows a continuous arc? Do the components fit together and make sense? Where was the product sourced? It all says something about a cook and where he/she stands in their career. In the past two weeks I have done one lunch and one dinner. Both have taught me about myself and my skill level. I had fun and was successful with both meals. I can't stress enough the importance of doing this as often as possible, especially when looking for a job. Just going into an unfamiliar kitchen and hanging out for a night or two, getting to know people and learn new techniques, asking questions and finding out why a chef does something like flour a piece of meat to be seared can all expand knowledge and that can only be good. This doesn't mean that all experiences will be good, but even from the bad (or even more so) we learn. Another aspect of the learning process (for me anyway) is cooking at home. I bake bread, make pasta, make stock and cook at least two meals a week. I take the skills I’ve learned professionally and find a way to apply it to home cooking, further developing my skill and my palate. The scale of home cooking is smaller by far, sometimes making it harder to coax the full flavor or texture out of a technique but I develop techniques suitable only for the home kitchen and a way of thinking about flavors and processes. It is the though process that's important. The thought process most easily translates between the two different cooking environments. Trying something at home to see how it works then taking that idea and translating it into the professional kitchen can be hard but rewarding, and trying in reverse can be even more so. The most important thing is to learn and find ways that make cooking not only a physical act but a cerebral and emotional one as well. Only when you understand why a technique is used can you fully exploit it. This understanding and learning is what this profession is about and what drives me forward, this is why I cook.