Robin Garr wrote:Jeff Cavanaugh wrote:Seriously, though, I get tired of "authenticity" used as a measuring stick to evaluate restaurants. Either the food is good, or it isn't. Authenticity is irrelevant.
I think you're drawing a false comparison, Jeff. If the food is good, that's good. If the food is authentic, that's a different kind of good. Is it an orange, or is it a bicycle?
That may be true, but I am arguing that the good-food good should count for far more than the authenticity good when we're evaluating a restaurant. More than once, I've seen folks here say something along the lines of, "I used to really like [XYZ Restaurant], but they I found out it isn't really [authentic XYZ cuisine]. So I don't go there anymore."
I think that's unfair to the restaurant, which ought to be evaluated on its own merits, not compared to some standard of what's "authentic" in Texas, New Mexico, Guatemala, Napoli, or Guangzhou.
And, in any case, "authentic" is a frustratingly slippery and hard-to-nail-down concept. If a Guatemalan chef is cooking what he thinks is Tex-Mex, in Louisville, who's to say if it's authentic or not? If a white guy goes to Guangzhou, learns Cantonese cuisine from a Cantonese chef there, and comes back and reproduces it exactly in his US restaurant, is it authentic? Some would say yes, because it tastes the same. Some would say no, it can't be, because he's white and it will never be "his" cuisine, he'll always be an imposter.
So I say, to heck with "authentic," eat good food.