That's gorgeous! Are you supposed to eat that?

It is a Caesar salad! Reichel did admit that there was only one small piece of lettuce in the Caesar salad. Check out the article for more incredible presentations of lasagna, beef tenderloin, among other things.

I've seen his work before. I've looked at the article. Again: Are you supposed to eat that? None of it looks very appetizing, but this one doesn't even look like food. I take Reichl's word that it does actually taste good. That bouquet, however, takes the post-lettuce-shortage idea of calling any salad with romaine in it "Caesar" to the extreme. At least this one is pretty!

I'll never be a foodie.

plllog, I'm sorry I misunderstood. Nevertheless, I'm with you! An occasional nasturtium in my salad is one thing. This is totally different. And I think next time I make a lemon tart, I'll throw it onto the plate and tell my guests it is "art." And I really didn't understand the capers, oregano, and hot peppers added to dessert. Was it supposed to evoke the idea that the tart fell on the floor and in scooping it up, all that other stuff got mixed up in it?

I don't think this is foodie-ism. I think this borders on the X-games of Food.

I disagree.....I think it's beautiful and perfect to accompany a modern art auction, the centerpiece of which is a fabulo9us Pollock. I have never made a salad entirely of flowers, but sure have added lots of daylily petals, calendula and basil and chive blossoms>
And the pudding mess I sure get....even the hot peppers and capers....but not the oregano.
Would love to have been there....and had the where-with-all to bid!

LOL! I like "X-games of food"! That's perfect.

Warning on Jackson Pollocks -- he was not a craftsman. Most of his art was experiential and the actual canvases were artifacts of the creative process, and ephemera, rather than art created to last for ages. The amount of conservation required to keep one of his typical pieces from falling to bits is out of sight even for a lot of well endowed institutions.

I appreciate the artistry of Bottura's work. I just don't want to eat it (I also don't mind an occasional flower, and am fond of candied jamaica blossoms, but I wouldn't care for the texture of a whole salad of them). So, I'm glad Linda is up for it, and if the opportunity comes our way we can send her to enjoy it and report back.

The meal seemed to connect Reichl to the art.

Pollock was not a "craftsman"...he was an artist. And if his art was not meant to be art rather than a performance, why did Peggy Guggenheim commission him to create "Mural"...his work with which I am most familiar? That work was exhibited at the University of Iowa until the flood of 2008.
Yes, conservation is expensive. Mural has travelled widely and been shared with many. To call his art ephemera is a great foolishness. He was paid to produce that bit of "ephemera" for Peggy Guggenheim.
The art on the plate by Bottura is ephemera.

Some art is made to last for centuries, some was made without regard to preservation, and is so labeled "ephemeral art". I didn't invent that. Just because it takes a lot longer to decay, and people prevent the decay with oodles of fixes, doesn't mean that it's stable. Calling me a fool is ridiculous. If you don't care for the word, fine, but that's what it's called, or at least that's what we called it in the art trade here. Many of the top artists of that period worked in found materials that started to decay immediately. It was a part of that whole movement. Pollocks are better on that level than many.

Pollock made Mural in the drip style, using whatever paint was to hand, notoriously house paint, without regard to whether the medium (the base chemistry) would stick. How much Ms. Guggenheim paid for it is irrelevant. He also used his own additives for texture and refraction. Gravity is h-ll on the drip paintings. They're notorious for falling apart. They crack and peel. My point was that owning them is far more demanding on a conservation budget than most paintings. It takes constant, ongoing attention, though some are much worse than others. His stated purpose in making them was about process, therefore the paintings are artifacts of that process. That's in contrast to paintings which are about the image, where the art happens at the end when viewed.

He studied art in New York. He would have learned how to properly construct a painting so that it would last. Saying he "was not a craftsman" is true in that he chose to ignore craft for the experiential. But it's not like he actually was a primitive or outsider who didn't know how. He was just trying to recapture the innocence behind that kind of work and didn't give a crap whether it would last.

And my point in bringing it up was to have a giggle over how much having enough money to bid really implies because of how much it would keep costing once bought.

ETA: N.B.: There's a difference between temporary art and ephemeral art, though there are references that confuse and conflate the two.

Pollock is very ephemeral, yet delicious.

It was on sale at Stop&Shop, so I bought some. Sous vided at perfect temperature and gave it a combination of sauces.

The whole plate was gone in a minute.

dcarch

You nailed it, dcarch! Glad you checked in! The main course reminded me most of you.

LOL! Gorgeous homage! (And it looks like something you're supposed to eat. :) )

Saveur article that does far more justice to Bottura's edible art.

Pollock had no intention of making ephemera, nor was he a performance artist He has said he was creating a new art form, abstract impressionism. He moved a long way from his mentor, Benton's teachings to develop his own style. Any art....anything from the Elgin marbles, the Sistine Chapel's frescos, to the mural on the wall of the YMCA requires maintenance
perhaps only those works you eat are truly maintenance free and truly Ephemeral; like sand paintings and sand sculptures and Christo's gates.
But Pollock's works are not considered ephemera, nor performance. He has said his intention was to create an image on the canvas not a performance.
As I am sure that Bottura's intent was to create a beautiful plate of food that was also delicious, rather than an exhibition of caper and flower sprinkling.

Thanks, mimi for the link to the article.

Thanks for the link. I really enjoyed the snapshots, and seeing the plates in repetition.

Does anyone have an idea of what the shell is for this dish?

Linda, I never said they were performance. They weren't. They were studio creations. It was his experience in making them, however, that he was selling. The gestural. They were, however, ephemeral art. Ephemeral art decays. It's jargon. Chisto's work was temporary, not ephemeral. Sure, even stone decays over a long time, but pieces that are not meant to last, and those drip paintings weren't, is considered ephemeral by definition.

Do you mean the apple? The broth is missing in the picture.

I like this quote in the Saveur article: . “A cook has to cook good food. An artist? He is free to do whatever he wants.” I still trust Reichl that it tasted good, but interesting that Bottura puts his plates in opposition to "good food".

Here's the Google translation of a description I found in Italian (one must be careful because Bottura did a dish of pasta made from breadcrumbs last year with the same name. This was a report of the event with the correct picture): The composition Autumn in New York , net of references to Richard Gere , was presented as a festival of vegetables with bits of black truffle , cherry jelly , with a dished leftover vegetables , chic against food waste. The "dished leftover vegetables", as I learned from one of the other articles, was broth made from peelings of the vegetables in the dish. I assume that the cherry jelly is the apple shaped rim. Jelly = gelatina In other words, some kind of pipeable puree which will hold its shape, or something like that. :)

The Instagram shows it with the broth and the inspiration pictures.

Well I have never before heard anyone describe Pollock's art as ephemeral nor experiential, certainly unique descriptions of the works of someone who has been said to be the father if abstract impressionism.
However reading the linked article about the dinner preceding the Sotheby's sale, I think Bottura's plating was most definitely experiential as well as ephemeral.

And too, I find Reichl with her typical artistic expression of emotion the perfect accompaniment to the event. But then, she's my favorite writer; she writes my soul.