In fact some places like Kyo Aji from Kenichiro Nishi - who is apparently a very good and famous chef - go as far as ban michelin tourists. Or at least try to.
Just look at this discussion on chowhound [2]. Interesting comment:
> Kyoaji is probably sick of rich foreigners trying to book via 5 star hotel concierges. Maybe change your strategy, and stay at a budget salaryman hotel and use their concierge?
>“Japanese food was created here, and only Japanese know it,” Mr. Kadowaki said in an interview. “How can a bunch of foreigners show up and tell us what is good or bad?”
I feel like this has a xenophobic undertone to it; nobody's showing up anywhere, it's a guide which attempts to find good restaurants and food around the globe; what makes the Japanese in his view so specially qualified to judge the food? If the food was only found to be tasteful for Japanese tastes then I doubt it would have made its way into the Michelin guide, no?
It's another facet of gentrification. A restaurant owner may really love having a small, local clientele of regulars and a very good atmosphere due to that fact. Then one day he gets awarded a Michelin star and suddenly thousands of tourists descend on his place and swamp it with unwanted business. Is it xenophobic to suggest he might prefer to go back to the previous situation?
>Is it xenophobic to suggest he might prefer to go back to the previous situation?
This is totally a wrong interpretation of what I was saying. I was only commenting on that line in particular, not saying that what he was doing in general is bad, but the pernicious idea that only Japanese are qualified to judge Japanese food is something I find needlessly exclusive and overall false; this is what is xenophobic, not the desire to shut one's restaurant off in the face of pressure. However if he is only shutting it off to "foreigners" then it really is xenophobic to do so, but understandable nevertheless.
> but the pernicious idea that only Japanese are qualified to judge Japanese food is something I find needlessly exclusive and overall false
It's Japanese food for a reason. That's how Japanese see it and that's the taste they value. Once everybody start judging it, it's likely to change to match their tastes. Japanese food made to taste good for non-Japanese wouldn't be Japanese food anymore. Japanese-inspired? Yep.
It's like pizza. Is Hawaii pizza "Italian food"? I wouldn't say so. I know many people who can't stand true Italian pizza, but love all those Italian-pizza-inspired foods.
If they feel that only their culture can appreciate the goodness of the food adequately, then _why do they care_ about what foreigners or Michelin judges say about it? Cook the same great food you normally do, and don't worry about the critics. (I know, easier said than done.)
Let's say I had a great pizza and tell a friend about it without much details. The friend thinks pineapple on a pizza is license to kill, but he's not aware where he's going to... Bottom line is he is disappointed and tells everyone that this place suck.
If the places doesn't give a fuck and keeps serving only Hawaii pizza, they'll keep having disappointed customers and 1-star reviews without much explanation. They could bend over and start making special pizza for those occasions. But that'd destroy some of the charm for the people who absolutely love pineapples on their pizzas.
I guess this is loose-loose situation. The only solution could be if people gave either good review or no review at all. But then some objective criticism would be lost...
Also, if it was xenophobic. So what? Doesn't a businessman have the right to choose who to do business with?
I believe free trade is a good thing, but seems like many americans mistook free trade for gunboat diplomacy (see opening of Japan). In my understanding free trade is free as in free will: both parties voluntarily take part in the exchange of goods and services.
Also one can be patriotic in a way that he/she (no xe!) wants to preserve the cultural heritage, which is not only buildings and artifacts in museums, but also customs. Customs can be preserved by people sustaining them by continuously acting according to them. Local customs can be ruined pretty quickly via a huge influx of tourists.
Example: In my younger day I could see elderly people sitting in the small parks around playgrounds and children playing at some parts of the city. Now in these parts of the city what I can see is playgrounds have been closed. Public places have been closed, no elderly talking, playing chess on a summer afternoon. Instead there are "party tourists" littering, being loud and drunk an sometimes acting atrociously as early as 2pm on weekdays. A local custom (socialization of the locals) has been wiped by tourism. Slowly locals are freeing the "party district".
I can understand why one wants to avoid such situation (even as Michelin -tourists are not this troublesome, but starts a trend, which can even lead here). Is this xenophobic, then be so. I understand why people want to be xenophobic then.
