Absolutely it's a good point, but what he's also doing is absolutely dismissing another less conventional approach to food, and he's saying that anyone who enjoys that other approach "know[s] nothing about taste or products or cuisine in general." So basically he's calling me an idiot.

I love traditional French food, and I love modern Haute Cuisine. The fact that one of my favorite meals ever was at Taillevent and another was at El Bulli doesn't mean anything except that I was amazed by both of these experiences for what they offered me on their own terms.

As far as fresh and top quality ingredients ... sure it's all true, except I suppose I'm interested in chefs who find ways to use everything and waste nothing. When I take a slightly freezer-burnt left over steak out and it contributes to the ragu that I make, I take some pride in that. Much of the offal that has made Fergus Henderson so influential would be considered to be garbage by many. If there's a foie gras left in the walk-in from last night's service that's not fresh enough to be seared but that's still not gone bad, then why the heck not use it to enrich a soup or a sauce? Or turn it into cotton candy, or freeze it into little snowflakes, or whatever?

So what I don't like about Robouchon's quote is that it takes such a narrow view of what fine dining must be and it says in so many words that anyone who doesn't define the experience in the way he does is a fool.

But none of this has anything to do with luxury hotels does it? So I'll just mention to Gougol that we also loved Amansara, so I guess there is something we agree on after all.