sizzleteeth
-
Posts
382 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by sizzleteeth
-
-
I believe what I've said, several times now, is that creative, molecular, avant-garde or what-have-you gastronomy is by its nature going to give us more in the way of "original works" than what might be called "traditional and contemporary cuisine" if we define original works to exclude most prior art, ingredients in their natural or near-natural forms, repertoire recipes and the standard range of adaptations, and anything else that is common knowledge.
This whole discussion didn't happen until the culinary avant-garde forced it, because the mechanisms and processes that produce avant-garde culinary works represent a break from traditional and contemporary cuisine. Concepts are explored in a laboratory/studio/workshop environment, creations are purposefully original, the emphasis is more akin to what we'd see in many of the visual arts today.
I saw that coming Fat Guy - so I had a reply ready.
Allright, you guys want to diminish “traditional cooking” … let’s take on the subject of “Molecular Gastronomy” and “Avant Garde” Cuisine.
Look, I’m interested in pretty much all aspects of cuisine big and small, old and new, I try to learn as much as I can about everything and if I know anything at all that is the only reason – because I study it like a mad man. That’s how I know whatever it is I know about Avant Garde Cuisine, it’s techniques, it’s ingredients, philosophies etc etc even though I’m not a chef – much less an Avant Garde Cuisine Chef. I dabble with elements of it, I have a jar of No-Boil Agar S100 from TIC gums, but you'll probably never recognize it in anything I serve.
I think one of my major issues with you is that you say you’re so “forward thinking” when in reality all you’re really doing is catching up with already known and documented information. Chefs for the most part aren’t food scientists, they employ food scientists to tell them how food science works and the reason the food scientists have been able to tell you is because, for the large part, they already knew a long time ago – and now restaurant chefs are catching up with that knowledge.
Which is great, I love that, I think Avant Garde cuisine and more poignantly, the science of food, is extremely interesting, but I think chefs are secretive and I think the press, other chefs and people in general aren’t food scientists or commercial food processors and generally know little about either of those things. So we’re in a magician won’t reveal his secrets but the card is in his left pocket scenario.
If they knew how this stuff has been used, how old it is and what it’s used to make they wouldn’t be so blinded by stars.
If they realized that people rail against McDonalds but they are pretty much doing the same things with the same ingredients and those ingredients are why people rail on McDonalds... some opinions might change.
It’s all about information.
I’m sure all the food is delicious – but so is a lot of food and your crowning gem and claim to fame is that you are doing so many “new” things, using so many "new techniques".
I dispute that part of the equation.
Harold McGee published On Food and Cooking in ’85 which means he probably started writing it in 1980 or so – that means, even if you just measure by that book, the interest in and documentation of this type of food science goes back a quarter of a century already – not just in Spain - but commercial food and food science is way older than that.
Hell, Cool Whip has been around since 1967 and the only dairy it contains is less than 2% of sodium casienate - a protein derived from milk as a stabilizer – yet it has the mouth feel and arguably the flavor of whipped dairy, but it’s ingredients are:
WATER, CORN SYRUP, HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE OIL (COCONUT AND PALM KERNEL OILS), HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, XANTHAN AND GUAR GUMS, POLYSORBATE 60, SORBITAN MONOSTEARATE AND BETA CAROTENE
Does that not qualify as both a “foam” in 1967 that is not made from dairy and something as amazing as any Avant Garde creation?
If the first “foam” was at El Bulli in 1994 why were food scientists writing articles about foam stabilizers in 1992?
Food Product Design – 1992:
"The alpha-tending ability of emulsifiers such as distilled propylene glycol esters, acetylated monoglycerides and lactylated monoglycerides have the ability to promote and stabilize foams. Many food products, such as whipped cream, dessert toppings and mousses, are manufactured in the form of an emulsion and subsequently aerated to a foam. With these products, the protein present provides emulsion stability while the emulsifiers promotes fat crystal agglomeration which forms a matrix. This matrix provides structure and firmness to the foam."
http://www.foodproductdesign.com/archive/1...q=cool+and+whip
Why were people freaking out that a foam was made out of white bean puree and gelatin and put through a nitrous siphon (a device manufactured and sold at retail for making foams) and it kept its structure?
I understand why… because in the context of fine dining this was comparatively insane – but in other food contexts it was already being done, so in the bigger food picture it really wasn’t very significant, people were already eating non-dairy, protein stabilized foams at home on their apple pie. So the foams were savory instead of sweet… so what?