All: if you want to understand how not to comment on Hacker News, take a look at this flamewar and never, ever behave like this on HN. It's emblematic of all that this site is not for. Note also the bannage occurring below.
The only other option is to government-mandate that, right? Not saying there aren't other unfortunate consequences of allowing a business owner to choose who they serve, but I'd say the larger problem is just that people can be... well... humans aren't great. However, putting the power in the hands of the law probably doesn't fix that.
Ultimately, why would you want to support someone who doesn't want you to be there?
Regardless, you've given me a new thing to think about. It's a complex issue for sure.
It surely helped to change how black people are treated in America, no government-mandate would mean "no blacks allowed" signs still hanging somewhere to this day...
Yet we don't allow random traveler to vote in local elections.
Modern travel is big specifically because the world is diverse place. If all societies would try to include anyone from anywhere, they'd become similar and traveling wouldn't be as great.
By that logic you'd have to argue that children, inmates, mentally ill and those that for whatever reason didn't register to vote in states where it's required are not the part of society.
Including outsiders in the society doesn't make societies less diverse. If anything it's making them more diverse because otherwise similar societies might include different outsiders and differ more because of that.
Not every argument is supposed to be double-sided.
Mix-mashing all societies just get them to lowest common denominator. Similar societies usually receive similar outsiders. Sometimes even outsiders from same place. Which just makes them even more similar. For example, north Germany and Bavaria are quite different places and have different culture. Yet same set of immigrants come to both. Local food is different, but kebabs are the same.
If each society can choose who they want to accept and who they don't want... Then we can agree that each society can judge for itself.
> Like the hoteliers who don't allow gay people to stay ?
Even that is OK in my opinion. The market will sort it out. There are clubs where gay people can have a good time. If gay accomodation becomes a niche market, there will be people seizing that opportunity. The law shall not discriminate people, but telling people what to think and forcing them doing stuff they don't agree with is dictatorship.
I've never understood that argument; if you invite unkown customers you are inviting the public. I mean if you really want to keep it private you would have to have a guest list imho. Which is fine, but you can't have a guest list that says "not that kind of people". Private is for things like Sento imperial palace, where you guide people through your property, but when you let people in freely it is my belief that at some point that will have to be interpreted as public space (like trademarks).
If you have a book that gives more nuance to this "a private buisness is not a public space" I would be glad to read it.
How so? Just because it has word "private" in its customary english name? If you translate it to other languages word private often disappears. And if it remains it serves to separate state owned buisnesses and privately own buisnesses. Both participate in public market, have random customers from the public and are regulated so that they need to display prices and not refuse service to some people based on owners stupidity.
But nevertheless in intrudes on the public sphere, to simply deny its effect on the culture surrounding it and the society which uses it is naive. The idea that businesses exist apart from everyone and everything is a pernicious one.
I also don't like junkies. Is that also wrong? Why do you tell me what i should like, and based on what ethics do you tell me what is morally right?
What if I tell you that liking foreigners is morally wrong where I live? We don't hurt them, but we don't like them because they keep telling us what we should do, and keep trying to conquer us for a millennia? Still we live in peace since a long time, we treat our guests well, but we don't categorically like them. Each and every guest can become an individually liked person, and even unliked ones are treated fairly (given a fair trial before execution ;) Hint for autists: It was a joke)
It's morally wrong to hate something for an attribute they have no control over.
Is it morally wrong to hate someone who chooses to drink? Not really.
Is it morally wrong to hate someone born addicted to opioids, or born with fetal alcohol syndrome? Of course.
Being born "foreign" is no different, especially if you, as this chef does, live in a country where "nationality" is coterminous with "ethnicity" to the point multi-generational immigrant groups (ethnically Korean Japanese, for example) are considered "Not Japanese" by many Japanese people.
I thought we were talking about this comment. You created a strawman, and now use derogatory comment toward me. This makes me end this discussion here.
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop.
If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
We've banned this account for taking this thread into a wretched flamewar, as well as for violating the site guidelines repeatedly and ignoring our requests to stop.
If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Indeed. Were this statement made in the USA, there wouldn’t even be this attempt to rationalize it. Torches and pitchforks would be at the ready almost immediately.
Xenophobia could be part of it, but there’s probably an element of disdain (possibly deserved) for people who just chase Michelin restaurants but don’t have the palate necessary to really appreciate the food.
