zoid wrote:
If your point is that popular opinion dictates what is credible then Kane West is far superior to Beethoven. It was once a widely held belief that the earth was flat. An opinion is just that, an opinion. Yours carries no more intrinsic weight than anyone else on this board.
Popular opinion? Do you think that Night Hawks hangs in the Art Institute of Chicago because of popular opinion or because it is a seminal example of American Scene painting, expressing the loneliness, vacuity, and stagnation of town life?
Steve Plotnicki wrote:
I suspect you chose FLW because you saw my location was Oak Park, but let's not get into that...
Actually I didn't notice your location. I was driving around Evanston today and some of the houses reminded me of his archicture.
Quote:
The opinion that FLW was a great architect is an opinion, one that a great many people do not share. Part of architecture is designing buildings that actually stand up, Frank wasn't too good at this alas. Many people find his structures aesthetically pleasing, some find then sterile – again opinion. There is no question that he was influential.
Okay you lost me here, I don't understand how you can be influential and not great. In fact influence is the predicate for greatness. How can something be great if it isn't influential? But besides that, you are ignoring the practical reality of the situation by pointing to the exceptions to disprove the rule. What I mean by that is the following. Suppose we asked 1000 people who had a reasonable appreciation of architecture whether FLW was a great architect and 750 of them said yes. Do you think that creates a practical reality? If your answer is no, well increase that number to 850? Ready to yield yet? 950? 999? At what point do the dissenters become outliers that should be ignored?
The right of individuality is not a valid reason to ignore the practical reality of a situation, even if dissent is based on valid concerns. Hence, I present my opinions as fact when I believe I am expressing the practical reality of a situation.
Chicago's Gold Coast contains a beautful series of buildings is a valid statement that can be presented as fact even though we can find people who dissent. And don't get me started on Pink Floyd and Milli Vanilli.
Quote:
Your dismissal of entire cultures however is disappointing.
What exactly is wrong with dismissing entire cultures (from a culinary perspective?) Lots of cultures have crap food and lots of cultures have food that is ridden with limitations. Why exactly shouldn't they be dismissed or criticized for those shortcomings? Is it not politically correct or something. I really don't understand. I grew up in a kosher home and I can tell you that regardless of heritage and carrying on an ancient tradition, kosher food is crap. And the reason it is crap is not because Jews are making it, it's that the orthodox Jewish community values following Jewish tradition more than they value eating delicious food. So they end up with making fake scallops and phony bacon and whipped cream made from soy products so they can make believe they are not being kosher. What exactly is wrong for criticizing or dismissing them for that?
Some cultures value the dining experience more than others do. The French value it alot but the English not as much. The Belgiums do but the Dutch not as much. The Italians do but the Greeks, not really. The Spanish do and the Portugese not quite as much. The Japanese value dining more than the Chinese do. What exactly is wrong with criticizing or dismissing those cultures that value it less, and who have a less sophisticated culinary tradition than the countries that value it more?
Re fish sauce; Like with tacos I was using it as an example of a shortcut. If it turns out to be a bad example, pick another one. But, as Darren said, you can't prove that Thai food is sophisticated by proving me wrong. In order to do that you need to offer objective details about what makes it a sophisticated cuisine relative to other sophisticated cuisines.