That is my problem… you keep yelling for recognition but even though some of you may not be reading cookbooks, you’re just doing things that have already been done, already been discovered, already been put into practice in food – with very few exceptions – just using different ingredient combinations - which, by the way, is the exact reason you say regular cooking isn't worthy.
Even all the sensory, “food memory”, effects of aroma on taste elements have been studied forever and used to design all of these products that so precisely hit a target demographic that you buy at Jewel.
NO CHEF OWNS ANY OF THIS. NOT FERRAN ADRIA. NOT HOMARO CANTU. NOT GRANT ACHATZ.
People don’t see it, they don’t realize and they stare in amazement like you pulled down the moon.
Here’s a primer for people who may not have much knowledge of this stuff, from a 15 year old Food Science Magazine called "Food Product Design". I already did the searches for you – all you gotta do is click on links and read about all of these “New", "Avant Garde” ingredients and techniques and research that are really just old commercial ingredients and techniques and research.
Pay attention to the dates of the articles.
Transglutaminase:
http://cgi.vpico.com/websearch/websearch.a...inase&Submit=GO
Carageenan:
http://cgi.vpico.com/websearch/websearch.a...&index=fpdindex
Gellan:
http://cgi.vpico.com/websearch/websearch.a...&index=fpdindex
Methylcellulose:
http://cgi.vpico.com/websearch/websearch.a...&index=fpdindex
Agar:
http://cgi.vpico.com/websearch/websearch.a...&index=fpdindex
Alginate:
http://cgi.vpico.com/websearch/websearch.a...&index=fpdindex
Chloride:
http://cgi.vpico.com/websearch/websearch.a...&index=fpdindex
Sorbitol:
http://cgi.vpico.com/websearch/websearch.a...&index=fpdindex
Diglycerides:
http://cgi.vpico.com/websearch/websearch.a...&index=fpdindex
Nitrogen:
http://cgi.vpico.com/websearch/websearch.a...&index=fpdindex
So…. when you come the fuck down off your high horse and join the rest of us on the ground, rejoin the ranks of all the other cooks on the planet, then we can talk.
Because that my friends is where you are - you just have your eyes closed daydreaming and have people hypnotized.
They are going to wake up eventually - are you?
On the back of Harold’s book jacket there is blurb from Jacques Pepin that states he has “used Harold MGee’s 'On Food and Cooking' for 2 decades.
Jacques Pepin schooled all you 20 somethings and 30 somethings by at least a decade.
-
Speaking of playing like my little sister, that brings up another point, objective perception of what is "good" or "better" than something else in this issue is irrelevant.
I happen to think that an album by The Dazzling Killmen called "Face of Collapse" (though the short samples on this site are crap) is one of the finest pieces of music ever laid to tape, makes my toes curl after 10 years when I listen to it - a sentiment that approximately .002% of you will agree with and some would even argue that Brittany Spears is better.
Instrumentally these guys make most bands sound like little girls playing tinker toys and their music is often described in terms that reminds me of descriptions of Avant Garde food:
Dazzling Killmen's songs are constructed as huge open spaces that need to be crammed with energy-- any energy. Melodies and grooves appear to be stuffed next to others , all bouncing off the walls. They're not linear melodies that arrive predictably in their neat little spaces. Rather there is a center to each song and in this space the band attempts to reach it from different directions. A phrase appears for a moment then vanishes and orbits around the next phrase, hovering and waiting for it's next approach. Sometimes this center is the magnet that holds the whole sheebang together. At other times the center cannot hold and the space collapses. It's during these moments that Dazzling Killmen floor me. Their rapid fire jerks, so precise and measured occur in succession at tremendous velocity. The band, tightly wound and compressed like a brickwith phrases in and out from the hub like a roman candle.The point I'm trying to make is... fuck what you think is the best, and for that matter - fuck what I think is the best.
We're both wrong.
Fat Guy is wrong.
My little sister is wrong.
The Pope is wrong.
-
Just as millions of people play music every day for their own enjoyment without infringing on copyrights or patents -- I was just playing guitar myself at home -- so too can millions of people pick up cook books and make recipes at home without infringing, or watch a chef on TV and then copy the technique.
