Let’s Read Fine Dining.

When discussing ‘the sensory experience’ it seems that there are few activities that engage the senses so completely as the experience of fine dining. Restaurants engage all five of the senses through aesthetically pleasing settings, through music and the conversations of fellow dinner guests and, of course, through carefully crafted tastes, textures, and smells. Now, ‘fine dining’ is an experience available, by-and-large, only too the middle classes; is it not an extremely privileged undertaking? Not just to remove consumption from the boundaries of the purely physiological, we do that every day; but to reterritorialise it as an exclusive amusement and ‘experience’ is to detach one’s self from necessity of food. This is uncomfortable to me, but not something I will be explicity discussing in this short article.

Whilst there has been significant work towards examining the emergence of a broader dining culture within the city, towards the embourgement of the gustatory experience, and towards the commodification of food, I will be focusing specifically on the history and development of fine-dining. I posit the argument that class was, in fact, the most significant factor behind the emergence of fine dining as we know it, making it both originator and contemporary definer of the entire experience.

Due to the monetarily exclusive aspect of fine dining, it is undoubtable that class defined its development, however, it seems to me that there is far more nuance to be explored than the simple pecuniary exclusivity of the gastronomic experience.

In this article then, I look to examine the role of class in the emergence of fine dining and its significance in the transformation of physiological necessity to aesthetic pursuit.

When discussing European fine dining, it would be remise of me not to speak of the influence of France’s culinary tradition. The emergence of restaurant dining is commonly attributed to France and can, in fact, be directly linked to class conflict of the French revolution. Restaurants had existed in France prior to the Revolution: notably, Antoine Beauvilliers’ La Grande Taverne de Loudres, opened in 1782, which “can be considered the first real restaurant to be opened in Paris”. However, I believe that it was the class-conflict of the French revolution which provided the environment for a ‘restaurant boom’ to take place in Paris in the years following. With the dissolution of much of the French nobility’s estates, large groups of catering staff were left to seek new employment. This could give something of an explanation for the sudden rise in Parisian restaurants, as by 1804, only 15 years after the beginning of the revolution, and 22 years after the opening of La Grande Taverne, Paris already had 500 restaurants.

The dissolution of the French nobility is not the only reason for this success, however; it seems that the emergence of an aspirant middle class in French society also contributed to these new restaurants’ success. Whilst the grand estates, with their decadent banquets had been largely dissolved in French society due to guillotine and emigration, the “growing class of the not-quite-wealthy-enough still wanted to have a royal Dining experience with all the trappings.” (Lehman) Following this demand, the entrepreneurial restaurateurs in Paris allowed the emerging middle class to dine like nobility as often as they were financially able.

French chefs did not just make their home in Paris, however; after the French Revolution, many found work in the courts of other European nobility, one such being Marie Antoine Carême, employed in George IV’s Brighton Pavilion. Indeed, it appears, that the aspirational English middle classes, like their French counterparts, attempted to follow the habits of their nobility and “though he stayed only two years before moving on to the court of the Tsar, [Carême] and the Prince had set a trend. Banquets were now a mark of wealth and excess and the only chef that would do was a French one.” (Rayner)

Carême’s and France’s influence over British food can be seen in Britain’s first restaurant guide, London at Table (1851) with its frequent reference to French cuisine. The influence of French cuisine over London’s fine dining culture can be seen in the author’s “brief account of the average of the best mounted houses”.

“The entrées are carried round, a supreme de volaille aux truffles, a sweetbread au jus, lamb cutlets, with asparagus, peas and a fricandeau a l’oseille; […] either venison, roast saddle of mutton, or stewed beef à la jardinière, are then produced the accessories being salad, beetroot, vegetables, French and English mustard.”

(London at Table, p. 18)

The inclusion of so much French influence in “the average” menu of a London fine dining experience points to the high regard in which it was held in the mind of their paying customer; the British upper classes. The extensive menu of French influenced dishes in London at Table reveals evidence to substantiate Rayner’s claim that a trend for French chefs and decadent banquets had been set in Britain. It seems that a culture of fine dining, born out of the class conflict of the French revolution, had made its way into the English aristocracy and was being entrenched by the demands of British middle class, eager to sample the food of their nobility.

