A minor trip to a restaurant.


Bro's birthday. Dad brought us both to this really expensive restaurant to celebrate. Obviously he got a lot of protests considering one meal was half my salary, but well, he was in charge so obviously too, he got his way.(Note: we're not exactly unlimited-$-rich but we do have a bit of money to spare, and my dad does this only when there's a special occasion.)


I doubt my bro fully appreciated the food but he did enjoy it, which at least counts for something, I guess.


The food wasn't really so much food for eating as it was food for thought. They say cooking is an art. After this meal, I would lean more towards that viewpoint... the point of art is to convey a certain idea; pleasure to the viewer/taster/whatever is subjective and cannot be used as a measuring stick. The dishes were, naturally, not stuff one could find outside at any food court; probably chef's concoctions, putting ideas of taste into food. And well, the meal has to follow a certain form, doesn't it? First the appetizer, then the main course somewhere in the middle, and the sweet, colourful and generally impressive dessert for a finale. But the form is the chef's selection and I won't pretend to understand his rationale for it.


Art must appeal to the masses in order to get support. Therefore art must cater to the tastes of the people. But it must do this without sacrificing the original idea, that is why food still tastes good! But I do think that the idea of a pleasurable taste is much less debatable than the idea of a pleasurable sight... so maybe it is meant to just make the people happy after all. I'm not sure.


But one thing I am very sure of is that expensive restaurant food's primary purpose is not to fill one's stomach. As the purpose of much other food is. So there must be some other purpose... because the meal earlier definitely only half-filled it. Just enough for me not to go hungry.


My post is getting garbled again and I don't know where I'm going so I'll try and summarise a few questions I tried to ponder this evening as I was eating.


Is cooking really an art?
How does the purpose of expensive restaurant food compare to that of standard hawker centre food, and are one or both of them art?
What on earth are the sort of ideas, if any, that the chef would like to communicate in his work? (Quite unanswerable in most music so I'm not expecting to reason out anything here.)
Is good art and food only for the rich?(Depends on the 2nd question!)
How is the restaurant chef's approach to food different from that of a street hawker?
How on earth do they pick restaurant music?(Heard some FF10 playing. lolwth?)


And a lot of other odd parallels I drew. The appetiser was prawn with mango. The dessert was mango pudding(or sth like that) with ice cream. Then there was the rest of the stuff in between. See page title for further details.


I conclude that raw seafood tastes good with mango and I am determined to try some at home. If I ever manage to find my way from one end of the kitchen to the other.


On a side note, life is much simpler when you're not chasing after a special person. The stuff one endures even before anything actually happens is quite amazing to watch. And rather entertaining too. Not saying that it's not worth it, but it certainly doesn't seem it to a bystander such as myself. Such people almost always become targets of conversation - unwanted conversation(at least unwanted by them.) As exemplified by a recent gathering I was at. No specifics or I get mega-screwed by everyone. There's a lot more I could say about people in general but I'll leave it and content myself by watching and knowing I'm not one of them. To my viewpoint, the grass always looks greener on MY side of the fence - whichever side it is.