Fancy names for dishes make me very nervous. If I were to see 'carpaccio of mango' on a restaurant menu I'd run a mile. It's pretentious. Because of its associations with Harry's Bar in Venice (where carpaccio was 'invented'), the word trails a little glamour around with it (or so restaurants seem to think) and has become a bit of a blanket term for anything raw. I'm OK with it for raw fish and beef, but for fruit or vegetables there's nothing wrong with the word 'raw'. In fact, there is a purity and honesty about it that is very satisfying.
I like raw stuff, not because I'm trying to be healthy but because foods are very different in their raw state to their cooked state. Take the vegetable salad overleaf. Every time I serve it people ask me what's in it. When I say just the vegetables you see on your plate, olive oil and lemon they don't believe me. When these vegetables are served raw, people notice different things about them. Raw carrots and fennel have a thirst-quenching rather than a condensed sweetness. And if you eat beef uncooked it tastes so fundamentally rich and meaty you don't need much of it. I find this with raw fish too; if you eat sashimi you'll know you what I mean. Despite having nothing 'rich' added to them, raw foods often taste intense, and they're very filling.
I may be fussy about my terms, but that doesn't stop me playing fast and loose when it comes to beef carpaccio or fish ceviche. The original carpaccio was invented by Giuseppe Cipriani but it's not a Venetian dish. His inspiration was carne crudo from Piedmont. There the beef (or veal) is sliced or chopped and is served with olive oil and shaved truffles. I've never thought parmesan was a good addition, and since the original carne crudo isn't served with it I think you can do your own thing. 'Northern' ingredients, such as beetroot and horseradish, suit it brilliantly (though please don't call it Scandinavian carpaccio).
No comments:
Post a Comment