An exaggerated analogy: someone who’s never had wine buys a bottle recommended by a highly respected wine expert, tries it, and goes, “Oh, that really is good!”
The solution Ferrari uses to avoid some newly rich entrepreneur buying their limited series super cars is to require buyers to be proper collectors. They can't resell the car within N years, have to own M previous ferraris etc.
This model is harder for restaurants, they actually want to avoid these Pokémon-style foodies and find the people that really appreciate the food. Not sure what the model would be for restaurants. Once you hit 3 stars you stop accepting tourists?
There are documentaries about the uber-rich foodies who treat these restaurants like Pokemon. Given the personalities involved, it doesn't surprise me that some chefs should actively want to shun them.
Since that article, Kadowaki's actually now listed as a 2-star Michelin restaurant.
Don't know what's happened since then, but I remember the name because it's the only Michelin restaurant I've ever dined in. Small world coming across it on HN!
For what it's worth, the staff was pleasant and welcomed us as foreigners, asking where we were visiting from. Kadowaki came by at the end of the meal to put the finishing touches on his signature dish, and was just as welcoming. Pricey though!
I suspect they are? I mean, if they weren't showing up then the restaurant would be out of business, no?
It does read a bit xenophobic, but it might be a pressure thing more than a nationality thing. People try to put pressure on those establishments. Sometimes, it's the chefs themselves who put the pressure on, sometimes it is visitors.
People have committed suicide due to the pressures involved in trying to get onto the list and to maintain, or increase, their stars. Failure is difficult and may even result in financial ruin, as if restaurants weren't already inherently risky.
So, I'm not sure that it is so much xenophobic as it is simply not wishing to be so publicly judged and/or pressured.
>I suspect they are? I mean, if they weren't showing up then the restaurant would be out of business, no?
Sorry, I was under the impression that he's talking about the Michelin rating people showing up and telling them how good or bad his food is rather than simply visiting and writing a guide which contains his restaurant. I can understand the pressure of being on the list and maintaining one's position, but there's no reason why he couldn't let that slip; being lower on the list is better than not being on the list at all in terms of prestige, so he obviously doesn't care much what a "foreign" guide writes about him.
The idea that only Japanese people can judge Japanese food seems to me very xenophobic; if that wasn't his intention then he should have spoken in general rather than targeting "foreigners".
English may not be his native language and I'm just speculating. To me, it read more about the pressures exerted and the desire to not have to conform to an ideal presented by people who aren't members of the same culture.
I'm not sure that qualifies as xenophobic, or even a bad thing. Should a Mexican restaurant be pressured into serving food that is more acceptable to the Canadian palate? (Pressured, not forced.)
From what I've read, and a documentary, it's pretty high stress to meet the expectations and to do things in a certain manner. I can understand the desire to get out from under that. By foreigners, it may mean, 'not my usual customers.'
So, I'm not sure if that's really xenophobic. I'm not seeing any fear involved, just displeasure about external pressures.
A little nitpick, but "-phobia" suffix does not strictly mean fear, though that is its origin. It can also mean hatred.
>Should a Mexican restaurant be pressured into serving food that is more acceptable to the Canadian palate? (Pressured, not forced.)
No? I never said that; he shouldn't be pressured, but merely the act of serving foreigners or having his restaurant listed is not pressure to change -- in fact, if he changed, wouldn't that defeat the whole point of the rating system? He was rated on the Japanese food he serves, not the Canadian food.
No. 'Foreigners' very likely simply means 'foreigners' here. Japanese society is incredibly xenophobic and has quite well-known problems with casual, socially accepted racism.
Foreigners can say it's tasty, but local people undertand the chemistry and culture of specific ingredients and why it was choosen for a dish. That's not specific for a japan, but there is big culture around those thinking in japan. It's similar to how pop-culture-nerds can explain you every little reference in a movie or game, and explain you the history of specific genres, features and franchises. For a cook, it might be more satisfying to cook for someone who challanges him, who can talk to im on his level, instead of just catering the masses who gulp down the food and complain about nonsical things, which doesn't bring him forward.
You can call it xenophobic, it probably is, but likely it's based on real experiences.
