Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

As a result, exoticism and cultural difference become crucial notions in studying cultural and culinary productions in an increasingly globalized world. While familiar food is often appealing, as it breeds security, comfort, ease and efficiency, there is a constant search for novelty as a source of excitement. Novelty is unusual and unexpected. It becomes something we have come to value and demand in today’s culinary globalization (Heldke, 2003: 13). Novelty has a strong connection to the exotic, which is defined as ‘strikingly and excitingly unusual or different’ (2003: 18). But the question of who decides what is different, novel, exotic and unusual leaves us with a perspectival problem. When cuisines are defined as novel and exotic, this means that they are seen as such from a particular point of view.2 In this study, exoticism, novelty and difference will be taken as highly perspectival and discursive terms. Another problematic notion in this study is authenticity. Authenticity could be understood as faithfulness to the performance practices of an era other than one’s own. An authentic dish should be ‘prepared the way it would be in its culture of origin’ (Heldke, 2003: 27). The authentic is seen as the native. However, the question of origin is always a difficult one. Where did the dish in question originate? Can a dish be authentically part of a culture’s cuisine if its origins are elsewhere? Can ketchup be ‘authentically’ Thai, even if it is used extensively in Thai food in Thailand (Heldke, 2003: 32)? Those questions should remind us of the flux and interaction between cultures, and constant transformation of cuisines, so that it becomes difficult – even impossible – to trace the origins of a dish. Ferguson argues that a culinary product, a dish or a meal, once presented to the consumer, cannot be preserved, stored or secured in the long term (2004:17). It undergoes revisions and changes. In this respect, a meal cannot be duplicated, it can only be replicated (2004: 92). Also, the revival of an historical cuisine is exposed to different interpretations and creations. In this case, the revived Ottoman cuisine is an example of reconstruction and replication. Considering the discussions above, I propose to focus on questions of authentication, rather than authenticity. I look at the discursive developments of authenticity and focus on who, and in what ways, represent the past, represent tastes in the past, especially when the past is unseen or beyond-seen, when it is beyond the territory of memory. Istanbul’s restaurant scene In the 1990s, eating out became one of the major attractions of Istanbul life. As the number of working women, single dwellers and small families increased, eating out became an important pleasure of city life. As well, because of the increased connections between places and people, and the emergence of new global consumption patterns, a curiosity has arisen as to how the rest of the world eats. This has opened up the international restaurant scene of Istanbul. One of the consequences of this has been the emergence of a special magazine format for the urban middle-class residents and foreigners living in Istanbul. Time Out, Istanbul Life, City Plus and Istanbul Guide all discuss the cos- mopolitan restaurant scene in Istanbul in great detail. World cuisines from Thai to Mexican, and eating establishments from American bistros to sushi bars, are presented and reviewed in those magazines, along with regional Turkish restaurants. As well, expensive gourmet restaurants, which serve Ottoman cuisine, have mushroomed in the city with Ottoman-related names: Tug˘ra (signature of the Ottoman sultans), Feriye (an Ottoman building of the 19th century), Çintemani (an Ottoman motif) and Asitane (one of the old names of Istanbul). While some present traditional Turkish cuisine with a decor comprised of stereotypical Ottoman symbolism, others have developed a more sophisticated understanding of the Ottoman cuisine by bringing to light ancient unknown recipes from the archives of the Ottoman palace. Today Istanbul’s restaurant scene is categorized in a variety of ways by a variety of sources. It is divided up not only according to the kind of cuisine served, but also according to the theatrical ambience of the establishment, serving styles, and the kind of customers catered to. Time Out Istanbul, for instance, considers many criteria, from the main dishes to the ambience, serving styles and national origins of the cuisine. On top of the global system of categorization, which includes vegetarian places and wine houses, divisions native to Istanbul, with separate categories such as meyhanes (taverns), ev yemekleri (home-made food), fish restaurants, kebab and meat restaurants, pide