The issue here isn't a transfer of knowledge, or the fact that a few billion people cook meals everyday. The issue here is copying the work of someone else and then utilizing that without acknowledgement or permission for financial gain.
In offering that example Nick I wasn't implying that home cooks would be infringing by making recipes at home, I was implying that copyright applies to everyone - not just professional writers or people selling books - everyone. Regardless whether they ever sell anything or not.
So yes, stealing others work for financial gain is AN issue - but it's not THE issue.
Stock photos are a great example, if you use a stock photo on your website without buying a license for it - it doesn't matter whether you sell anything or not, it's public display or in the case of music "public performance" of another persons work.
Money has nothing to do with copyright - copyright is about ownership of your own work - money is an afterthought.
I feel you guys aren't giving the world of cooks out here much credit, Fat Guy seems to imply that most original works would be coming from "Molecular Gastronomy" and you and others seem to imply that only chefs would benefit from such a system.
I feel that is simply untrue.
An original work, simple or not, is eligible both for patent and copyright, just look at paper clips - brilliant idea, simple idea, easily executed idea, massive impact.
The same applies to cuisine... simple or not, Avant Garde or not, do you think Thomas Keller's work is worthy of copyright?
If you can copyright a "Molecular Gastronomy" dish then you can copyright a unique BBQ sauce recipe - that's just the way it is.
Hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands if not millions of "cooks" have their "secret family recipes" and recipes they would consider "original" or "their own". They are all passionate, hard working, some work in restaurants, some don't, some cater, some do other food related things, some are just serious home cooks.
I want to be around when someone tells them they are not good enough.
It's not just that chefs should be able to protect their recipes from chefs, if it's anything it's that people should be able to protect their recipes from other people - that includes the dynamic of chefs protecting their recipes from giant food companies and serious home cooks protecting their recipes from chefs and restaurants.
That is how copyright works - small guy and big guy alike, chef and me, Nabisco and you.
If you wrote a song on that guitar you were playing and recorded it on a tape deck, it's yours, whether I make money playing it or not, it's still yours.
Doesn't matter your level of proficiency - if you play like Hendrix or like my little sister.
-
This isn't a debate between entrenched interests. This is much more of an open discussion and exploration.
Allright - I can accept that - but I'll say that your viewpoint seems pretty entrenched to me, but
so does mine.
there's just too much going on to handle with anything less then a specialized licensing process.
That's more or less the argument I was making earlier in regards to culinary copyright in my "population of the world cooking" example, not so much that it can't be done - but that it will be a monster.
I really don't see how you can see music this way but not what you are proposing - I personally think it would dwarf music copyright in scale.
But then I think we have different interpretations of "original culinary works".
I've probably contradicted myself somewhere
- maybe even on purpose to make a point. -
Thats usually what happens when one decides to completely shut out any hint of problem solving and then becomes part of the problem. Do you have any ideas that can solve the problem or do you just plan on ridiculing our search efforts?
I realize debate is essential here but the hair band thing (while it is funny) is simply disrespectful and taking this into a child like direction.
It wasn't disrespect it was satire - and meant to be ridiculous - it's not like I want any of that to happen - but that's the direction I see this moving in.
The solution I provided above, with some modification, would actually work - it wouldn't be much different than the US Patent Office or BMI or ASCAP or Stock Photo Websites with contributors and licensing. Those are all very real things and very serious things happening right now.
The kind of BS I'm making fun of is the exact reason I quit "the music business" and started cooking and I don't want to see any of this happen to cuisine.
In the other thread you said:
"I dont think that by registering specific dishes in some sort of culinology copyright system is going to do the food world any good."
http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showto...dpost&p=1168359
You rail against the practice of big business but there's a big full page photo of you in this month's Restaurant Hospitality with a big Nestle Food Services Logo and "Sponsored By Nestle".
So which is it? Where exactly do you stand?
Because like I said before I see a-lot of contradiction.
-
oops... got too excited and started quoting myself
-
Actually the more I think about it the better it sounds.
This whole thing would make being a "Cover Chef" OK.
Just think about a restaurant called "The El Bulli Experience".
Or chefs could just cook cover dishes in dive restaurants for all the free beer they can drink and a cut of the door.
Every era of cuisine would become even more categorized by label, Nouvelle cuisine would be like 70's Rock, Avant Garde Cuisine would be split into sub categories based on year like 80's Big Hair Metal, 90's Post Modern Rock.
