Fake Food

The more I watch MasterChef or Top Chef type shows, the more I realize I am not a fan of haute or nouvelle cuisine.  I do not like little cutesy things done with my food.  I'd really rather it be recognizable as what it actually is.  And my bouche is not amused by things like salmon cornets.  If I want an ice cream cone, I want it to be an ice cream cone, full of sweet, luxurious, creamy, rich ice cream, not smoked salmon and shallot-spiked crème fraîche.

I have come to the decision that I am better at cooking peasant dishes because that's the kind of food I like.  And I have no desire to learn how to cook a truffle purée.  I don't even like truffles!  (They taste like dirt!)  I would much rather have a warm, comforting bowl of chicken and dumplings than a plate with three bites of steak that's not even steak drizzled with truffle-infused oil.  I don't care how much the plate of art disguised as dinner costs, if I don't like the ingredients, any amount of money is too much.

I appreciate that the chef has learned to turn beets into a sorbet that can mimic the look of Bing cherries, but underneath it all, I don't like beets.  Why would I pay $40 for a plate of three tiny not-cherry beets when I'm not going to eat it?  Why can't a restaurant do comforting, honest food well?  When was it decided that food has to be new and exciting for it to be enjoyable?  Why does including expensive ingredients automatically mean a better meal?

For me a well-cooked beef stew, using the cheaper cuts is infinitely better than a poorly prepared Wagyu steak.  A well-made French Onion soup is better meal than a smear of onion jam on slices of so-rare-it's-still-swimming tuna with triangles quinoa toast so thin I can see through them.  By and large the peasant-style dishes are cheaper for the restaurant as well.  Meals at fancy restaurants, of the kind that require tickets instead of reservations, would not be nearly so cost-prohibative were they to serve some peasant food rather than art projects.

Turning beets into ersatz Bing cherries is a skill, but what real purpose does it serve?  People who want cherries, but get beets are disappointed, and then nothing has been accomplished but wasting the beets.  Fresh, in-season real-cherry cherries could have been served instead.  Why does food have to be something it's not?  I'm not saying that food should not be pleasing to look at or un-appetizingly presented, but if I have to ask what an ingredient is because it looks like a cherry but isn't, things have gone too far.

A friend once told me that she likes her meat from the grocery to be on Styrofoam platters, wrapped in cling-film and have no discernible resemblance to the animal from which it comes.  That's a good point.  But in the grocery, you know that when you purchase a package of beef steaks or chicken thighs, you are getting beef steaks or chicken thighs.  I just want to know what I'm getting.  If I'm paying over $250/person for dinner, I want a meal that does not have to be translated for me to enjoy it.  I want peasant food, and I want it to be good peasant food!