Ask yourself who is the better chef:
1) the one who, using limitless resources and relying on extensive training, can create a masterpiece of exceptional culinary genius; or
2) the one who, improvising with scarce resources and relying on memory and hope, creates a deeply satisfying meal that feeds the body and warms the soul?
Who is the better friend?
As chefs, they are equal to me. Both are relying on whatever they have. I would love to have “limitless materials” from which to cook, but if I can only work from what I have, then what can I produce?
In short, “you better damn well appreciate it!”
But the “better friend” is found in the one who can appreciate the meal served him by the limited chef, I think. That takes conscience and critical review.
By the way, John, your doohickey….the thumbs up/down has expired. Was that an experiment on your part, or a temporary option that your service offered? I must say, I know I fell into the trappings as being as lazy as humanly possible, and gave the thumbs up/down in place of responding to your post. If this was intentional, what a great ploy to test just how we (humans) can be! 🙂
I totally agree with Trish. I remember reading many years ago that cooking is an art, and baking is chemistry.
I think Trish said it best. Different goals, but #2 would seem to feed the soul and body.
Not meaning to say that #1 isn’t also artistic, however I feel that perhaps the two chefs share a different goal. Chef #1 might tend to “impress”, were as Chef #2 aims to “please.”
I think that #2 would be the better friend, John. This is the one that could possess the real creativity, and throw in the magic touch of “of giving it their all” to pull it together. I consider that an art!