It just gets better.
Like when we all dressed like early Van Halen David Lee Roth, I mean.. maybe you didn't.
-
The bigger question is once they do have copyright protection, how are the chef's going to afford to police their work being stolen?
They don't have to - you put a system in place like BMI or ASCAP that does it for them.
Actually Fat Guy - I wasn't implying it would be hard to put something in place - I was implying that ensuing clusterfuck after the fact is what should shoot this dead where it lays.
But, if it lives, I like your idea of excluding all prior art - meaning anything that existed before the system is in place is ineligble.
I also agree with Pan that strict definitions would have to be put in place.
Then you form a lobby group, shake some hands, get petitions signed to change the laws.
Then the system is easy - you license another copy of Invison Power Board and help the Government form the USCCA (United States Culinary Copyright Archive).
It works just like Egullet - except the moderators are Licensed Gov. employees with culinary degrees and a certain level of expertise determined by exam like becoming a Master Sommelier.
The Forums Titles are "Main" ingredients and each "thread" is a "dish".
The dishes get there by people signing up and paying a nominal fee to file online then they post a photo, full recipe including all technique in say, the Asparagus forum.
The thread is "Liquid Asparagus wrapped in Bacon Noodles".
The Moderators check against a database of "prior art" and the set rules and decide whether to let it "register" or delete the post because it does not qualify, an algorithm could be written to even do this automatically based on a point system like a FICO score.
Then from there it's king of the hill.
Anyone whom pays the fee and replies to the recipe thread whom can unequivocally "prove" they did this first knocks the previous person off and the last undisputed person in the thread owns the dish.
Prospective "creators" can search the "archive" for free before they start cooking.
Licensing grids could be put in place like Stock Photo websites do and people could license the recipes to use based on "terms of usage" so the creator makes money - or the creator could choose not to allow licenses.
And rights enforcing agencies like BMI could have restaurants pay a yearly fee "just in case" one of those dishes is made - just like music clubs do with BMI and ASCAP now. With the addition of an online spider component that searches websites for possible infringing menus and reg flags them to the agency.
No license, no payment and you're found in infringement? Well..... that's now a crime punishable by fine or upon multiple offenses - jail time.
Get along now... we have work to do.
edit:
P.S. while you guys get started on that I'm going to Incorporate the world's first official Major Culinary Label, I'll use your system to find promising chefs and "Sign" them and give them advances to open their restaurants. If you sell alot of units you're gonna be rich and famous baby - I'll meet you on the Yacht for cocktails... if you're not popular and you don't sell - tough luck Jackson. I'll keep my eye on the trends and give the people what they want at any given juncture and you better hope my marketing budget isn't bigger than yours cause then, well, hey it's all just business.
-
All this whining about how inconvenient it is to protect the creative works of culinary artists is reminiscent of similar whining throughout history by people who said the right thing was too hard to do. If the only objection left here is that culinary copyrights will be complicated, the only answer needed is that it doesn't matter. I think it also happens to be wrong -- whatever body of standards emerges to govern culinary copyrights should be no more complex than the standards governing sculptural copyrights -- but even if culinary copyrights turn out to be categorically more complicated than any currently existing species of copyrights, we should have them. The question of whether is answered independently from the question of how. In a case of true impossibility, one would have to consider the how in deciding the whether, but we're not looking at impossibility here -- we're just looking at some addressable level of complexity.
Nah, those aren't the only questions left - I think the question of whether copyrighting food is the right thing to do and whether or not everyone has the ability to do so, what is the definition of an original culinary creation etc etc - are still left.
But I think since you started these threads and are such the proponent of "doing the right thing" in this case - that you should put your money, time and life where your mouth is and do it, spearhead the whole initiative.
Afterall, "ideas are useless without action".
And I don't want to hear any whining.
-
I doubt that a big food company are going to hire "the best chefs"
Already being done.
Food giant Nestle has turned to the Michelin-starred chef of top Spanish restaurant El Bulli in an effort to develop new flavours for chocolate.Nestle wants chef Ferran Adria to help boost sales of its Cailler brand of chocolate bars.
Now, I need to gather up a group here because after we're done with setting up this whole ability to copyright a dish deal I plan to move on to getting rights for interior decorators to copyright the way they arrange furniture in a house.
Can I see a show of hands?
Oh wait..... heh, duh... I didn't have my glasses on.
