Originally Posted by landarc
It is a funny argument for me, as coming from a culinary background that puts an emphasis on aesthetics for food, the idea that appearance, taste, texture and preparation can be separated is somewhat foreign to me. As a child, even if we ate family style, at my grandmother's house, food was arranged, the table was always set, food and condiments were presented. The appearance of the food was as important as any other element. The tradition being that we eat with our eyes first.
Yet, I choose taste given the task to break them apart. It seems to me, that the flavors are going to drive the decision to keep eating, even as a texture eater. No matter how texturally attractive, I am just not gonna eat something that tastes bad. And what of aroma?
You make a good point, but how many times have you been to expensive restaurant, and are served "art on a plate", that is visually stunning, in a great atmosphere, and served by great wait staff with impeccable service only to bite into the meal, and go...OMG...this is not very good.
I spent $XX.00 for this ?
You get drawn in by the atmosphere, the hype, the reputation for great service, but what you remember is...how did the food taste?