Are we Really Over Michelin?
Could this be the end for the 108- year- old red bible of gastronomy? That’s right people, Michelin is being hailed as ‘out-dated’ and ‘too commercial’. The recent restaurant guide backlash is lead by world-renowned chef Marco Pierre White. His criticisms stem from the argument that the restaurant reviews are ‘inconsistent’ and ‘overly commercial’ in focus.
It would appear that what people really want is real ‘proper food’, away from the overly fussy food that makes it into the pages of Michelin guides. The idea is that trends are changing and Michelin is simply not keeping pace. People no longer naturally look to the experts for recommendations, as we well know here on welovelocal.com that word of mouth is one of the most trusted resources we have. The growth of online community resources has been massive, and most sites like welovelocal.com which are authored by like- minded people of similar age and interests, are making for a more accurate dining recommendation.
So where does our trust and interest really lie? Are we really over Michelin? Everyone listens to word of mouth when deciding which gastro pub to sample at the weekend, but when it comes to fine dining masses still flock to the latest Michelin stared establishments, wait on table waiting lists that rival those for an NHS dentist in London, and fork out hundreds of pounds for the privilege. Why? Well I think it is something that will struggle to fade away as quickly as popularity for purchasing the Michelin guide. It’s grounded in our culture, we want to say we have been, sampled and conquered something that is converted and considered precious – basically we still want to tell everyone we have been to a Michelin Starred restaurant! Michelin still has its place but, it is a bit of one sided conversation – so for now, we’re just going to have to have our say online - review away!
Thoughts?
Check out the full Times article here
3 Responses to “Are we Really Over Michelin?”
Dan B says:
March 27th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Booooooo!
Seems like Mr Pierre White is trying defend his position as the new spokesperson for Knorr stock cubes by championing “honest” food over gastronomical invention.
Why can’t the two things live side by side? The Micheln Guide awards innovation and creativity much in the same way that other industry awards do. It motivates talented chefs to push themselves - to try new things which we may have otherwise been without.
There is a joke somewhere about variety and spices that fails me - but you get my point.
Helen E. says:
March 27th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Exactly,
I think your comment just surmised what I was trying to get across in the whole post Dan.
Even from your Indian beach you are the voice of reason!
I hope food remains the revolutionary thing you describe, and does not become something that is simply created to please the appetites of Michelin food critics.
Award winning food should beak the mold, but still remain reflective of current culinary tastes and not just those of critics.
Andy Hayler says:
March 27th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I’d like to say a few words in defence of the Michelin Guide. Michelin (probably wisely) is quite secretive about its processes and criteria, so making assertions about it favouring a particular style or other seem to me speculative. It only really makes sense to judge Michelin by its actions. Michelin is accused of being out of touch with modern cooking trends, and preferring formality over charm.
Really? This is the same guide that gave Heston Blumenthal three Michelin stars back in 2004. How old fashioned is his cooking? This is also the same guide that has just awarded three stars to a Tokyo sushi bar with ten bar stools and no toilet. For years chefs were complaining about how they had to spend a fortune on expensive glassware and crockery in order to gain a Michelin star, when these counter-examples suggest that perhaps they should just have tried just cooking better.
As for formality, it has awarded the informal bistro cooking of Arbutus a star. How much more modern, simple, or informal does it get than this? Michelin has acknowledged the value of high quality ethnic cooking, with stars for restaurants such as Hakkasan, and a number of Indian restaurants in London. I will not speculate on the motives of those who attack Michelin, other than, being the gold standard of restaurant guides, it is an easy target. I am sure we all disagree with certain of its assessments each year – is that place really still worth two stars, is this one not ready for its star? But the point is that this is guide whose opinions matter. Chefs do not work themselves into a frenzy over their position in other guide books to anything like the same extent, and this is because they know that, while they do not always agree with it, Michelin has a reputation second to none. It takes no advertising, no fees, and has anonymous inspectors; its ratings cannot be manipulated by unscrupulous restaurateurs or PR agencies, as on-line lists surely can be (and clearly are, in some cases). No-one has come up with a better way of fairly assessing restaurants.
I have eaten widely around the world using the range of Michelin Guides as my compass. If you are looking for the very finest food, there is no alternative guide or listing that come close. Yes there are assessments I disagree with, and the guide has flaws. Churchill described democracy as “the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”. In a similar way Michelin may be the worst restaurant guide, except for all the others.