-
Funny you mention Squid Labs, they are actually the engineers (Dan Goldwater specifically) working with Icosystems to produce the software for the space food replicator.
The company that used cornstarch for 3d modeling was Zcorp. www.zcorp.com They have since moved onto inedible substrates. Their current machines prototype at 11 microns per layer and there is just one problem. They have no idea how to print food this way and they cant figure it out.
Now its my responsability to pay my employees for their creativity in this project and not let the government just have my technology. Its the right thing to do.
I hope not only do they get paid... but every single person who makes a significant contribution
to the project gets visible credit, down to the key grip who works on the movie set.
But you know those crazy media people, they'll get a-hold of it and print headlines that Homaro Cantu has invented 3D food printing at Moto. Which, when the day comes, might be true - but only
fractionally.
-
Excuses, excuses, Sizzleteeth.
Nope - no excuses - just a point of view.
Doesn't mean I've creating anything, doesn't mean I think blatantly ripping people off is right and doesn't mean I'm going to go clone Minibar anytime soon.
Just a simple point of view that food is different than words or music or sculpture or painting.
And I didn't mean that Avant Garde cuisine isn't special, much of cuisine is special to many in any number of ways - I just meant it doesn't deserve special consideration.
If you do it - do it for everyone.
And I wish you luck and success.
-
I'm talking about copyright protection for the dish depicted in the photo.
Fat Guy, these are beautiful platings of food and beautiful photographs.
There are many beautiful platings of food done by thousands of people and thousands of beautiful photographs of those platings.
All of those things you named, ugly and beautiful - are all eligible for copyright.
All of those plastic representations of food are eligible (and equally incredible, I went to a whole row of stores in Tokyo that sold nothing but - but still, things of this nature are practiced on a very small scale comparably).
IF anyone is eligible for copyright then everyone is eligible for copyright and while I don't argue that food can rise to the level of art, copyrighting food is simply not logistically feasible simply based on sheer numbers, unless you exclude - because everybody cooks and most people who cook improvise and create recipes and take pride in what they create in all categories on all levels. Cooking, unlike the other things you mention, is practiced by most of the population of the planet and not just that, it is practiced by all those people nearly every single day - everything else you name - is not.
Even the example most practiced of all those examples, say music, cannot possibly compare.
The current estimated world population is about 6,508,587,269 and counting, lets say only half cook and only a quarter of that half "create" and the rest just follow recipes.
That means tonight virtually 813,573,408 enforceable copyrights have been created, and that number will more than double tomorrow morning and everyone is working from virtually the same materials be it home vs. home or Nabisco vs. Nabisco, chef vs. chef or chef vs. Nabisco.
Of course these numbers are not entirely accurate - but they are representative of the issue.
Using food additives used in commercial food for decades to make blocks of gel and spheres and meat noodles does not make your food special... I'm sorry... it doesn't.
It's beautiful and interesting and I agree with you in many ways that this seems unfair upon surface investigation, surely if Warhol's framed Campbell's Soup can labels are considered art then Adria's cuisine surely meets the bar.
So by that measure, so does everyone else's cuisine.
It would be an undertaking so massive it would likely collapse upon itself if for no other reason than so many arguably similar or identical things would be created nearly simultaneously - no one would ever figure out who really owned anything.
So no one owns anything.
-
THIS DOES NOT PRODUCE PROTOTYPES IT JUST PROVIDES SOFTWARE
Damn.. lost on a technicality based on a deeper level of scrutiny.
YOU WONT SEE DOUG BUSTING OUT A METHYLCELLULOSE CREAM WITH A LIQUID CENTER CORN DOG ON HIS NEXT SPECIALS MENU BECAUSE IT COSTS TOO MUCH.First of all - I wouldn't say that because he might just do it.
Second - please explain to me how a corn dog puree (either all in one or each component seperately) and a methylcellulose cream are so expensive? As the technique for encasing would take little more than time and the ingredients certainly wouldn't cost much - but I suppose if you're talking about serving hundreds of them a day you might be right.
As for food stereolithography, that's a pretty old idea - I'm pretty sure I read an article on it in 2002 and I think people have been working on it since SLA and rapid prototyping machines came in to being some years ago with some success in all different contexts. I'm too lazy to post all the links so just do a search on food stereolithography.