places, köfte places, and is¸kembe saloons are used.3 That particular system of categorization depends on performance and theatricality of ambience as much as on the dish type that is served. This article examines two types of restaurants, which are involved in different spatial and temporal formations where signs of Ottomanness are dominant: fine-dining restaurants and esnaf lokantas (tradesman diners). The ‘fine-dining’ concept, which was traditionally limited largely to five-star hotels and a few restaurants, had become popular in the 1990s in Turkey. Today there is an enormous number of expensive quality restaurants of many sorts, including French, Italian, American, Japanese, fusion and so on. Even though the concept of ‘fine-dining’ is not limited to the new Ottoman cuisine, it was first introduced by an Ottoman culinary ‘expert’ and the owner of the Feriye restaurant, Vedat Bas¸aran. For Bas¸aran, ‘fine-dining’ restaurants, such as his own, are high-quality, sophisticated and pricey places, which appeal to the new middle classes, business people and wealthy tourists. Such restaurants consider everything from the preparations to the plating, to the harmony of the tastes. And it is these ‘fine-dining’ establishments which have effectively reintroduced Ottoman palace cuisine as haute cuisine. These restaurants work with educated and creative chefs who reinvent the Ottoman cuisine, usually as a result of serious research, sometimes even including archival research. In this respect, Ottoman fine-dining restaurants play very well with the past and the present, as well as with the global and the local. They represent the past according to the tastes of the present, in modern dishes and a modern setting. It is usually the unknown, unusual and exotic Ottoman palace cuisine that is introduced. Asitane, Tug˘ra, Feriye, Bog˘aziçi Borsa, Çintemani and Safran are some of the Ottoman fine-dining restaurants. Esnaf lokantas4 (tradesmen’s diners), on the other hand, have a long history going back to the Ottomans of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The most well-known ones that are still popular today are Hacı Abdullah (1888), Konyalı (1897), Yanyalı Fehmi (1919), Hacı Baba (1921), Borsa (1927), Kanaat (1933), Liman (1939) and Hacı Salih Efendi (1944). They are canteen-style eating establishments with prepared meals placed on a counter for the customers to choose from. Unlike fine-dining restaurants, traditional esnaf lokantas are casual and not pricey. Rather than chefs, these places are run by master-to- apprentice or father-to-son traditions. Today esnaf lokantas continue to represent themselves as old and aim to preserve the traditions that have long been followed. In the 1990s they experienced a rebirth and became popular among the new middle-class working men and women, particularly for lunches.5 Hünkar is one of the modernized esnaf lokantas, combining traditional cuisine with elegant surroundings and service. Some old esnaf lokantas (such as Hacı Baba and Hacı Abdullah) have also turned into tourist sites. They distribute English booklets and flyers to the hotels. Unlike fine-dining restaurants, esnaf lokantas serve traditional and well-known versions of the Ottoman cuisine. In this respect, their understanding of the past is associated with familiarity rather than difference. Performing authentic Ottoman: eating the other and the city of the unknown Here at Asitane, we have made it our mission to reintroduce Ottoman court cooking to the world. Since 1990, a dedicated staff have [sic] hunted down lost tastes with academic zeal. We consulted a variety of sources, including the budget ledgers of the three main palace kitchens – Topkapı, Edirne and Dolmabahçe – and the memoirs of foreign diplomats or visitors to try and recreate authentic Ottoman court cuisine. (Asitane, n.d.) Asitane restaurant, located near the Kariye Museum of Mosaics6 – which went from being Chora church during the Byzantine era, to Kariye mosque during the Ottoman period, before finally becoming a museum during the Republican period – has been open since 1991. Its neighborhood reflects the multicultural character of Istanbul, with a blend of Byzantine Orthodox and Ottoman Islamic cultures. In Asitane’s booklet, it says, ‘it is possible to feel Byzantine Istanbul and Ottoman Istanbul at the same time’ in Kariye. In addition to tourists, famous Turkish journalists, writers and pop stars come to eat at Asitane.7 Even Asitane’s sign represents Ottomanness, albeit in a minimalist way. ‘Asitane’ is written with classical fonts. A tulip, which signifies the period of wealth in the Ottomans, is noticeable on the logo. As well, its interior decoration and menu design are minimal. The original Ottoman recipes (reçetes) in Arabic script decorate the walls.