Molecular Gastronomy

[Chefb28]

I wanted to see what everyone's take on this new style of cooking, that actually has been around for awhile. Ever since Ferran Adria of El bulli (the grandfather of this style of cooking) has exposed these techneiqes, it has exploded every where, it seems that everyone is doing hyper-modern cuisine. I personally think it's a great way to look at food in a new perspective, and I thought I would write about this topic and see what everyone else thinks? Thanks

[Tri2Cook]

Molecular Gastronomy, What's your take?

←

I'm not an expert on the subject but I hate to see your post just sitting there unanswered so...

It's just cooking. The additives are ingredients in an expanded pantry. Take them away and Heston Blumenthal, Grant Achatz, Ferran Adria, etc. would still be great chefs. I picture them going "I want to thicken this jaboticaba puree a bit without having to heat it, somebody toss me the ultratex" not "I really want ultratex to be on the menu, let's find a way to get it in there". Using what they have to work with to make their food what they want it to be. That's what they do. That's cooking. Doesn't need a buzzword.

[Dave the Cook]

Hi, Chefb28, and welcome to eG Forums!

Despite its novelty, MG is nothing new around here. I invite you to check out some of our previous topics -- all of these are Q&A sessions; if you do some browsing in the Cooking forum, you'll find tons of practical application advice.

Heston Blumenthal -- 2002

Grant Achatz -- 2003

Ferran Adria -- 2004

The Alinea Project -- 2004

Jose Andres -- 2006

[docsconz]

Molecular Gastronomy, What's your take?

←

I'm not an expert on the subject but I hate to see your post just sitting there unanswered so...

It's just cooking. The additives are ingredients in an expanded pantry. Take them away and Heston Blumenthal, Grant Achatz, Ferran Adria, etc. would still be great chefs. I picture them going "I want to thicken this jaboticaba puree a bit without having to heat it, somebody toss me the ultratex" not "I really want ultratex to be on the menu, let's find a way to get it in there". Using what they have to work with to make their food what they want it to be. That's what they do. That's cooking. Doesn't need a buzzword.

←

Very, very nice synopsis - one of the best I've seen.

I'll add that few, if any, of the chefs generally considered the icons of "Molecular Gastronomy" like the term as it is applied to them. While they feel that science is a useful adjunct in the kitchen, they do not do things at the molecular level. A term that many prefer is "Technoemotional cooking" as it incorporates the technological innovation enjoyed by many as well as a common emphasis on searching for an emotional component of their food.

[Chefb28]

Molecular Gastronomy, What's your take?

←

I'm not an expert on the subject but I hate to see your post just sitting there unanswered so...

It's just cooking. The additives are ingredients in an expanded pantry. Take them away and Heston Blumenthal, Grant Achatz, Ferran Adria, etc. would still be great chefs. I picture them going "I want to thicken this jaboticaba puree a bit without having to heat it, somebody toss me the ultratex" not "I really want ultratex to be on the menu, let's find a way to get it in there". Using what they have to work with to make their food what they want it to be. That's what they do. That's cooking. Doesn't need a buzzword.

←

I'm no expert, either. I just wanted to know what others thought about this subject. Yeah, I agree I hate the term MG also. I wanted to find out what everyone else thinks about modern cooking and see what their take on it. I'm by no means an expert on this subject; I thought I would just throw something out there.

[paulraphael]

The phrase "molecular gastronomy" was coined in 1988 by Heve This and Nicholas Kurti. It wasn't originally about a style of cooking. As This describes it, they needed a pithy title for a series of lectures they were giving on the physical and chemical aspects of cooking. Their lectures were as much about soft boiled eggs as they were about futuristic ingredients and techniques.

Since then, of course, the phrase has been applied to many new approaches to food. It's been embraced by a generation of chefs, and it's been rejected by a number of them who have been closely associated with it (nothing surprising here ... creative people have often shunned categories and dogma that they helped invent).

If there's anything truly distinctive about Molecular Gastronomy as an approach or a style, it's not that it employs chemistry. Cooking has always been about chemistry, whether the cooks knew it or not. I think the difference is that traditional cooking evolved through trial and error, and was taught as a tradition. The science behind it was only studied and understood much later. This newer approach to cooking starts with lessons from those scientific investigations, and uses them as the foundation for brand new techniques and traditions.