People are working on having rapid prototyping reproduce organic materials, human tissue and/or are using it to design non-food prototypes of food before they make the food.
Allright I'll post a few, to cover a couple of different contexts:
David Ryan Design in Seattle recently prototyped chocolates for Starbucks (but not chocolate prototypes) using SLA to hammer out the manufacturing process:
http://www.moldmakingtechnology.com/articles/050109.html
or an even better and actually edible example:
Saul Griffith at MIT designed a 3d food printer out of Lego robotics and a heater, with software made for kids that prints 3d objects in things like chocolate and bees wax, so kids can design and build they're own toys and then eat them. (He also invented a portable molding mechanism to cheaply make lenses for eyeglasses in about 10 minutes with 40 cents worth of material for "reducing the cost of prescription eyewear widely available in developing nations" - among other nano-3d production inventions etc etc etc.)
His company Squid Labs runs Low Cost Eyeware and Squid Labs has gotten something like 14 million dollars in grants to further their projects. (So I guess the system works for someone.)
Now that is what I call "social enterprise".
Though back to SLA - I know I read some years ago about people developing types of corn starch that the lasers in 3D printers can fuse in layers like the non-food material they use now - I just can't remember where so I have to let that one go, I believe they even made reference to it as a "Star Trek Food Replicator" and though I can still find references with that phrase to projects producing work with regards to SLA and rapid prototyping machines reproducing molecules that might one day be able to reproduce food and of people working on ways to "fool our taste buds" into thinking we're eating something we're not in conjunction with that - I can't find that particular reference.
Anyway, all very interesting - but again, not your idea, nor your invention.
Though as you say - it can be expanded upon.
Which you are most certainly welcome to do.
-
The protection applies to every single person on earth for every dish they make every day of their lives.
Chefs and home cooks alike - just like all other copyright.
Awe c'mon - isn't anybody gonna disagree?
Isn't somebody gonna step up and become the culinary Hitler that will implement a blanket "Culinary Caste System" that divides cuisine into categories and levels beyond an individual's perception, write down the rules and decide who deserves protection and who gets excluded?
Surely there is someone among us willing to take on that responsibility, yes?
OK.... I'll make it easier - how about we make it a council?
A panel of judges????
Or how about we just go by whatever the James Beard Foundation says?
Or why don't we just leave it that everybody gets protection and watch the knives fly?
This is gonna be fun... get me my "Stabbin Knife"!!!!!!!!!!
-
So who get's to decide who is Haute enough for protection ? Whole new can of worms.
That's the beauty of it....
No one.
The protection applies to every single person on earth for every dish they make every day of their lives.
Chefs and home cooks alike - just like all other copyright.
Finally, Grandma's secret biscuits and gravy recipe is gonna get the protection it deserves and she might tell us all the secret - knowing she can sue our ass.
-
If you think the work of Britney Spears has more artistic merit than the work of Ferran Adria, you're certainly entitled to that opinion. But you're wrong. Not to mention, if you're visiting El Bulli because you're hungry . . . .
Damn... why is everybody always connecting me to Britney Spears?
I said nothing about merit Fat Guy, but your comments give me pause on that part of my post.
-
The writing of literature, composition of music, sculpture etc etc. are all optional activities that are not essential.
Food is essential to living, as is arguably cooking - and cooking is practiced by nearly everyone on the planet, every day.
The writing of literature, composition of music, sculpture etc etc - are not and contain far greater individual expression than any dish ever will, including the platings.
Especially platings churned out by other people at the rate of 1 every 12 seconds.
When we cook, we cook in virtual ignorance of what every other person, at their home, in their restaurant, at their commercial R&D food job etc, is doing.
So really, if someone is the "first known" to do something with food, should they own it because they published it first - or are the odds overwhelming that similar - if not the exact same things are being done elsewhere - even if it is at Nestle?
Speaking of Nestle, I have another question....
There is little more research or technique in what any Avant Garde chef is doing than there is research or technique in what Nabisco, Nestle, Kraft and McDonald's are doing - better ingredients and prettier plating maybe - but that's about it.
There is little more art or technique in the food being produced than there is art or technique in Orbitz Soda, Dippin' Dots, Pizza Flavored Doritos, Cold Set Fish Kabobs, Pickled Pimento Loaf, Splenda, Tofurky, Quorn, Cool Whip Non-Dairy Whipped Topping, Mountain House Freeze Dried (Lyophilized) Emergency Foods, Edible Pictures on Birthday cake or the individually intricately designed elements of a Big Mac - are those things to be held in the same regard?
