That's just the thing about Tex-Mex: it's a dumpy-looking plate. A truly authentic plate of chile con carne enchiladas consists of corn tortillas softened in hot oil, then filled with greasy cheddar cheese (never that white-and-yellow mix crap), then topped with enchilada gravy (a roux), and greasy all-beef chili (no beans!!!!) and more greasy cheese. It's assembled and then put under a broiler to melt the cheese. The result is a melted mess on the plate. Not fancy, but oh, does it taste good... Blanco Cafe is a dingy little hole in the wall with chipped tables and dirty fluorescent lighting on the ceiling but it's the best plate of enchiladas you've ever had. Order the Mexican Dinner plate.
Well, I don't know where the guy you replied to is from, but I have lived in Chicago my entire life and I found tex-mex pretty disappointing when I went to Texas since I've spent my entire life eating actual Mexican food.
I think it's just fundamentally different cuisine. I was pretty baffled when I went in to a breakfast place and they had breakfast tacos with eggs, sausage and potatoes. I literally thought that was something McDonald's invented to seem "Mexican." The Mexican breakfasts I get have smoked beef tongue and stuff like that. There isn't really that much cheese either.
Another thing, and I'm not sure it makes a huge difference, but, the Mexicans I know up here tend to be from southern Mexico. The few Mexicans I know from further north say that the food in Chicago is mostly from Southern Mexico.
Tex-mex is pretty good, but if you are expecting Mexican food it's not really the same. It needs to be appreciated on it's own merits.
> Tex-mex is pretty good, but if you are expecting Mexican food it's not really the same.
It's most related to northern Mexican cuisine, but pretty distant from that of, say, the Valley of Mexico or the Yucatan or Mexico's Pacific Coast, among others. Mexico has diverse regional cuisines, often influenced by the cuisines of the different pre-colonization local cultures (but also influenced by different post-colonization immigration patterns and other factors.)
Look at Gino's East and Giordano's. Now look at Imo's and Cecil Whittaker's. Now look at California Pizza Kitchen.
Now, look at a Chicago Italian beef. Look at Pat's, Geno's, or Ray's in Philly. Look at a New Orleans Po' Boy and an East Coast grinder.
You think there's no regional variety within a country? Are you going to tell a Philly guy his cheesesteak isn't authentic because it's different from what you're used to?
Texas, California, Baja California, the Yucatan, central Mexico, southern Mexico, the northern end of the Gulf coast in Mexico, and north central Mexico are all very different places.
I never said there wasn't regional variety. I said I'm probably expecting something from Southern Mexico when I eat Mexican. Either way, Tex-Mex isn't really "Mexican", it's definitely a fusion, so if you are expecting Mexican food you'd be surprised.
Texas was one of those regions. So was California. The borders moved. The Tejanos are still here. All border areas have mixed styles and ingredients. "Fusion" implies someone intentionally looked at two disparate cuisines and mixed them on purpose.
Food photography is insanely difficult: just like they say, "the camera adds 10 pounds", lighting and color differences between direct vision and photos make food look slightly off. Our brains are attuned from millions of years of evolution to see anything slightly off with our food to be gross. As a result, even food that looks delicious in person looks disgusting in photographs unless you're extremely careful to get the lighting just right. Professional photographs like this[1] are carefully lighted and highly edited, and even slight variations can make the lettuce look a bit off and the bun a bit burnt[2] or the pickles seem old and the cheese fake[3].
Long story short: people's low-res cell phone photos of half-eaten food taken under fluorescent lights basically indicate nothing about the food.
