RE: Trendy small plates
It wasn't that long ago that we were discussing the trendiness (or not) of tapas. Well, in an adjunct to that discussion, may I refer everyone to
today's article by Tom Seitsema, something he wrote as part of his duties as food critic for the Washington Post.
...For 90 minutes, I'm held hostage as the servers drop off a tiny cone filled with lamb tartare and topped with shaved black truffle; grilled octopus set on a bed of lentils with a fan of avocado; a slender bar of foie gras accessorized with cranberry "tapenade," a button of brioche and designer sea salt; and a trio of house-made crackers. The food is mostly luscious, but the intricacies get lost in the blur. Across the table, my normally enthusiastic dining companion looks shellshocked. It's not waterboarding, but let's be frank: Torture comes in many guises.
"When is it over?" he wonders aloud. I remind him it could be worse: We could have ordered the $104 menu, which promises almost 20 tastes, rather than the $84 banquet, which serves up a mere dozen or so.
By 7:50 p.m., we're both full -- and our appetizers, among the few things we actually get to choose tonight, have yet to arrive. "I should have brought a sleeping bag," my friend says. Before the evening is over, about three hours after it began, in addition to all those pre-appetizers, we will face a main course, a pre-dessert of Greek yogurt, an actual dessert (apple-date tart with blue cheese gelato) and a post-dessert of tiny chickpea cookies and olive oil-laced caramels. With the check comes a grapefruit-flavored lollipop, which I stick in my coat pocket. Who knows? Someday I might get hungry again.
The above defines trendiness.
However, later in the article he notes that this is not something entirely new:
...As with so many culinary fashions, France is where the taste-of-this, taste-of-that notion got its start. The concept -- and people who have praised and panned the ritual -- stretches back to the dawn of nouvelle cuisine there in the 1970s, when chefs began offering customers a sampling of their vast repertoires via numerous petite versions of the appetizers and main courses. (Around the same time in this country, Chez Panisse in Berkeley, Calif., helped popularize the concept with a multi-course set menu that changed daily.) Even at the beginning of the trend, critics found flaws with the format.
"I have never had a menu degustation when I have not wished a few dishes had been dropped in favor of others," Mimi Sheraton wrote in a 1981 story in the New York Times. The food critic also groused about portions "so small, it is hard to get a really solid impression of the dish."
1981??? Over a quarter-century ago???
Therefor, I propose a couple of definitions:
TREND: Something that is growing in popularity, such as tasting menus, tapas, or the rediscovery of certain sauces (i.e.: pesto or aioli).
TRENDY: What happens when a trend is latched onto by a whole group of people because they see that it is growing in popularity, and they want part of that popularity, too.
The catch is, some of the people who latch onto the trend may be doing it because they are interested in the trend itself, and not the popularity. So, are they being trendy (which means following the popularity), or following the trend? Is it a case of good timing, or unfortunate timing? There's a fine line of distinction, I believe.