So the difference is about the role of science. Science used to be applied retroactively. In the new approach, it's used as the starting point.

Edited October 1, 2008 by paulraphael (log)

[Lenski]

I would like to second John's point about "technoemotional" cuisine. A term that Chefs seems to prefer. And I agree with PRaphael above.

If anyone is interested you can find a good descripition/evolution of the terms HEre

THE TEN PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOEMOTIONAL CUISINE

(compiled by Pau Arenos).

1.Cooking is a language that allows cooks to express themselves. Cooks create for themselves, although they wish to share their creations with others and hope they will be appreciated.

2.Cooks take risks; they know their suggestions may not be understood. The risks in technoemotional cooking are greater than in other culinary movements.

3.Cooks do not create dish by dish. Their aim is to open up new paths using techniques and concepts.

4.Their creations set out to stimulate all the senses. The sense of touch becomes important as the cook works with textures and temperatures.

5.The culinary action surpasses what is physical and sensory, and focuses on emotional and intellectual aspects. Intellectual pleasure is sought through humour, provocation, reflection.

6.The creator relates with other disciplines to achieve the above, also with new technologies.

7. Diners are not passive but active. The act of eating requires concentration and a specific disposition.

8. All products have the same gastronomic value.

9. The frontiers disappear between sweet and savoury, between the main ingredients and the complementary ones. The ideal means of expression is a degustation menu.

10.Cooking is a way of life. The restaurant is not just a business.

L

Edited October 1, 2008 by Lenski (log)

[mkayahara]

For what it's worth, most of my friends who have never heard the terms "molecular gastronomy" or "technoemotional cuisine" unanimously prefer the former over the latter. There's something about the word "technoemotional" that puts them off. When discussing this topic with people who don't know about it, I tend to use the terms "avant garde" or "postmodern," which seem to resonate better.

I think it's interesting that, as usual, a query about people's opinion of the cooking movement has devolved into a debate over the term to be applied. In some ways, "molecular gastronomy is a bad a term" is the new "foams are so over."

That said, I think Tri2Cook's response is the most elegant and comprehensive summary of the issue that I've seen, and I agree wholeheartedly. (Even though I've been known to say to myself, "Hey, I just got some methylcellulose. I wonder what I can do with it?" But then, I'm just a home cook.)

[docsconz]

For what it's worth, most of my friends who have never heard the terms "molecular gastronomy" or "technoemotional cuisine" unanimously prefer the former over the latter. There's something about the word "technoemotional" that puts them off. When discussing this topic with people who don't know about it, I tend to use the terms "avant garde" or "postmodern," which seem to resonate better.

I think it's interesting that, as usual, a query about people's opinion of the cooking movement has devolved into a debate over the term to be applied. In some ways, "molecular gastronomy is a bad a term" is the new "foams are so over."

That said, I think Tri2Cook's response is the most elegant and comprehensive summary of the issue that I've seen, and I agree wholeheartedly. (Even though I've been known to say to myself, "Hey, I just got some methylcellulose. I wonder what I can do with it?" But then, I'm just a home cook.)

←

Molecular gastronomy does have a nice ring to it. It just doesn't accurately describe the cooking style that it has been applied to. As a description of what some food scientists do in their labs which is what This meant it for, it works better. As art movements mature and people have had a chance to digest them somewhat, they tend to become easier to categorize, thus the advent of the term technoemotional, which does indeed sound better in its riginal Spanish.

[slkinsey]

I don't think "technoemotional cuisine" describes this style of cooking (or approach to cuisine or whatever you want to call it) any better than "molecular gastronomy." And I can virtually guarantee that the former will never catch on.

The reality is that words describing a certain style or more-or-less cohesive historical stylistic period (etc.) come to signify the things that they describe rather than the other way around. What's so "new" about the style/approach we would now commonly recognize as "nouvelle cuisine"? What's so "romantic" about Rossini and Verdi, who wrote during the so-called "Romantic Period," that is "not romantic" about Mozart, who wrote during the so-called "Classical Period"? The answer is that "nouvelle" and "romantic" and "classical" have different meanings in these specific contexts... they have come to signify the things that they describe, regardless of whether "Il barbiere di Siviglia" is understood according to the usual meaning of "romantic" (etc.).

