'Authentic'

[Atahualpa]

Whenever the discussion turns to food of a given ethnic origin the term 'authentic' comes out. Usually 'authentic' is instantly taken as synonymous with 'good'. Often that presumption underlies the conversation without any debate -- it is simply taken as an obvious fact that if the food is 'authentic' it is therefore better. Lack of perceived authenticity is often held against given dishes or methods of eating. Recent examples I've stumbled across have included dismissal of sushi-pizza as not worth eating because it is unauthentic, revulsion at people who enjoy soy on rice or who like California rolls, and a tone of dismissal underlay much of the discussion of a new modern-Mexican place in Toronto (Milargro). There are many, many more examples every day.

Yet, when discussion turns to high-end modern restaurants, inventiveness is held out as a badge of honour. In fact, inventive uses of ethnic ingredients and techniques is praised when that inventive use is done by chefs at expensive, high-class places.

I don't really have a question but, I thought these observations might prevoke discussion. I, personally, just think good food should be praised. If that happens to be an excellent spider roll, East-Indian rotis, chinese-style British custards, Rogan Josh, etc., so-be-it.

[Robert Lauriston]

I prefer the word "traditional" since that's a statement of fact and open to discussion.

I generally avoid the word "authentic" since that's expressing a value judgment in such a way as to sound like an appeal to authority.

[MMRuth]

I think that's a good distinction ... though I suppose there can be debates about what is traditional ... just look at the carbonara thread (mine's cooking up right now).

[Robert Lauriston]

That's exactly my point. A debate about what's traditional can be informative, since it's a matter of history.

[S U]

For me, when someone is talking about "authenticity", I tend to see where they're coming from. When I use that term, I am not only using it as a chowhound for chow's sake -- food is a part of the rich cultural bacground of a certain country / region / people and sometimes I choose to value it in such a context. Sure, sometimes americanized chinese can be very tasty and sometimes that is what I crave. But more often than not, I expect that culture to speak through its food -- hence I don't visit "fusion" places all too often.

Maybe I'm a snob, but sometimes while eating in a Chinese restaurant I'll notice some diners who appear to be Chinese food novices scarfing down chow mein & fried rice; all the while complimenting the waitstaff on how "amazing" the food is (especially in an only passably Chinese establishment)... it saddens me that they are not experiencing an authentic jellyfish bbq cold platter, duck tongue, whole fresh catfish in soy sauce, clay pot items, etc. There is so much more to Chinese than kung pao chicken or broccoli beef; just as there is a whole world of Vietnamese than just pho or banh le; so much more to American than hamburgers or pizza.

[Eat_Nopal]

I think the baggage around authenticity come from the relatively recent experience in the U.S. in which people here have discovered that the most historically popular ethnic cuisines here (Chinese, Italian & Mexican) have been historically superior in their Native forms then in their Americanized forms.

Alot of that has to do with the idea that the U.S. was historically a non-foodie country so all the cuisines devolved in the U.S.... then in the last 3 decades the foodies have woken up so the expectation is higher... but the ethnic food tended to lag behind with U.S. new found foody culture... except that Americans have coincidentally also started travelling a lot more.... so they go Italy for example & recognize that the food there is 1000 times superior to the checkered picnic table place back home... so there is now an awareness of authenticity and how it is usually correlated with superiority.

In my experience... Peruvian restaurants in the U.S. serve superior food to Peruvian restaurants in Peru (minus a few exceptions in Lima... and in the north I am told) so it can depend on the cuisine.

[chowser]

I agree. Reversing the situation, my cousins spent time in Taiwan and had to try "American" restaurants there, just to see what their concept was of American food. They said it didn't quite taste like American food, kind of had a Chinese influence but it tasted good. So, that's what counts.

[Atahualpa]

I guess the one element of the discussion that I think hasn't been noted before is the seeming double standard wherein expensive restaurants that cater to a high-end general market are praised for the same experimentation and invention that cheaper places with primarily ethnic clientele are sometimes (even, often) characterised as 'selling out' for making some non-authentic or westernized dishes even if they are good.

[applehome]

If one goes to a fusion or modern gastronomy restaurant, one expects experimentation. Good or bad, that's what they do there. But if one goes to a sushi restaurant, one expects sushi. Dumbing down sushi to better fit your customer's expectations may be a necessary economic decision but it's not necessarily a particularly experimental or even an inventive culinary one.

Should we characterize putting shoyu on rice as experimentation and invention?

