 |
|
I think the two most important things of a place that play an enormous role in defining them are 1) the people, 2) the food.
But, if the local food is cooked by a foreigner, is it still authentic?
In Madrid, 95% of Indian restaurants are run by Bangladeshis. Bangladeshi food is not the same as Indian, the style is not completely different but it is distinct. To me, eating at any of those restaurants is not eating authentic Indian food because the chefs are Bangladeshi. Whenever I’ve eaten at these places, the food is good, but not what I’d call typically Indian.
A recent article in the NY Times made me question my belief that the food is only authentically good if the chef is from the country of origin of the food. In the article, a prestigious restaurant reviewer in Rome sought out the best carbonara in the city. First place was given to a restaurant whose head chef was Tunisian, and second place was given to one whose head chef was Indian.
I recently ate at a Peruvian restaurant here in Madrid, the first thing I asked the waitress was if she was Peruvian, then I asked if the cook was too. The answer to both was yes and I believe I ate an authentic Peruvian meal. I wouldn’t have felt that if the chef was Pakistani; even if the food was delicious, I would have thought the cook added his twist to it.
I suppose it all has to do with the training the chef has, as opposed to where he/she is from. Although the article says that it makes no difference where the chef is from, I can’t help thinking, no matter what the training, the chef’s “cooking-hand” is influenced by the food he ate growing up, i.e. it can’t be 100% authentic.
What do you think? How important is it for the chef to be from the country of origin of the food you are eating? Does it matter to you at all? Or am I just a crackpot who thinks about these things?
April 8th, 2008 at 5:25 am
Perhaps knowing the chef’s nationality provides a placebo effect and the food just seems more authentic? I think a good chef can put him/herself in the frame of mind of a typical Indian/French/etc chef. I would judge authenticity based on the chef’s knowledge of the cuisine, the effort they’ve put into studying the food’s culture and making the food truly authentic, and of course the ingredients.
Then again I’m American and I don’t really look at cultural heritage in the same way that people from other parts of the world do. There’s nothing “wrong” with a Greek cooking Turkish food to me as long as it tastes like it’s from Istanbul — but perhaps the Greeks and Turks would feel much differently.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Have to agree with Craig, it’s probably more a question of what you expect rather than the actual expertise of the cook. It’s also true that some natives cooking native foods might use a family twist to dishes, whereas someone who has studied may be more faithful to the original. Interesting, too that the Times chose Italian restaurants — many of the pizza chefs (who often work up front where you see them) here in Italy are now foreign and that’s not been cause for concern over the authenticity of pizza…
April 8th, 2008 at 7:49 am
When I lived in Austria, the best pizza came from the Italian restaurant where the chef was… Indian. Last year I had an amazing French meal in Hawaii prepared by a chef from… Greece. I was raised a suburban California girl but my Indian friend says I make curry just like her gramma.
Chef’s lineage is totally irrelevant. What’s important is their devotion to cooking.
This line of thinking overlooks the joy of fusion cuisine - hey, I’m no snob, what about Tex Mex? Also, there’s something weirdly nationalistic about this line of thinking. You can only make a decent strudel if you’re a “pure blooded Austrian?” Ick.
April 8th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I am of two minds on this. Im from NYC, and I always find the best pizza comes from a true Italian place. Maybe it is a placebo effect, and certainly the Albanian pizza joint down the street is excellent. On the other hand, the pizza I had in Germany was so awful as to make this homesick New Yorker cry, and I am not exaggerating. The devotion one has to the cuisine is important, and when I cook up a batch of corned beef and cabbage for St. Pats, I have the weight of all my fellow Irish upon me.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Many years ago I had gone to a new Mexican restaurant in a Front Range Colorado town. Operated by a Mexican family from Mexico, this was not the usual Mexican fare that most US Gringos were used to.
It may have been authentic Mexican, but that didn’t mean anything to the patrons. As I enjoyed the fine food, I overheard nearby patrons complaining about the lack of Mexican food on the menu.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Who cares if it’s authentic or not? The most important thing is that you like it.
I’ll tell you guys something, I had very authentic Vietnamese Pho on the Mekong Delta, prepared by Vietnamese people using their original ingredients. It was not bad, but I have to say that I liked it better the way Vietnamese restaurants in the US do it. It feels the vegetables are fresher, the water cleaner, plus here you can find exactly the same ingredients and sauces they use over there. And US restaurants need to comply with sanitary regulations, etc.
Authentic food changes through the years too. If you want real authentic Mexican food that Aztec Indians ate 600 years ago, you might not like it. The tortillas they used were thick and bitter and they ate it with beans and some chilies. Grilled beef fajitas, cheese enchiladas, and flour tortillas tacos didn’t exist then.
I had the best Ethiopian injera from Gondar, Ethiopia. And later I ate at an Ethipian restaurant in San Diego, CA owned and managed by an Ethiopian family and the food was delicious. I don’t think it made it less authentic because I was eating it in California.
So it doesn’t matter if the food is not 100% authentic; as long as you like it. Eating what you really like is more authentic.