London at Table is not just useful for providing evidence to suggest the popularity of French cuisine in the early world of gastronomy; it is in this book where we can also see class’ significance in defining the sensory experience of gastronomy. In discussion of the correct actions of a ‘gentleman’ at the dinner table the author bemoans the sensorially disruptive habit of smoking: “the denseness of the atmosphere which it causes is not only injurious to health, but diametrically opposed to the hilarity of the evening”. (p.37) This is evidence of the total sensory experience of fine dining being accounted for, rather than the mere consumption of food; “the denseness of the atmosphere”, created by tobacco smoke, stifles the senses and creates a “soporific feeling”, prohibiting the sensory and social engagement of a diner which “may be agreeable to the recipients, but does not extend its influence on the non-partakers”. (p.37)

The consideration from the author towards the social aspect of the evening characterises food consumption in the fine dining experience of one of sociality rather than necessity, a privilege only accessible to those social classes with the disposable income necessary to eat in this way. Whilst this is no new observation or behaviour, it does point to the rule-making of this relatively new and certainly exclusive way of dining. Through this exclusivity, the social rules of fine dining were characterised by a class-exclusive accessibility. The anonymous writer of London at Table provides evidence that not only was attention being given to the sensory environment of fine dining, but also that this environment was defined by the social codes of the middle and upper classes.

If fine dining is considered in terms of the environment in which it is conducted, then we must look at the creation of Place within the restaurant. John Agnew defines Place in three parts: location, locale and sense of place. Location refers to the geographic location of a Place. Locale refers to the physical environment surrounding the expressed location, and sense of place refers to the meaning that we attribute to the Place; often a direct result of past experiences and the semiotic meaning attached to the locale. Whilst location is unchangeable, we can see that locale and sense of place were heavily controlled when constructing the sensory environment of a fine dining restaurant.

Brenda Assael in The London Restaurant, 1840–1914 (2018) discusses the rise of expensive, high-class restaurants and attributes it to affluent “men and women who increasingly defined themselves through leisure, consumption, and spectacle”. (p.37) The locale of these particular restaurants, situated in the “fashionable West End” with its “remarkable concentration of theatres”, once again affirms fine dining as a leisure pursuit for the affluent classes. (p.37) Due to this specific locale, a sense of place is created that is contingent on the surrounding theatres in the West End:

“The close association between the restaurant and the theatre was not merely a question of the physical and temporal proximity of theatregoing and dining. It also operated discursively, in the environment and experience of dining. Theatricality was as much a feature of the dining room as it was the stage.”

(The London Restaurant, 1840–1914, p. 204)

This sense of place, characterised by “theatricality” enforces the nature of fine dining not only as a social experience but also an aesthetic pursuit. Due to the locale of the West End restaurant, a similar sense of place is imbued to the restaurant to that of the theatre; the conjured memories of theatre consumption created a normative action of artistic consumption in the diner. This led restauranteurs to redefine the environment of their own establishment, enforcing a deliberate aestheticism to the dining experience. Catering to the needs of their leisure-driven upper-class customers, fine dining restaurants mirrored the locale of the theatre in their interior: Victorian food-critic Samuel Newnham-Davies talks of “a gorgeous hall of white marble, veined with black, with a golden frieze and a golden ceiling…as gorgeous as a pantomime transformation scene’. (p.207) Memories of theatre-going and high culture would be conjured up in the upper-class customer’s mind, forcing them into an act of artistic consumption rather than physiological consumption, encouraging total sensory engagement rather than merely the oral. The monetarily and therefore class-exclusive leisure activities of the West End appear to have played a distinct role in the formation of the total sensory encapsulation of modern gastronomy, creating an experience which indulges all of the senses.

Aestheticism was not limited to the sensory environment of the restaurant, however; performative food needed to be created in order to satisfy the demands of the environment, or the food itself would have been incongruent to its surrounding locale. Newnham-Davies talks of a Venetian salad, ‘a little tower of many-coloured vegetables […] like poker chips’ (p.56); the transmutation of food into other objects points towards this shift towards aestheticism in dining. Whilst high quality meals have always been presented with care, this is evidence of something closer resembling modern avant-garde cuisine; when food no longer resembles its constituent parts, physiological satisfaction is no longer its primary concern.

