for the same reason other art can cost that much, like tickets to a concert. setting aside silly liberal notions of supply and demand, from a Marxist perspective the amount of labor that goes into producing the art is high.
200 for a meal - per head - is 10 x the cost of a normal meal (being generous, 20 is on the high end of what I'd personally be comfortable paying for a meal per head). Maybe just 5 x if you're treating yourself, maybe.
I'm skeptical of the idea that food artisans are doing 5 - 10 x the labour of non-artisan chefs.
Why wouldn't you expect a 10-course meal to be 10x the labor of a 1 course meal? Just to take the most simple approach to this.
Also, at $20 per person, the kitchen staff and waitstaff are probably not being compensated appropriately for their labor and time, though it obviously also depends on the cost of ingredients and the difficulty of preparation.
(To be really clear about what I'm saying--so that it doesn't sound like I'm saying "all food should cost at least $20 per person" or something out of touch like that, I'm saying that a restaurant that charges less than $20 per person for food is almost definitely paying the kitchen staff less than the $30-35/hr they deserve for their labor--at a minimum. Kitchen workers work hard!)
But let's take something like mole (a Mexican dish) as an example. Traditional mole poblano takes hours to make and may include over 30 different ingredients. Not to mention the skill involved, and the time it takes to learn how to make it. Chefs might spend decades honing their craft.
And that's just one component of the meal. Yes, that labor also gets spread across several guests, but remember that there could be 10 or 20 people involved in preparing your dinner, from dishwashers to prep cooks to waiters.
Where did 10-course meal come from? Are we implying that because it's artisanal, it's going to be a feast? It being "art" doesn't mean there's going to be more of it, as you yourself explained, you're paying for a person who has honed their craft, it doesn't at all mean there's going to be more food.
I certainly doubt I've dined at any restaurant where there's 20 people preparing my food, even 10 seems like a stretch. But you're right, the handful of people who are preparing it probably aren't being paid what they should be. That being said, I'm certainly not paid enough to pay the wages of the whole restaurant. That $20 a head limit that I impose on myself is because that's what I can afford, on the occasion that I go to a restaurant.
absolutely. yes, I think a distinction needs to be made between what a meal can/should cost in a society where everyone is being paid fairly vs a society where most people aren't.
ehh. I think "food as art" is a thing. don't want to start a struggle session though. I respect your perspective.
as the rat dad from ratatouille once said: food is fuel, now shut up and eat your garbage
Food can be art. Not sure why that means it should be $200 though.
for the same reason other art can cost that much, like tickets to a concert. setting aside silly liberal notions of supply and demand, from a Marxist perspective the amount of labor that goes into producing the art is high.
200 for a meal - per head - is 10 x the cost of a normal meal (being generous, 20 is on the high end of what I'd personally be comfortable paying for a meal per head). Maybe just 5 x if you're treating yourself, maybe.
I'm skeptical of the idea that food artisans are doing 5 - 10 x the labour of non-artisan chefs.
Why wouldn't you expect a 10-course meal to be 10x the labor of a 1 course meal? Just to take the most simple approach to this.
Also, at $20 per person, the kitchen staff and waitstaff are probably not being compensated appropriately for their labor and time, though it obviously also depends on the cost of ingredients and the difficulty of preparation.
(To be really clear about what I'm saying--so that it doesn't sound like I'm saying "all food should cost at least $20 per person" or something out of touch like that, I'm saying that a restaurant that charges less than $20 per person for food is almost definitely paying the kitchen staff less than the $30-35/hr they deserve for their labor--at a minimum. Kitchen workers work hard!)
But let's take something like mole (a Mexican dish) as an example. Traditional mole poblano takes hours to make and may include over 30 different ingredients. Not to mention the skill involved, and the time it takes to learn how to make it. Chefs might spend decades honing their craft.
And that's just one component of the meal. Yes, that labor also gets spread across several guests, but remember that there could be 10 or 20 people involved in preparing your dinner, from dishwashers to prep cooks to waiters.
Where did 10-course meal come from? Are we implying that because it's artisanal, it's going to be a feast? It being "art" doesn't mean there's going to be more of it, as you yourself explained, you're paying for a person who has honed their craft, it doesn't at all mean there's going to be more food.
I certainly doubt I've dined at any restaurant where there's 20 people preparing my food, even 10 seems like a stretch. But you're right, the handful of people who are preparing it probably aren't being paid what they should be. That being said, I'm certainly not paid enough to pay the wages of the whole restaurant. That $20 a head limit that I impose on myself is because that's what I can afford, on the occasion that I go to a restaurant.
absolutely. yes, I think a distinction needs to be made between what a meal can/should cost in a society where everyone is being paid fairly vs a society where most people aren't.