>but local people undertand the chemistry and culture of specific ingredients and why it was choosen for a dish
So can foreigners who are familiar with Japanese food, or non-ethnically Japanese people in Japan. I understand your analogy to pop-culture nerds but I don't think it applies here - one can become on the same level as the nerd and talk to him in that way, but this chef is exclusionary and saying that no matter how much expreience a "foreigner" has with Japanese food, he can never understand it or properly judge it. This is not unique to Japanese food, I have seen this exact line echoed by a famous Japanese architect too with regard to his work.
If he so wishes he should cater to people familiar with food, if anything those people are more "on his level" than a random Japanese person, so I really can't see why he's drawing the line at "Japanese" rather than at "familiar and experienced with food". I'm sure most Japanese just gulp down the food, and some surely do complain.
Real experience or not, I think this kind of attitude has little place in modern society.
this chef is exclusionary and saying that no matter how much expreience a "foreigner" has with Japanese food, he can never understand it or properly judge it.
You're torturing the quote to look for intent that simply is not there. Maybe he does feel that there is no level of assimilation sufficient to judge Japanese food, but it's simply not there. It's an imprecise blanket statement made in the context of reviewers showing off their lack of assimilation with judgements seen as very incongruous with local tastes.
meh, shrug. If this was any local cuisine other than Japanese -- who we have been taught to see as xenophobic -- the obvious follow-on retort wouldn't be about xenophobia, but about appropriation and generally more defensive of the culture's prerogative to define itself.
Part of me wonders if he wants to be removed in protest, or if he wants to sort of exit with three stars, and not have to deal with being perceived as lower quality by losing a star.
French speaker here. He's essentially saying: "At 46 years of age, I want to run my business the same as before (with thanks to Michelin for the acclaim they have afforded us) but without the pressure of the three stars."
Totally get it, and totally agree. The meaning I take from the video: "Let us do our best without worrying about being judged every second of every day." Must be exhausting to be in that situation.
My first inclination is "Why doesn't he just ignore Michelin" but then I realize that a poor ranking in Michelin could do real damage to his business beyond the segment of his guests that is aware of Michelin ratings.
Being stripped of a star sends a very strong signal that the restaurant/chef is in decline. It will certainly be harmful for their reputation and business.
thats not the point. for a three stars loosing a star is loosing money which means loosing quality, you can't afford to pay top notch cooks, they leave, you loose more quality, you have to lower your price, you buy cheaper products, you loose quality...
Because it would be much easier to ignore the pressure put by random and secret food inspections if those inspections don't even exist at all. To get and keep 3 stars over more than 10 years require to be overconscious, so even if he wants to ignore the ranking he might not be able to.
The thing that Michelin’s review process does, though, is it pushes very heavily towards “consistent excellence”. And if you’re charging well into 3 figures for a meal, that is a reasonable expectation. If the chef opened a place where he was willing to tolerate some dishes that didn’t quite work, timing that wasn’t perfect, etc, and you could eat for $50/head, I’d be willing to tolerate misses — after all, you can go there several times for the price of one go at a big prix fixe. But one go is all most guests will ever take at that 150/head meal, and at that price point, the flawless choreography and execution is part of the package.
"In the silence and solitude, one only hears the essential"
He basically says that he does not want the pressure to preserve his 3-stars status, has no grudge with the Michelin guide that he thanks, and wants to continue his little business without caring more about rating than about the "art de vivre" of his region.
I find it odd that he prefers losing all three stars over losing only one star. If he's willing to lose stars, can't he just ignore Michelin and simply cook the way he wants?
I'm reminded of Ron Blaauw, a Dutch 2-star chef who was also tired of the pressure of his 2-star fine-dining restaurant (not sure if it was Michelin or just the kind of restaurant), so he started his more informal "Gastrobar" for just a quick bite instead of Michelin-level dining, and was immediately awarded a star for it.
If he just continues on and loses one or more stars then, no matter how public he is about the restaurant's change of direction, it will be widely regarded as a demotion. Opening a second, more informal eatery might not appeal to him for any number of valid reasons.
