The arrival of the Michelin Guide in Seoul has sparked considerable debate within the culinary world, particularly regarding its evaluation of Korean cuisine. Recent articles have highlighted the opinions of food critics and experts, revealing a shared skepticism about the guide’s choices in South Korea’s capital. This article delves into the criticisms surrounding the Michelin Guide Seoul, examining the perspectives of both international and Korean food experts, and considering the broader implications for the recognition and evolution of Korean gastronomy.
One prominent voice in this discussion is British food critic Andy Hayler, who, in an interview, openly questioned the Michelin stars awarded to Seoul restaurants. Having experienced all of the world’s three-star Michelin establishments, including those in Seoul, Hayler asserted that the Korean restaurants, specifically Gaon and La Yeon, did not meet the expected standards of three-star dining. His critique wasn’t rooted in a lack of appreciation for Korean food, but rather from his extensive expertise in Michelin-level dining. This perspective is echoed by Korean food experts, who also express reservations about the Michelin Guide Seoul’s top selections.
Andy Hayler, a British food critic, expressing skepticism about the Michelin Guide in Seoul.
A central point of contention is the pricing strategy of some high-end Korean restaurants in Seoul. When establishments charge prices comparable to top-tier global restaurants, they invite direct comparison to international benchmarks of fine dining. Hayler, among others, has criticized the exorbitant wine lists at restaurants like Gaon, arguing that they reflect inflated prices even by Korean standards. This pricing issue extends beyond wine, with examples like the owner of Gaon’s premium soju, which, while of high quality, is priced at levels exceeding even imported single malt Scotch within Korea. This approach suggests a reliance on high prices to create an illusion of prestige, rather than focusing solely on culinary excellence.
Hayler draws a comparison between Korean fine dining and Japanese kaiseki cuisine, noting that the former sometimes lacks the sense of a deep-rooted, centuries-old tradition that characterizes the latter. While acknowledging that kaiseki itself is a modern evolution of older culinary forms, he questions whether Seoul’s three-star restaurants genuinely represent the essence of Korean royal court cuisine, from which they purportedly draw inspiration. Adding to this skepticism, Korean food experts have pointed out that the concept of a multi-course meal, as presented in contemporary fine dining, is not historically accurate to Korean royal dining practices. This raises questions about the authenticity and direction of high-end Korean cuisine in Seoul.
However, the critique of the Michelin Guide Seoul extends beyond individual restaurant assessments to broader discussions about the perception of Korean cuisine itself. While Hayler’s expertise on Michelin standards is valuable, his forays into comparative analyses of Korean and European cuisines have been met with pushback. Concerns have been raised about potential condescension and a lack of deep understanding of Korean culinary nuances. The notion that Korea lacks “uber rare and exotic ingredients,” as mentioned in discussions surrounding Hayler’s views, has particularly stirred debate. Experts point to ingredients like Korean ginseng and Jeju black pork as examples of unique and highly valued Korean products, challenging the idea of a limited Korean pantry.
Despite some criticisms, there is a consensus that Korean cuisine possesses unique strengths and untapped potential. Fermentation, a cornerstone of Korean food culture, is often cited as a defining characteristic. With hundreds of varieties of kimchi, alongside foundational fermented pastes like doenjang and gochujang, Korean cuisine boasts a depth of flavor and complexity rooted in these traditional processes. Artisanal fruit and vegetable extracts and soy-pickled vegetables (jangajji) further exemplify the sophisticated techniques and ingredients within Korean gastronomy. These elements, however, are not always prominently featured in the Michelin-recommended restaurants in Seoul.
Restaurants like Congdu stand out for their dedication to showcasing artisanal Korean ingredients and traditional techniques. Congdu’s menu, featuring dishes that highlight aged soy sauces and revived historical recipes, offers a different perspective on Korean fine dining, one that emphasizes the depth and heritage of Korean flavors. The restaurant’s commitment to sourcing ingredients from Korean masters underscores the potential for Korean cuisine to achieve global recognition by celebrating its unique culinary identity. Interestingly, Congdu, despite its focus on authentic Korean flavors and high-quality ingredients, does not currently hold Michelin stars, highlighting the sometimes-divergent perspectives on culinary excellence.
In conclusion, the Michelin Guide Seoul has undeniably placed a spotlight on the city’s dining scene, but its choices have faced considerable scrutiny. While the guide’s intention is to recognize culinary excellence, criticisms suggest that the Seoul edition may not fully capture the essence and potential of Korean cuisine. Experts and critics agree that Seoul offers a vibrant and diverse culinary landscape, with restaurants that may be more deserving of recognition than those currently highlighted by the Michelin Guide. Moving forward, a deeper appreciation for authentic Korean ingredients, traditional techniques, and the unique character of Korean gastronomy is essential for both the Michelin Guide and the global perception of Seoul as a leading culinary destination.
