Hating the Haters: Epicurious on Molecular Gastronomy
Submitted by Stuart Broz on Sat, 09/25/2010 - 9:45am
Over at Epicurious, Amy Sherman wrote Why I Hate Molecular Gastronomy, a brief editorial that misses the point. Sherman's point is that the techniques of molecular gastronomy might be cool, but they don't really make food taste great. She points out that she's eaten food by many of the food-tech-luminaries out there, but never at any of the restaurants known for it (Alinea, El Bulli, The Fat Duck, wd-50, etc.).Translation: she's eaten food created at demos and is disappointed that it wasn't life-altering. She points out that she's never had a truly tasty foam. Neither have I.* In fact, when I ate at moto, I had a 18+ course meal that, as far as I can remember, didn't include any foams. It did have two dishes with powders. In one, they were a bit dry for my taste. In the other, it worked well. I'll be generous here and assume Sherman wasn't merely being sensationalist** and, instead, that she was confused by the term molecular gastronomy. Molecular gastronomy can mean two things:
- It can mean the science of cooking; or
- It can mean cuisine that shows off the capabilities of the science of cooking.
As far as I can tell, Sherman has been to demos of 1 and has, as a result, condemned 2. Now, part of the fault of this lies in the term itself. It is clunky and imprecise. Sherman, though, should know better. Molecular gastronomy (2) won't ever really go away. Every time a chef discovers a new trick, he's going to want to show it off. Ultimately, though, the techniques and knowledge developed in molecular gastronomy (1) will simply improve our normal cooking. I've added several such techniques to my repertoire at home without the need for any fancy science-gadgets (not that I don't want them). Is Sherman really saying that giving chefs (and home cooks!) improved knowledge and more effective tools won't make food more delicious? I hope not. *I can imagine tasty uses for foams, however. I think foams could make great toppings for some soups. Imagine, say, a corn chowder with a lobster foam. **I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this is a food blog. I feed everyone.
Comments
I think I get her point though
MG as "science of cooking" sure, I have no problem with that. I'm happy to learn what it's got to offer and twice as happy when science throws out incorrect notions such as "never wash mushrooms." However, MG as avant garde reminds me of modernism in other creative areas such as literature, music or visual art. All too often modernism turns into literature, music or art produced primarily to impress other writers, composers or artists. I happen to know someone quite senior in the technical management of Carnegie Hall and he noted that a lot of the performances are unlistenable compositions by music theorists written for other music theorists. The hall makes money on Beethoven and the Nutcracker. (I experienced this when I took some music theory courses in college.) This seems quite degenerate to me, but I do recognize that there's a point to pushing the envelope.
So I guess I can see her point. MG has to be judged as food. All too often it fails.
I hate baking.
I've never gotten baked goods from a real bakery, but I've eaten some lousy cookies in my time. Sure I can see the theoretical value of the technique, but some people push it too far. Baking has to be judged as food. All too often it fails.
Discuss.
Ah, playing Socrates? You get
Ah, playing Socrates? You get no argument from me that her logic's not exactly airtight.
However, I still stand by the claim that nouveau cuisine is too often aimed at other chefs or, much worse, food critics. This tends to be high on the "wow" factor and, I think, low on the "good" factor. (It's also high on the "expense" factor.) It might taste surprising but I guess I'm skeptical of its lasting value.
Research tends to throw out a lot more bad ideas than the good ones, so go for it I guess, but I'll usually decline to be one of the subjects. ;)