Tasting Menus--What Say You?

So, in the middle of a shit ton of school work, I'm attempting to put together a tasting menu for a close friend of mine (check out her ridiculously good fashion blog-The Queen of Hearts).  Some people seem to go either way with tasting menus.  Some believe them to be nothing more than an excuse not to prepare a lot of food or a "proper" meal; others seem to love the fact that you grab the persons attention and never let go, never letting them meet the "law of diminishing returns or flavors" head on.  I think I'm in the latter group, but honestly, I've never done one.  My true opinion will have to wait . . .

That being said, here are some ideas.  5 courses, nothing too big, but with a decent amount of variety.  Here's what I have in mind thus far:

1. Tomato "Bisque":  the idea for this course came around the time I was opining about guilty pleasures.  This will be my first use of tomato on this menu, but in reality, I need to be using it more.  I grew up eating tomatoes whole, or cut in half with a healthy dose of salt on them.  If you have wonderfully fresh, garden variety tomatoes, the skies the limit--you just need to not be afraid of their acidity.  I'm keeping this one underwraps until it's been tested, but for the sake of conversation, it may or may not include a ravioli, a basil/cream emulsion, and some . . . well . . . "coarse" salt.
2. Salmon Tartare with Gruyere over Leeks and Spinach:  this takes inspiration from a recent dish I did for a school-function, and it consisted of a ravioli stuffed with salmon mousse, green onion, and swiss cheese.  I thought the combination was amazing; the sharp, tanginess of the swiss really set off the flavors of the salmon nicely.  I'd like to bring the salmon flavor to perhaps a cleaner forefront (hence the tartare preparation), but I think that to offset it, a basic "salad" would work well to give it some balance and textural comparison.  
3. Butter-Poached Lobster with Rosemary, Beurre Monte, and Tomato Confit:  this will be my second preparation of Keller's butter-poaching method, the first being a pretty decent smash.  This is another dish where I really think the powers of the tomato can help out; the acidity should be offset by the beurre monte, and it should all wrap together very nicely.  Lobster needs some acidity; hence the vinegar in the water while steeping.  Add a bit more to finish, and it should be a nice pairing.  And just to reiterate, rosemary, when it's not overpowering and at the forefront of the flavors, may be the most delectable spice to use with lobster.
4. Braised Lamb Chop with Asparagus and Wild Mushrooms:  lamb may be my favorite red meat; when done right, I can't help but literally suck the marrow out of the bone.  I prepared lamb for Valentine's Day, and I think it went over really well.  Asparagus seems to get a bad rap (or is it wrap?  I guess it depends on how you're using it [the asparagus, that is?]), but the main task when preparing asparagus is to remove the bitterness.  I like how mushrooms will contrast with that bitterness, and I think the earthiness really helps the lamb nicely.  I'm not a fan of doing a lot to lamb; it's flavor is so rich that really, it stands on its own, and for my dish, it'll be at the forefront.
5. Lemon Tart:  simply put, this is a tribute to Marco Pierre White.  I'll be adding my own twist, but the classic taste should remain the same.  The structure, on the other hand . . .

I'll obviously be charting the progress of these dishes, that evening, and any possible changes.  Your feedback is, as always, more than welcome!

Some things I like . . .

Yesterday I told you what I didn't like about food and food culture. Now I will tell you about some things that I like:

• Molecular Gastronomy: it may have its detractors, but I find the entire movement to be one of the most fascinating trends--not only in cooking, but in culture as well. This is not necessarily because of its merits, but rather--regardless of whether you like MG or not (White, Marco Pierre)--it is because we are now discussing taste, flavors, smell, umami, sight, etc, etc. Molecular gastronomy has enabled us to look at food from an entirely different perspective, and this will only help cooking in the long run. While detractors are plenty (witness the current allegations of 'poisoning' against elBulli), most are just afraid of change. It happens man, it happens.
  
• Food Nostalgia: nostalgia arrives, usually, in the form of "homecooking." For example, I may think that my mother's tomato-crab sauce is the best possible tomato-crab sauce out there. Is it? Honestly, probably not. Yet we hold these types of assertions as undeniable truths--not because of logical relevance--but rather because our taste memories have imbued us with a static reference point (or status quo) of taste judgment. Some, like Heston Blumenthal, have wielded this gastronomical curiosity to great heights (like the entire In Search of Perfection program), but it is ripe for exploration in all levels of cooking, taste, and culture.
  
• The Michelin Guide: there is nothing more subjective than "liking" something. Further, there is nothing more preposterous than telling the world that your liking of that thing is the definitive judgment. That's why the Michelin Guide is so vital--not because it's accurate (which it probably is), but simple because it exists. It's a reference point, a place at which to start. Will everyone agree on who should get a star(s)? Doubtful. But the Guide at least comes with enough "gravitas" to allow the amateur to establish a foundation. Once we know who's at the top, it becomes a whole hell of a lot easier to know what path to take. The Michelin Guide shows us where to go--for better or for worse--and thus it is an invaluable resource. Even if Alain Ducasse doesn't step in his restaurants but once a decade.
  
• Accessibility: you want to buy foie gras, eh? Probably have you no idea where to go (or if it's been banned by the local government). Want a Douglas Fir puree? Same deal--where the hell do you get a Douglas Fir? And further, how in the world does one puree it? But once you get past instances like those, cooking and food culture is incredibly accessible. By its very nature, everyone at some point must cook or at least experience a meal. It is the only "art" that the entire world must partake in regardless of choice. If you don't partake, you die. With that being said, as a novice chef, there are books out there to guide you if you want to create a meal. You can go to schools, if you so please. Hell, even Wikipedia has some value. To borrow a well-worn, over-used, and overrated cliche: if the world truly is the young chef's oyster, then it's just a matter of shucking the damn thing. (I made that last bit up. sort of.)
  
• Art: yes, I referenced this in accessibility, but it is important enough to warrant further attention. Some people are adverse to cooking being called an art (regardless of whatever that high school cooking class was called). Some don't think that Eric Ripert paints his plate with seafood, or that Ferran Adria is every bit as mad in his logic (ham fat over cherries?) as Beethoven was in his composition. They simply refuse to see it. But riddle me this--what really separates cooking from "art?" Is it the use of naturally derived resources by which we change and transform into something likable? The last time I checked, marble came out of the earth, and unless I'm severely misinformed, so does asparagus. Could it be the use of mathematics that underlines the structure of most pieces? Because we need cups and ounces just as much as musicians need rhythm and painters need geometry. Where is the dividing line, exactly? The answer is simple--there isn't one.

I have more, but those are probably among the most prevalent. I usually like to leave Top 10 lists to Letterman, but there may be some in the future. Just sayin'.