It seems reasonably clear that the ongoing cost in terms of anxiety and, to some extent, the freedom to change or loosen up things is simply not worth the accolade to him anymore. The article states: "because of the huge pressure of being judged on every dish he serves... and the anxiety over Michelin’s anonymous food judges, who could arrive at his restaurant at any moment... “You’re inspected two or three times a year, you never know when. Every meal that goes out could be inspected. That means that, every day, one of the 500 meals that leaves the kitchen could be judged. “Maybe I will be less famous but I accept that,” he said, adding that he would continue to cook excellent local produce “without wondering whether my creations will appeal to Michelin’s inspectors”."
So, he's quitting on his own terms. Assuming it's not a rash decision borne from burn-out or some temporary phase or state of mind then I think it's admirable.
That level of obsession is necessary for ensuring that every non-professional eater is receiving the meal they expected. What is the difference? “I’ll put on a show for the critics, and mail it in for everyone else”? Or “The quality we’re delivering is unsustainable”. Saying the first is being a jackass, while the latter is fine. But put it that way rather than blaming others.
There are several comments in this discussion talking about you would want to lose all stars instead of just one.
If you lose one star, it will sound like the quality has changed for the worst.
Losing all them sounds more like being outside the system.
At this level, not at all. 3 stars means that every single serving is perfect by itself, the quality of the ingredients, the texture, the taste. Everything.
You cannot allow yourself to not be perfect. For example, you cannot serve something new where you know it is really good but fails a bit on the texture side or it is hard to produce so the quality varies a bit, not a lot, but a bit.
If he goes out of the system, he can reintroduce this little bit of freedom.
As a programming analogy, 3 stars is like every single piece of code you produce is perfectly structured, integrates nicely in the software, respects the conventions and idioms, has no code debt. You cannot just patch a bit and see how the users react and refactor later. It must be perfect for the user from low level code to the interaction as soon as you put it in the hands of real users.
Makes sense - there's a lot of responsibility that comes with Michelin stars and he wants to be free of it. I guess this is newsworthy because most find the benefits outweigh the downsides. I'm guessing he's got enough acclaim without the stars that it's tilted the scale the other way for him.
Exactly, he's had the stars long enough that they are a bother instead of a blessing.
Presumably there is also a lot of constraint when making up dishes of the sort of "Would a Michelin reviewer score this well?" which is different from "Is this an excellent dish?"
The fate of Benoit Violier (French-Swiss chef that took his own life after being awarded his third Michelin star in 2016) come to mind in this context:
The article actually mentions Bernard Loiseau, not Benoit Violier. Loiseau took his life after hearing rumors his restaurant would be demoted from three to two Michelin stars.
There was a book written about the Loiseau event (reads like it was supposed to be a biography at first, of which the suicide obviously overtook the narrative): The Perfectionist: Life and Death in Haute Cuisine [0].
Makes total sense to opt out on top. I'm surprised more chefs don't do the same. If people say that "it's not the same" after a few years, you can make a come-back with all the free PR that entails.
Many many chefs who rise to the top of the game, well they're interesting people to say the least. Not unlike professional soldiers, firefighters, or frankly pirates. Some however I just really really good with food, or really nerdy about food, and I don't really "chef types" per se. However in this world a lot of times people are drawn to being a chef because of a dream of high-level success, or television fame... that also draws a particular kind of person, especially the one who succeed.
I want to emphasize though that some of the highest performing chefs don't fit this model I'm talking about, to be completely fair. I think they would agree with my assessment however, at least in many cases.
I don't know how this works but it would be better if ratings would be for specific meals only, that way chefs wouldn't stress out trying new variations.
But Yelp isn’t the go-to destination for answering “Where can I find a once-in-a-lifetime caliber meal”. And what this chef wants is to be able to lock in his reputation at delivering said caliber meal without any checking as to whether he still operates at that standard.
No he wants to leave the standard entirely. He just wants to be unlisted from something which has changed his life and he thinks, not for the better. I don't see a reason why he shouldn't be allowed to do that.
That's complete BS. If he was running a little neighborhood place selling dinner for $30, I'd buy what you're saying. But he's not.
Google "Le suquet", and in the Google tagline, you get:
"Le Suquet at Laguiole the three star gastronomic restaurant of Sébastien Bras."
He'd rather Le Suquet be forever known as "the place that was 3 stars until the Chef told the reviewers to fuck off" rather than "the place that was 3 stars but isn't any more because quality control has slipped".
