·      His funeral supper ‘insulted his family, questioned social hierarchies and reminded all that death was the great equaliser’ – made meals satirical, ‘controversial entertainments’

·      Grimod preserved elite dishes by making them more palatable and accessible to a wider audience - ‘protective uncle’ tone – interesting transmission of delicacies across classes

·      Redeveloped understanding of ‘gourmand’ to allow people to enjoy tasting food – ‘reflective, thoughtful’ rather than feeling guilty for being gluttonous

·      Grimod helped more people (across classes) appreciate and deepen knowledge on food 

 

Grimod being enigmatic and fascinating draws parallels to Pellegrino Artusi and his original, eclectic approach to his book. 

 

The Grimod family's rise to become members of the noblesse de la robe - makes me think of the French film Ridicule, set just before the French Revolution, centred around the noblesse at Versailles and their lives of parlours, banquets and having battles of witty banter for amusement. 

 

Carving being "a social necessity for hosting elite French dinners in the late eighteenth century" - restrictive social requirements around food, another cultural divider between classes. 

 

By becoming a 'guide to the gastronomic arts' for the nouveaux riches bourgeois and proletarians, Grimod assisted the Revolution's aims of evening out the class system as well as opportunistically preserving the key facets he loved about the aristocratic culture.

 

Grimod summoning jurors to his review nights - reminiscent of how only certain nobles would be invited to have an audience with the King at Versailles.

 

The discussion about how Grimod named the book - gourmand, meaning glutton, something which was still widely condemned as a sin - reminds me of what was said in the lecture about how it's not just what or how we eat, but how we TALK about it that is also very important. 

-    Escoffier was the one to create the Brigade system (Brigade de cuisine) in the kitchen. This hierarchy of chefs, cooks and kitchens staff is what we typically in restaurants today.  Though during his time this type of organisation was unheard of.

-     The people in this video see Escoffier as the first to establish an organised system/methodology to the kitchen; “He was the first to canonize everything”. Yet, Escoffier attributes this quality to the works Carême, of which Escoffier's ideas were based around: “ (Escoffier) declared flatly that “the fundamental principles of the science [of cooking], which we owe to Carême…will last as long as Cooking itself.””, “The rational presentation of culinary preparations as a system of interconnected parts that built on a singular base of fundamental principles—those principles that Escoffier claimed French cuisine owed to Carême” (p.42,47 Parkhurst Ferguson).

-   Although Carême sought to make cuisine more simplistic (relative to the Ancien Regime), his approach would be considered extravagant in today's attitudes. Therefore we could say that Escoffier's new style is one more suited to modern times, as we see it's lasting presence in the cuisine world. Another point showing that cuisine (food preparation, rules and etiquette) is dynamic and always changing.  

- Carême modernizing from Ancient Regime, Escoffier modernizing from Carême. These french figures at the forefront of modern cuisine. This may be why even up until today, the French and French cuisine is perceived as the benchmark of quality.

interesting transition of the role of the consumer

cooking = duty

-       Used aristocratic experience of food post-revolution – continued tradition of fine dining

-       Didn’t like post-rev wave of bourgeois and proletariats partaking in activities once reserved to high society members

-       Wrote a book to educate the masses in fine dining

 

 

-        Grimod acted as a cultural bridge -  being shunned by aristocratic family pre-revolution, but kept traditions of fine dining in place post-revolution

-       Did he do so out of respect for food/culture? or due to his perception of a lack of respect/knowledge the bourgeoisie and proletariat had while engaged in fine dining and culture?

In his adult life Grimod loved to dine, frequented theaters, and generally live a "louche" lifestyle.

Grimod's first great evening came in the form of a "funeral supper" where he hosted a dinner party themed as a funeral. This event pointedly insulted his own family, mocked tradition, and questioned social hierarchies through his discussion and the dishes presented.

The Revolution created nouveaux riches bourgeois and left Grimod considerably less wealthy. Grimod noticed the lack of knowledge of literature and gastronomy in the new upper class and decided to lend his great expertise. Grimod has released 8 volumes of introduction to every aspect French fine dining.

These books changed French food tradition forever - presenting the idea of serving food in courses instead of all together at once, for the first time.

It seems at odds that Grimod is said to question social hierarchies, yet banish slaves from his dining room "ostensibly to allow uncensored discussion of the foods".

Grimod discussion of food was often highly political, he likewise used food itself as a form of discussion - about society, etc. 

This ties to this class, and how we are analysing food/cuisine as something that speaks, about history, etc. 