I don't believe that there is a double standard. The standard is simply that a good restaurant will serve good food that meets the customer's expectations. Since part of that equation is the customer, some of the responsibility for the result lies with us. If we're only willing to take sushi to the level of California rolls, we'll be happy with California rolls. If we make the effort to really learn something that isn't native to us - try to understand what native folks consider good and important to that dish - then our rewards will be that much greater. It's not a matter of the restaurant selling out, at whatever level, as much as it is how they go about choosing the market they're going to serve.

[Atahualpa]

"Should we characterize putting shoyu on rice as experimentation and invention?"

No, of course not. But, the California roll cetainly counts. Look, I love sushi. I know all the fish by their Japanese names first. I started having sushi when I was still in a high-chair, much to the amazement of my mother's Japanese-Canadian friend who had been pruposely raised as 'western' as possible by his parents. Heck, I've had 20 minute conversations with my local sushi chef about Health Canada's decision to ban Hijiki and his choice of Arame as a replacement. I've had still-live Akagai ngiri, searched the city for the best Unagi and love Uni. But, I like California rolls (and other western-created maki) too. Certainly if they don't use the fake crab. Heck, I even like a well-made sushi-pizza.

Non-traditional sushi, isn't necessarily dumbed-down sushi. I agree wholeheartedly that it can be. Heck, I agree that it usually is. But, people who right-off a sushi spot or sushi chef because he does some non-trad stuff are nuts. I have heard so many people complain about the fact that 'otherwise good sushi places clutter their menus with that unauthentic crap' or words to that effect. I have heard this levelled against places that do innovative maki respectfully. For an example see this review: www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-08-17/.... I've had their Shrimp tempura and asparagus maki and it was great. I've also had almost every other piece of fish on their menu and its close to the freshest, most carefully cut sushi I've ever had.

I can think of similar examples in other cuisines/restaurants. What aggrivates me is the number of people (not you, I know what you meant in general) who think that only places with $100+ tasting menus can innovate well. Its not like my local sushi place is called Authentic Ngiri or some other name where experimenting would violate an expectation created.

[Robert Lauriston]

Tenpura is a Japanese version of a Portugese dish.

[applehome]

Yeah - but I bet you can't find a place in Portugal that throws out their special mix of oil after each customer, charges about $100 a plate, and serves up the zen-perfect daddy of all batter-fried goodness... Of course, these places have wisened up and now sell their used oil to 2nd tier tempura houses. This entire infrastructure of graded tempura houses is something only the Japanese could invent!.

[limster]

The impression that I got from my Portuguese friends is that deep-frying battered items (batter made with only flour, water and egg iirc) was introduced as a technique rather than a specific dish or dishes.

[applehome]

Experimentation is the hallmark of a great sushiya. When I get omakase at special places, I expect to get items I've never seen before.

And nothing wrong with you liking California rolls - as long as it's in the same vein as Wagyu steak lovers liking corn dogs.

The problem comes (IMHO) where people eat California rolls because they won't try anything with more depth and complexity - something more "authentic". Enough of those kind of people, and pretty soon you have McSushi places on every corner - serving all kinds of Americanized rolls, with no particular attention to great quality or true inventiveness.

Experimentation and inventiveness does have to be done in some context. Exactly what that context is could be debated - I suspect the answer here is that people have to like it. Throwing ketchup on maguro may be inventive, but it won't go very far in most places. I would refine the context even further to say that the native people (ethnic or otherwise), who are expert on a particular food, ought to like it. If you don't stipulate that, you could easily end up saying that McSushi is plenty good... like Olive Garden, Taco Bell, Cheesecake Factory... they're all plenty good... I mean, look how inventive Applebees is, using Tyler Florence to create wonderful recipes!

[applehome]

Discussed ad nauseum... do a search and pick one of the 871 threads. Same concepts come up over and over.

There is no concensus, as far as I can tell. Some consider authenticity to be a complete red herring - not even worth considering. Others feel that there is a value to authenticity, especially in foods from cultures and ethnicities that honor traditions.

If it tastes good, then it is good is a mantra here, although not all agree all the time. It leaves no room to discuss paths to learning. The acceptance of some form of structure to good (although authentic is not necessarily a part of that) seems necessary - some guidance, some scale, some understanding of how to be analytical of your own sense of good.

There has been concensus in some threads in the past that authentic does not equal good. There are plenty of exampes of authentic food that is not good, and good food that is not authentic.

[Robert Lauriston]

authentic (adj.): like Grandma used to make

inauthentic (adj.): not enough like the way Grandma used to make

[JMF]

Ah Yes, the great authenticity debate, this surfaces on a regular basis.

Here's 871 posts on authenticity
http://www.chowhound.com/search/std?q...

[Atahualpa]

Thanks, I should have searched first. If the debate is exhauted I certainly understand. However, it has been since April that was last discussed as a topic and there might be some new thoughts. I know I had not found Chowhound back then.