I have already argued that a class-exclusive consumption of fine dining led to its categorisation as a leisure pursuit and, in turn, an artistic pursuit, supporting this though is the apparent mirroring of artistic trends by restauranteurs. The largely upper-class Italian futurist movement proposed a ‘Manifesto of Futurist Cooking’ (1930) with requirements of “sculpted foods, […] whose main appeal [was] to the eye and imagination”, the “use of perfumes to enhance the tasting experience”, as well as the ultimate departure of fine dining from physiological necessity: “food on the table [that] would not be eaten, but only experienced by the eyes and nose”. The upper-class intellectuals driving the futurist movement payed full attention to the control of the total sensory experience of dining in this manifesto: visually, with “sculpted foods” to “appeal to the eye”, orally with an “enhance[d]” taste and nasally through the use of perfumes. Not only these, but also in tactile and aural senses as they advocated “abolition of the knife and fork” as well as “forbidding” music and poetry during meals. (Marinetti) This further reinforced the carefully controlled sensory environment of modern fine dining, explicitly brining attention to the satisfaction of all the senses rather than just taste and smell.

Indeed, we can see the extent of the influence of the ‘Manifesto for Futurist Cooking’ in the sensory experience of modern fine dining: the manifesto lays the groundwork for the appearance of molecular gastronomy with its advocating of the use of scientific equipment in the kitchen: “Electrolysers — to decompose items into new forms and properties” and “Ozonisers — to give food the smell of ozone”. (Marinetti) Molecular gastronomy is the apotheosis of modern fine dining, concerned with challenging sensory preconceptions of food; Ferran Adrià characterises it as “provid[ing] unexpected contrasts of flavour, temperature and texture”. In his restaurant, “nothing is what it seems. The idea is to provoke, surprise and delight the diner.” (Thomas)

Restaurant wd~50’s iconic Eggs Benedict dish bears little resemblance to its well-known originator; the deep-fried Hollandaise sauce served on top of a smear of egg yolk is plated in a delicate and minimalist manner providing a ‘clean slate’ with none of the semiotic attachments that its usual plating would conjure, furthermore the added texture from the deep-fried sauce brings more focus to the taste of the dish as the texture stimulates and brings attention to the oral experience. This mediation of the senses in modern fine dining is something that I feel can be directly attributed to the treatment of cuisine as an art form and sensory experience, a departure from the physiological necessity of food, something born out of the class-exclusivity and sociality of the late 19th century fine dining experience.

“In an avant-garde cooking restaurant, it’s the experience that’s the difference.”

(Ferran Adrià, in Tim Carman, Ferran Adria Follows the Path of What’s Next’, The Washington Post)

It might appear a somewhat arbitrary analysis, or perhaps even trite, to attribute the development of modern avant-garde cuisine to the class exclusivity of 19th century Europe, but I would argue that the nuances are far more interesting than the perhaps obvious premise. It seems to me that the attention to fine dining as an experience which encapsulates all five senses rather than just that of taste and smell can be seen to be born out of the demands of the affluent upper classes and provided the necessary sensory environment for modern cuisine to be born out of. The sensory experience of dining, as cemented by the leisure experience that it became in the late 19th and early 20th century provided the environment that modern fine dining could emerge from. To read the history through a closer, and slightly interdisciplinary approach points to slightly more interesting reading than ‘rich people like nice food’.

Bibliography

[n.a.], London at Table, (Chapman and Hall, 1851)

Marinetti Filippo Tommaso, (28th of August 1930), “Manifesto Della Cucina Futurista”, Gazzetta del Popolo

Newnham-Davis Nathaniel, Dinners and Diners: Where and how to Dine in London (Grant Richards, 1899)

Assael Brenda, The London Restaurant, 1840–1914, (Oxford University Press, 2018

Carman Tim, (11th of October 2011) ‘Ferran Adria Follows the Path of What’s Next’, The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/ferran-adria-follows-the-path-of-whats-next/2011/10/05/gIQAcITqcL_story.html?utm_term=.41f3f1b0b84b (accessed: 14/2/2021)

Lang George, ‘Restaurant’, Encyclopædia Britannica, (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2017)

Lehman Jr Don, The French Revolution and Chef Superstars http://donlehmanjr.com/Restaurant/Dining%20History/hfd3.htm (accessed 14/2/21)

Rayner Jay, (9th of March 2003), “A brief history of… haute cuisine”, The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2003/mar/09/foodanddrink.features17 (accessed: 14/2/21)

Thomas Daniel, (5th of February 2010), “Ferran Adrià”, The Caterer https://www.thecaterer.com/articles/332130/ferran-adria (accessed: 1/5/19)