Women’s access to education, capital for entrepreneurial investment and employment found increased restriction due to this ideology of feminine domesticity, rather than the patriarchal structure of the guild which had limited but never eliminated women’s participation in the production and service of food. Culinary discourse particularly with women therefore is depicted quite static or unreflective of womens knowledge. This encouraged a push in feminism

 

How will this new modernisation and emphasis on time and cost efficiency of food that is occurring in urban middle-class affect traditional aspects? (such as moral and medical implications - e.g. there are traditional prohibitions about eating leftovers)
(Sadie)

-   Pampille’s book, Les Bons Plats de France: cuisine régionale, shows the importance of talking (reading) about food in forming a culinary country. In her recipes she states that only a few people could truly and genuinely enjoy certain regional dishes. The point of her book is to create an ideology of the regions, giving a home to the dishes, rather than the dishes itself.

Culinary country and culinary identity

-   Aren’t necessarily the same things. We could form our own notions as to what makes up a country’s cuisine but inevitably everyone is going to have different experiences with food. Doesn’t make either any less justified, both exist simultaneously, e.g. imagined community and banal nationalism 

Regionality into Nationality – Importance of the land

-   The central readings about Italy and Spain mention the unification of their respective nations based on celebrating/highlighting the different regional cuisines the country has to offer. The association of cuisine, food and produce to the land plays an important role in creating a national image 

-   Appellations d’origine controlees: Certifications which stress the importance of region and land

HOWEVER, does a dish and its ingredients have to hail from that specific land/region/country to be considered truly representative of a nation? Truly authentic?

-   Many nations that consider themselves a 'culinary country' raise this question. Nobu Matsushisa, on Japanese cuisine: “So long as you keep your feet planted in the techniques of Japanese cookery, new Japanese dishes can be created anywhere in the world”

"Yet these high cuisines, with their emphasis on spectacle, disguise, and display, always seek to distance themselves from their local sources". I'm not sure that this is true, particularly not in the cases of Spain and Italy which celebrate regional diversity? The author mentions China and Italy but as distinct exceptions, whereas I feel there would be more. 

 

"Like the cooking of ancient and early-medieval Europe, preindustrial China, and the precolonial Middle East, cooking in India is deeply embedded in moral and medical beliefs and prescriptions." What does this mean exactly, and how is this present in medieval European cuisine? 

 

Why the proliferation of English-speakers and English-language materials in India, and why has this become a defining factor of the middle to upper-middle class? Globalisation? 

Is it possible that perhaps the quest for codification of a national cuisine is less prevalent or apparent in India's history because it was less vital for creating a sense of national identity? Is it that India's national/culture identity was strong enough without needing to put particular emphasis on a national cuisine? Did they perhaps have other cultural avenues for overcoming their history of British colonialism? 

    -When discussing Pampille’s cookbook, Ferguson notes her emphasis on national food that are shared by “peasant and bourgeois alike”. I find this true with many contemporary quintessential Australia meals. Just as “The ‘poor fisherman’ on the Meditterranean coast prepares bouillabaisse quite as well as the ‘cleverest Marseilles chef’, so too can a tradie from rural Australia lay claim to being able to barbeque a sausage just as well as Curtis Stone. 

-Despite the fact that traditionally and still today the authenticity of Melbourne’s international cuisines came from our many migrant chefs, more and more I think Melbourne is a good example of the suggestion that authenticity in food can be achieved as long as you “keep your feet planted in [traditional] techniques”. 

- In 2013 as many as 70% of French restaurants were found to be using ready made food, produced on an industrial scale 

- Foreign young chefs are driving the new wave of the French cuisine. 

- These chefs are cooking French food. 

- Embracing of non French food such as American burgers from food trucks.

- Control is moving from the traditional and Michelin to young restaurant goers, who now have the power to reshape the food landscape. 

- "French cuisine no longer belongs exclusively to the French"

- Food can be made with French produce, in France, and not explicitly be French food, but a new adaptation of French food. 

- Japanese chefs are well adapt at cooking French cuisine as both focus on seasonality and terroir. There was around 2 dozen Japanese run French restaurants at the time of this article 

Titled "who can save French food" the answer is obvious; the young

-Just as contemporary French cuisine is slowly starting to reap the benefits of pluraliste food through its integration with migrant cuisines, the Australian culinary landscape found its quality and character in its embracing of multiculturalism. 

-Unlike in France, Australia is relatively free of a strict, codified culinary tradition and was, therefore, more open to embracing foreign foods. 

-The pride that France is just beginning to feel in its integration of immigrant food into mainstream cuisine is one that has been central to Australia’s culinary identity for the last few decades. 

Tourism website portrays Spain very generally – (‘discovering Catalonia from Barcelona’) - Catalonia just seems like another place in Spain rather than its own unique region 

Website doesn’t portray the same ‘powerful statement of identity and difference’ in individual  regions