Photo credit: www.eater.com
Menus serve a dual purpose: they act as both a declaration of culinary offerings and an invitation to diners. While often perceived as a straightforward catalog of dishes, a well-designed menu is the first tangible communication from the restaurant kitchen to its patrons, following the ambiance set by decor and greetings. In an effort to better reflect their unique dining experiences, numerous establishments have moved away from traditional categorizations such as appetizers, entrees, and desserts, opting instead for terminology that resonates more with the atmosphere they intend to create.
This shift is generally positive, allowing more eateries to embrace vernacular specific to their cultural backgrounds or simply have more playful interactions with language. However, there has been a trend where the artistic naming of dishes sometimes obfuscates essential information, such as portion sizes. One has to wonder: why has the term “appetizers” become so seldom used?
This phenomenon can be linked to the rise of the Small Plates and Sharing concept, which has gained traction for over a decade. Notably, The New York Times highlighted this trend, with restaurateurs emphasizing a communal dining experience that blurs the distinction between different courses. In this setup, it becomes less meaningful to categorize dishes as appetizers or entrees, particularly as dishes are often served in a sequence that naturally flows from lighter to heartier fare.
The terminology has evolved dramatically; appetizers now might be referred to as “bites,” “snacks,” “small plates,” or even cleverly labeled as “smaller” dishes, while larger offerings are labeled correspondingly. For instance, at Hey Kiddo in Denver, dishes are categorized as “Small Shareables,” “Center Pieces,” and “Accompaniments.” Though each dish can technically be shared among diners, the naming conventions at least provide some guidance on portion sizes. Conversely, at Oko in Austin, menus feature both “Salo-Salo (Eat Together)” and “Para Sa Mesa (For the Table),” blurring distinctions between the two selections. Portland’s Love Shack lists a mezze platter under “bigger,” while a charcuterie board is whimsically designated as “primo supreme.” Meanwhile, at Artis in Lakewood, Ohio, diners navigate a temporally organized menu with sections titled “Now,” “Soon,” “In a While,” and “Worth the Wait.”
Chef Erling Wu-Bower at Maxwells Trading in Chicago describes the essence of his cuisine as “city food by city kids,” influenced by diverse culinary traditions rather than any rigid European frameworks. His approach is inspired by communal meals from his childhood, where plates continuously arrived at the table. “Abandoning traditional labels like appetizers and entrees allows for a more fluid dining experience,” he explains.
Though his menu includes “Beginnings,” categorizing more informal bites ideal for casual dining, it progresses into “Starch,” “Griddle Breads and Dunks,” and “Substance, Grilled,” before culminating in the playful “In Conclusion.” As Wu-Bower notes, these are less about rigid orders and more about inviting communal sharing across the table.
Dania Daniella Kim, the general manager at New York’s Bananas, highlights the evolving nature of their menu, which has undergone several iterations since its opening earlier this year. Initially introduced as bites, snacks, and shareables, customer confusion led to reclassification into clearer categories: “Snacks,” “Starters,” and “Shareables.”
Menus are designed to streamline service and minimize the need for servers to spend excessive time explaining dish details. Still, both chefs acknowledge that even the more elaborative descriptions often require clarification. “I prefer to avoid setting rigid rules at the start of a meal. We suggest that for a table of two, guests order one item from each category,” explains Wu-Bower. Kim adds that servers break down portions so diners can gauge their appetite effectively, reinforcing the focus on shared dining.
If sharing has become the standard, then the menu may be viewed as secondary. As Kim states, “no one actually reads the menu.” While some guidance may be necessary, patrons tend to prioritize the specific descriptions of dishes over their categorical designations. With an increasing number of restaurants adopting a share-everything approach, traditional labels such as “appetizer” and “entree” lose their conventional significance. It’s been some time since a meal didn’t involve shared appetizers or dishes ordered “for the table,” regardless of how they were categorized on the menu.
The language employed in menus increasingly serves a dual role: not just as informational content, but as part of the restaurant’s overall aesthetic strategy. Terms like “Beginnings” feel more relaxed compared to “appetizers,” setting a tone of enjoyment, while “Snacks” might evoke nostalgic imagery of after-school treats. Incorporating words from other languages immerses diners in the chef’s cultural narrative. Kim notes, “Even if these details go unnoticed, they reflect our ethos. If we overlook the little things, what are we doing here?” Ultimately, the understanding remains that menus typically guide diners from smaller to larger dishes.
Source
www.eater.com