Photo by SlickFilms/Flickr CC
There was one problem: very little was said about any of those things. Ferran Adria used the example of cocoa production. Holding up a candy bar, he explained that without science, the common chocolate bar would be impossible, Heston Blumenthal used a similar analogy for refined table sugar. I did find Harold McGee's explanation of how the term Molecular Gastronomy was originally coined interesting, and the history of the first meeting based on the subject in Italy circa 1992 was a good nugget of information to have.
It seems difficult for us to move past the basic defense of science in cooking and onto the meatier subject of what this style of cuisine is all about.I am certainly not blaming the panel members for my own disappointment. It is very difficult to articulate clear and definitive thoughts when the dynamic involves five people speaking three different languages. But strangely, it also seems difficult for us to move past the basic defense of science in cooking, and onto the meatier subject of what this style of cuisine is all about.
I've gotten mired in this conversation before. A few months ago, I participated in a panel discussion with a magazine editor and a recreational food scientist. We were supposed to talk about the future of food -- but we got stuck talking about the natural relationship between science and cooking instead.
After it was over I wondered why they were talking about this anyway. Does it really matter? When I told an industry friend about the discussion he said, "They are still talking about that?" It made me realize this horse has been beaten down...and down, and down. Science is an integral part of cooking. What we (the so-called "molecular gastronomists") are doing is about far more than science; it's about crafting an experience, about creativity, and about change.
SHOP THE ATLANTIC FOOD MARKETPLACE
Subscribe to Atlantic Food
Thank you Chef Achatz. What you wrote here is important, not just for the fearless "molecular gastronomists", but for people like me, a home cook who is just learning about alginates, spherifications and Texturas. It's the creativity part that has me hooked. Why NOT make a spicy chimichurri "foam" instead of the plain old mix? It makes cooking more exciting and gosh darn it.... IT'S FUN! Cheers to you.
Below is a link to an interesting post of Harold McGee's where he reveals how the term Molecular Gastronomy came to be in the first place. Many Chefs of this genre do not like this label placed on their style of cuisine. How do you feel about it?
http://news.curiouscook.com/2008/05/modern-cooking-and-molecular-gastronomy.html
Chef Achatz, while I think it's hard to pinpoint a real term on the approach, I think it's pretty much settled that most people would recognize it as "molecular gastronomy" at this point. No one likes to be labeled in a way that's limiting or even unclear, but sometimes terms and movements are borne out of even inaccurate names. People "get" the idea when you mention MG, but terms like techno-emotional and 'avant-garde' seem too high-falutin and don't really stick over time. If I were to propose an approachable and understandable label, I would just call it scientific gastronomy.
Matt:
I agree, at this point, while I still struggle with the name not accurately defining what we do at Alinea, I have come to terms with the name. In honestly we all failed at articulating it. The chefs,diners and foodies, and the media. But at this point it has stuck, and as time goes on it actually starts to make sense. Not from the aspect of the essence of the cooking or creative processes, but as a recognizable framework.
This is relevant:
http://www.starchefs.com/features/editors_dish/molecular_gastronomy/whats_in_a_name/index.shtml
Funny, I picked up on your use of "modern gastronomy" in your initial post and somehow liked that better than "molecular gastronomy," which (1) as McGee has noted at least historically means something much narrower than what it's currently used for and (2) in my mind at least puts too much focus on the "chemistry set" rather than the food and entire experience. These posts are good reading, thanks for doing it.
Forgive me, I'm not a chef, but to me the term molecular gastronomy means that chefs are using the knowledge of molecules to make things to eat or drink. It should be very simple. The complications come in when people start defining one food or chef as this or that and one food or chef as good or bad. It is what it is and many traditional foods are a form of molecular gastronomy.
Chocolate and sugar are two good ones mentioned in the article. I would say coffee and tea are some very old ones. Some creative person a long time ago came up with the molecular gastronomic technique of pouring hot water over leaves to make tea. We now have some creative chefs now that are finding new ways to create great tasting food.
By calling the art "molecular gastronomy", it immediately evokes thoughts of chemistry labs and mad scientists. People associate the word "molecular" with "chemistry" (at least I do!) and it can be intimidating and feel unfamiliar. I still have nightmares about Bunsen Burners and hot plates with beakers on them. I, too, liked your use of "modern gastronomy" instead; it acknowledges the fact that food, cuisine and culture are evolving, and quite frankly is a more inviting term.
I'm guessing that Prof. This might want to jump in on the conversation...Certainly the definition he advocates is not the one used by the general public, nor is even used by Chefs supposedly partaking in "this kind of cooking"...to borrow a phrase from Chef.
It seems clear that the semantic debate is a dead horse as well as a continuing time suck. The general public and media will continue to rail against or fall in lust with particular techniques, but what matters in the end though is that PEOPLE like Grant keep cooking and evolving. And in turn, cuisine as a whole moves forward.
Renn:
Thank you.
I agree. I personally have decided to devote my energies to moving cooking and eating along, rather than wasting time trying to label what it is that we are doing. It is, at it's best, unpredictable, spontaneous, and free spirited. Hopefully by the time "everyone" decides on a name for the style, we have departed from it entirely. It's that the true definition?
Though there are exceptions, chefs very rarely do molecular gastronomy in the manner of a scientist. At the same time, all chefs, regardless of their type of cuisine use the results of molecular gastronomy.
Personally, I strongly dislike the term as a label for a style of cuisine rather than as a branch of science. How important is it to worry about these sorts of things? I honestly don't know.
"Hopefully by the time "everyone" decides on a name for the style, we have departed from it entirely. It's that the true definition?"
Grant I'm sure you have ideas about it, but how in the world would you depart from it "entirely"?
Great post.
As a home cook, I'm barely getting to grips with some of the concepts behind MG but the bottom line? I agree with My Last Bite - It is fun. But there is also a line to be drawn between maintaining the integrity of the inspiration and innovation. It is a challenge but one that is worth embracing.
www.justcookit.co.uk