Does /ck/ care about food being authentic or not? What does a recipe need to be authentic? Do you care more about an authentic recipe when eating or cooking?
>>7571509
Depends. If I'm visiting someplace and trying to get a feel for its culture of course I want "authentic" food. In terms of everyday eating I really just want what tastes best, which usually happens to be authentic food since in most cases it has been cooked and refined for centuries
>>7571509
I don't give a crap about whether or not a recipe is authentic, I care that it tastes good.
Sometimes those go hand-in-hand but that's not always true.
However when I'm making a dish that I've never cooked before I always try to learn the original or traditional recipe first, then I might modify it from there.
>>7571509
Tried to make butter chicken, likely fucked it up, it was still good.
t.anon
>>7571509
We had this thread the other day, but I'll say it again:
Adherence to tradition when it comes to food only makes it good if you're talking about a particularly rich food tradition. So for Cantonese, Mexican, Cajun, SEA, French, Italian and Indian authentic means good, because authentic representations of the food of these cultures are good. Not so much for Finnish or Icelandic food.
Try to try authentic once then decide which, if either, you prefer.
Some people, for example, honestly prefer guacamole with garlic. I'm one of them. I can't stand the authentic (with onion).
Others prefer beef tacos made with stewed-and-pulled brisket in soft, corn tortillas. I'm one of them. I can't stand the American ones (crunchy tortilla shells with ground beef).
And yet others enjoy both authentic and reinterpreted versions of something about equally. I'm one of them. I enjoy mission burritos (huge and with rice and a bunch of other things in them) about as much as Mexican ones (much, much smaller and with only one or two fillings).
>>7571528
This. I like to start out cooking the real deal, then modifying to my personal preference. I find with more cooking experience I can modify complex recipes and not ruin them and come out with something I'll enjoy. Thing is to have a nice spice and herb collection.
i want to know what an 'authentic' recipe tastes like where 'authenticity' is clearly defined, but it's an extremely complex subject. once i know that, i don't necessarily want to eat the authentic version of the dish every time, or even any of the time in some cases.
in any case i think it's very important to understand food historically.
>>7571624
>i think it's very important to understand food historically.
This. Traditional recipes were often worked out by generations of grandmothers and talented cooks over centuries. In places with decent food cultures they're often amazing. In places where food culture has been less valued they might not even work anymore, because you can no longer get the specific ingredients people had a few generations ago.
There will always be innovations in cuisine - new combinations of ingredients, new techniques. And as specific dishes move from one place to another they're adapted to the local tastes. History shaped why people eat what they do where they do.
Without at least a passing knowledge of that stuff you're just shooting in the dark everytime you go to make something, hoping your limited experience and whatever recipe you've found won't let you down.
In terms of going to near by America restuarants...no not really, it's more so a shitty marketing term to pull in pretentious retards to eat americanized-italian or americanized-mexican or americanized-indian food. I think the only time it matters is when you are travelling abroad.
>>7571653
As a marketing buzzword the use of "authentic" is a pretty good tell that the food in question is not.
>>7571648
>>i think it's very important to understand food historically.
Agreed, and it's frankly a very complex subject.
Many dishes have a "classic" recipe--French is a great example of that since so many recipes were documented by Escoffier (and others before him) and thus became the "textbook definition" of that dish. But that's not always true to the origins of the dish. For example, you can walk into any number of Michelin-starred French restaurants and get a Cassoulet or Coq Au Vin, and they'll most likely be just like the classic books describe. Yet those were originally peasant dishes. There was no fixed recipe: The Cassoulet was an anything-goes sort of stew, and one made Coq Au Vin when the only thing to eat was the stringy 'ol barnyard rooster. When Great-great-grandma made those dishes she didn't follow Escoffier or Careme, she threw whatever she had around into the pot.
And as for the refinement, that's a complex issue too. Yes, many of these recipes were refined and perfected over hundreds of years. But they were also made with limitations--whatever the local ingredients were. Now that we have much easier global trade there are all sorts of different ingredients and cooking techniques that could be used that simply weren't an option in the past. So while you could argue that a tradtional recipe was honed over generations you need to consider that it was also developed within restrictions that may not exist anymore.
>>7571662
>you could argue that a tradtional recipe was honed over generations you need to consider that it was also developed within restrictions that may not exist anymore
True, but we also have to contend with new restrictions. The vegetables great grandma grew in her garden were more flavorful and less watery than what we get in the supermarket. The pork and chicken is much less flavorful today than back then as well. So we're almost forced to rely on new techniques and ingredients because the recipes great-grandma used to simply off good ingredients don't work so well with what we can get.
Authentic sometimes requires traditionally produced ingredients as well.
>>7571740
> The vegetables great grandma grew in her garden were more flavorful and less watery than what we get in the supermarket.
that's an idealisation that is gonna be true in some cases, untrue in others
>>7571740
>The vegetables great grandma grew in her garden were more flavorful
Very true, but those high-quality ingredients are still available, you just have to grow them yourself like great-grandma did, or you can buy them from specialty purveyors. And in the context of high-end restaurants that kind of ingredient quality is already a given.
....and actually, those kind of good ingredients are not all that expensive. I buy free-ranged heritage breed chickens from the local asian supermarket regularly. They cost $12 each. That's double the $5-6 bird from the supermarket, but honestly it's still not a whole lot of money. Given how many meals I can get out of one chicken that's not bad at all. Last month I bought a whole Mangalitsa pig raised free-range on a small family farm; the cost worked out to just under $3/lb. That's cheaper than many cuts of pork at the supermarket.
good ingredients are still available, they just take a little more effort to find than walking into your local supermarket.
when i think "authentic" i think:
the nationality of the cook is the region from which the dish originates
the cook is able to make it the way his mother or equivalent elder used to
other than that if its good i dont care but dont call it authentic if it aint from the motherland
>>7572376
>dont call it authentic if it aint from the motherland
I think it's also authentic if it isn't from the motherland but was prepared in the traditional way with ingredients of the same caliber. I'm not Turkish, but learned how to make a few Turkish dishes from a great Turkish cook, and I live in a place where I can get the ingredients to make them well. I would not consider myself an authentic Turkish cook, but those dishes I learned from Julia are spot on. They are authentic.
>>7572426
and therein lies my being a shtickler. Authentic dish, inauthentic chef. Ill still eat it yo
Just had some authentic Panda Express., shit was cash.