Are Cool Ranch Doritos "High Art"?
Are Orbitz Soda and Dippin' Dots "Haute Cuisine" or "Avant Guard Cuisine" in the same vein?
If not why not and if so... why?
And if so, do the giant corps deserve any credit in this?
-
Find me a stereolithography company or a 3D printing prototyper that works for free and I then I will agree with you.
Or better yet find me a 5 dollar hot dog stand that is cranking out food ideas that are forward thinking.
Kitware, developers of a free, opensource visualization toolkit used for compressing .STL files for Stereolithography Applications.
Hot Doug's... a creative, forward thinking (in the context of hot dogs), successful - "$5 hot dog stand".
-
Would the situation change if proper credit would have been given? Recently, Adrià said (interview at Lo Mejor de la Gastronomía):
Pedro your link is off, remove the http://h, in the mean time it is here:
http://www.lomejordelagastronomia.com/ENG/...erran%20Adri%E0
I found this quote especially interesting:
Adria:I also wanted to demystify the subject of “molecular cuisine”, which we think is basically a marketing ploy, not to mention the fact we have no idea where the term came from in the first place.
Though there is much throughout the interview to speak of.
Also:
Certainly abroad, when a new generation of young chefs comes on the scene that threatens the older generation with their strength and vigor, these established chefs and their loyal defenders wield my name around and associate it with the youth to attack them.Which I've certainly been guilty of, when others have jumped on people's cases for copying.
Interesting to see his perspective on that issue.
Also the editorial that led up to that interview may be of interest:
http://www.lomejordelagastronomia.com/eng/...elec.asp?key=19
-
I discourage my team from reading cookbooks as it does influence style. I encourage inspiration utilizing other technology from other industries. Basically I believe we can cook with anything that plugs into a wall. How am I to evolve by following other models? Nobody is born without influence and we are no exception therefore we copy just like everyone else. To be creative is a goal and a philosophy. We may never achieve it but then again who today really has?
We have evolved and moved on, thats all.Respect for Adria has and will always be there.
Cheers, now lets have a beer at the HopLeaf.
Thank you Mr. Cantu - perhaps on my birthday instead.
-
And also, I think Adria's influence is everywhere in the avant garde/postmodern world. Its the up and comers I spend more of my time supporting. I think he would he would agree with me as he has shown great support for my philosophy in gastronomy for which I am very grateful. Paying hommage yes, working as a team on a global scale, a must. Evolution....... inevitable.
That's a long way away from:
"However, he'd rather his staff not try to learn from what has already been documented by other chefs. When asked whether his style, full of tricks and puns, edible menus and liquid salads in pipettes, is at all influenced by the legendary Ferran and Alberto Adria of Spain's El Bulli restaurant, or by their cookbooks, Cantu responds, "Moto is a self-sustaining think tank. Our ideas stem from a few basic rules. One: don't read cookbooks, [as] it influences your style and your style will no longer be yours. Two: creating cannot involve copying."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JA..._n13665880/pg_3
I'm glad to see you've had a change of heart.
Find me 100,000 chefs willing to crank out food aid 24/7 365 days a year then I will hand over my IP to you.
I think there are at least that many already, if you consider them chefs, they work in soup kitchens and homeless shelters, transport
food across oceans and live in poverty amongst the people in need to help the sick and the hungry. But 100,000 more would certainly be helpful as would elimination of things that keep this cycle rolling - like the caste system etc etc.
I don't doubt your sincerity and in fact I'm glad you don't throw around your charitable endeavors to make yourself look good, but I'm still highly skeptical that walking around in Rajasthan with pictures of chapatis on sheets of paper with the words, "Eat this, it'll make you feel better", is going to do much good. But whatever you are doing... you are most likely doing more than most, myself included - so that counts for something.
Big business is whats at stake here. Not some guy around the globe using my veal sweetbreads with goat cheese or my donut soup.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this one. Or is it your opinion that we should just continue to allow the problem to fester.
I'm not a chef. As far as I can remember I've never charged for a meal in my life - but that doesn't make me better than you - as I sell my soul every day for the almighty dollar. Your agenda would be vastly different than mine because to me, you ARE big business, maybe not as big as Microsoft but certainly much bigger than a $5 hotdog stand or the Thai joint down the street - regardless of whether you actually make more profit or not.