Why not just do what you like and ignore the stars? This just seems like a weak attitude. "Please, don't judge me anymore I can't take it". If you care, you care, if you don't care you don't care.
It's not like Michelin forces him to do anything. Perhaps put a note on the door: "Sorry, I do what I like and at any moment your expectations based on Michelin's stars may be different from what I want to do with my restaurant."
Anyway, the 500 meals a day are judged, by more important people, your customers.
True, but I assume the publicity of dropping out would be temporary. A year from now everyone has forgotten about this request anyway, and he will presumably no longer be listed in the Michelin guide anymore.
Keeping your Michelin stars is definitely a form of publicity, and a more lasting one at that than a temporary stunt just to get some press.
So it would seem to me like a bad move to do this only for publicity.
> You’re inspected two or three times a year, you never know when. Every meal that goes out could be inspected. That means that, every day, one of the 500 meals that leaves the kitchen could be judged.
It sounds like he wants to be able to relax the quality without hurting his reputation. I can't help but to feel that it's disingenuous somehow, but maybe I'm being unreasonable.
The Michelin guide (and their readers) have fairly specific expectations for a starred restaurant. Many diners expect a Michelin-starred restaurant to provide flamboyant haute cuisine and are disappointed when they receive simple but excellent food. Restauranteurs can feel pressured to live up to the stereotype of a Michelin-starred restaurant, rather than cooking in their own style. Several restaurants have rejected their stars, primarily to escape this weight of expectation.
So why not just ignore the expectations and cook what you want? If Michelin tourists have different expectations than what Michelin judges judge on, then that's the source of the problem. People shouldn't blindly go visit a restaurant with stars and expect it to be identical to other restaurants with stars.
> “Maybe I will be less famous but I accept that,” he said, adding that he would continue to cook excellent local produce “without wondering whether my creations will appeal to Michelin’s inspectors”.
It sounds to me like he wants to be more adventurous.
Maybe he just wants to focus on cooking interesting food to a high quality, and less on the many factors that might also hurt his rating. Doesn't sound like he'll be hurting for customers, so what's the point of having the ranking?
I don't know what Michelin's standards are or how they decide whether and at what level to put a chef in their ratings. However, it seems to me he believes that his entire Michelin rating might hinge on one inspection. That's a lot of pressure given all the things that can go wrong in a given preparation. Perhaps he feels it's a bit like being required to write code that compiles with no logic bugs on (more or less) the first try (per customer), every time, and wants a break from that.
Do you do your best work when someone is constantly hovering over your shoulder with a clipboard, their one off checkmark making or breaking your career?
Or do you do your best work when you are free to focus on the problem at hand?
He could just do what he wants anyway, and not care if he loses a couple of stars. There will be one brief period of "OMG, local 3-star restaurant lost ranking" and after that, nothing.
But if he's willing to lose all three of his stars, then surely the possibility of losing only one shouldn't be a big deal? Or does he wants to permanently have three stars without the possibility of losing them?
It's more like a teacher saying that they don't want standardized testing because they want to stop teaching to the test; the chef wants to stop optimizing his cooking for Michelin reviewers. Standards are multidimensional.
Or, maybe, live up to a set of different standards and not be pressured to conform to his past set of ideals or those ideals that make for good ratings.
It may be different standards, not necessarily relaxed standards. I think we can give him the benefit of doubt.
This reads like part of an Economics 101 textbook. If quantity supplied is limited and demand increases, the obvious solution is to increase the price enough to hold constant the quantity demanded.
so the new fad will be : I'm so rich I have contacts all over the planets how know about those top restaurant that are fortunately hidden of the Michelin guide. So I can go to top restaurant where there none of these poor customers who can barely afford the 3 stars :-)
In fact some places like Kyo Aji from Kenichiro Nishi - who is apparently a very good and famous chef - go as far as ban michelin tourists. Or at least try to.
Just look at this discussion on chowhound [2]. Interesting comment:
> Kyoaji is probably sick of rich foreigners trying to book via 5 star hotel concierges. Maybe change your strategy, and stay at a budget salaryman hotel and use their concierge?
[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/business/worldbusiness/24g...
[2]: https://www.chowhound.com/post/secure-kyoaji-reservation-930...
[3]: https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/09/top-chefs-micheli...