The way you come off is like me, as a regular person out here, is like me calling upon my people (whom cuisine really belongs to) to rise up and take back what is theirs, to start thinking like you, to file every $80 patent for anything they can write a description of and draw a picture for before the "high cuisine" chefs take it. It's almost like me calling chef Robin, chef Robin Hood (stealing from the gastronomically rich and giving to the gastronomically poor... plus tax and tip of course) and calling on everyone reading this thread to take and publish as many ideas as they can so they don't fall into your hands.
Many of your philosophies seem contradictory and diametrically opposed to the desired outcome.
But that is just my opinion - from my singular point of view.
-
My lese majeste theory from a couple of pages back seems to be the principle at work here.Could part of it be that the chefs at these restaurants are holding themselves up (or being held up by others, anyway) as "high culture creative artists" an their food as "conceptual art" while the guy who invented the fried onion thing is not?
Ding! Bingo! You sunk my battleship!!!
The rules only apply to cuisine that is in direct competition with the Kraft Foods R&D lab (or the McDonald's R&D lab for that matter).
The old "art that is simple enough that I could do it myself is not as good as art that is too complicated for me to recreate" mentality.
That is one aspect.
Another is - I guess when you get to a certain level of success, especially if the reason for
your success is largely derivative and attributable to a single entity, you have to be careful
where you say your inspiration comes from.
At one point or another saying you are inspired by Ferran Adria helps your career, then
at some point it reverses and you make sure your website, your bio, etc etc make no mention
of such a person, still, while being careful to site other influences who are not as obvious
so that you don't look like you're trying to distance yourself. A very delicate balance.
If asked in an interview you admit it but somehow diminish it... or all together avoid
the question by giving a politicians answer. Which I could point you to numerous
examples of.
You break down the arguments of any detractors by saying they are not being original
because they are "sautéing a piece of fish", but then when that same level of scrutiny
is turned upon you it is unfair or irrelevant to take it to that level, it has to be more
specific - and then - oh no it's not just that it has to be more specific - there has to
be numerous examples - otherwise it's ok.
I have to go now...
Bill Gates just borrowed a bunch of technology that he now calls "Microsoft Innovation" and
has sent cease and desist letters to anyone trying to copy his ideas and now he's doing
charity work to try and soften his image.
-
On the other hand, I guess the other question is whether even this type of bad publicity may be lucrative. Only time will tell.
isn't that basic to questions of ethics and morals?
the only thing we may achieve here will be one more suffering restaurant and 30 plus more suffering employees.While I have been as much a member of the argument as any - I wonder, in reality - how important any of this really is in the greater scheme of things - at least when it comes to food - even if it is "food as art".
I know I'm definitely not doing nearly all I could and comparatively live an extremely privleleged life, but, as Inventolux makes the case for much earlier - there are people all over the world scratching to even eat to stay alive...
And we're in a glorified chat room arguing over how some noodles are arranged on a plate and who deserves credit.
Having witnessed more poverty and desolation just in the past month then I can accurately describe - I think that's another thing we should add to the discussion as we speak of morals and suffering and standards.
I would also say this.
The saturation of the market is going to happen - and there's nothing you can do about it.
It happened with everything before this, it happened with Nouvelle cuisine and the organic foods movement and farm fresh ingredients.
And as it does it is going to become increasingly more difficult to stand out of the crowd and I see what is happening here as both an attempt to stake claims in a gold rush and an attempt to "stop" and "control" the dissemination of something that has organically disseminated for the entire history of man before now.
We can split hairs, zoom out, point fingers, name name's etc.
But in the real big picture... in the actual greater scheme of things.
It just doesn't really make any difference.
Cooking food is about people, its not about techniques, its not about the best ingredients, its not about fame or recognition and its not even really about art.
Though those other things are factors we cannot let them overshadow the true purpose here.
But I think maybe we already have.
Sincerest Form
in The Daily Gullet
Posted
You're exactly right Fat Guy.
None of it has much to do with copyrights.
Expression exists in all forms of cooking, some take it more seriously than others, some view it as art and practice it as art even if it doesn't come out looking like Dali - some even talk about "cooking with love".
But it's all been done, just as in traditional cooking.
And I'm really tired of hearing people profess otherwise.