Edited October 1, 2008 by slkinsey (log)

[docsconz]

I don't think "technoemotional cuisine" describes this style of cooking (or approach to cuisine or whatever you want to call it) any better than "molecular gastronomy."  And I can virtually guarantee that the former will never catch on.

The reality is that words describing a certain style or more-or-less cohesive historical stylistic period (etc.) come to signify the things that they describe rather than the other way around.  What's so "new" about the style/approach we would now commonly recognize as "nouvelle cuisine"?  What's so "romantic" about Rossini and Verdi, who wrote during the so-called "Romantic Period," that is "not romantic" about Mozart, who wrote during the so-called "Classical Period"?  The answer is that "nouvelle" and "romantic" and "classical" have different meanings in these specific contexts... they have come to signify the things that they describe, regardless of whether "Il barbiere di Siviglia" is understood according to the usual meaning of "romantic" (etc.).

←

Sam, I know that you know a lot about many different things as well as a lot about food and you are a very adept cook. I certainly would not question your opinion as regards questions or styles of mixology or music, but I am curious as to how you can "virtually guarantee" that the term will never catch on? The term describes a very specific cuisine and approach to it. Technoemotional, is, as Pau Arenós, the person who coined it and defined it wrote, a definite heir to "nouvelle" cuisine, however, it is distinct from it. This is, in fact, the first term, that has garnered the approval of perhaps, the defining chef of the movement, Ferran Adria, as well as many, if not all of the chefs covered under its umbrella including Grant Achatz, Rene Redzepi, Heston Blumenthal, Joan Roca (all from personal communication) and others. I would think that whether or not the term "catches on" will depend to a great degree as to whether or not they and other chefs like them fully adopt it. If they do indeed use it to describe themselves, others will follow.

For more detail on the term and its origins as well as its relation to Nouvelle Cuisine see here.

[Magictofu]

While I agree with what has been said so far, particularly in regards to the fact that it is still just cooking.

That being said, and this can be said of almost any new movement (real or perceived), those who want to be part of what they perceive as a trendy movement often misinterpret the work of pioneers and focus mostly on the tools or an idea rather than the art or craft itself hence opening the way to criticism of the movement as a whole. In the case of Molecular gastronomy, it translates in some chefs being more into performing tricks than feeding people and this is bad for both chefs and their clients.

At the end, the pleasure of eating is what should matter more than anything else.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Magictofu (log)

[Lenski]

The link above has been fixed.

And to add to John's point above, I would add Andoni Aduriz as one of the chefs who uses the "technoemotional" term. I agree that is not a very good term, but they use it constantly. As an example, the newer term was the one journalists in Spain used to describe the Adrià/Santamaria brouhaha over the summer.

[slkinsey]

. . . I am curious as to how you can "virtually guarantee" that the term will never catch on? The term describes a very specific cuisine and approach to it.

The reasons I can virtually guarantee it are (1) the fact that "molecular gastronomy" already has plenty of traction (it's much more difficult to replace an entrenched designation than it is to come up with a new one for something new); (2) the simple fact that the word "technoemotional" does not trip easily from the tongue (consider that we're having enough trouble getting world leaders to correctly pronounce "nuclear"); (3) it seems highly likely that plenty of chefs working in this style won't like the word "technoemotional" any more than they like "molecular gastronomy," further hindering any possibility this new designation has at replacing the current one; and (4) while certain infulential "movement" chefs are currently using the term, this doesn't seem like a group that is exactly known for tenacity when it comes to terminology, which makes me wonder what term they might prefer in 2010..

I mean... it's possible we'll all be saying things like, "the technoemotional cuisine of Ferran Adria" three years from now. But, if I were a betting man, I'd put pretty heavy odds on "technoemotional" seeming like a silly affectation when we look back in 2011. What's the Spanish word for it? I'd give that much better odds of sticking around in the English-speaking world (after all, "nouvelle cuisine" works much better than "new cooking").

[docsconz]

. . . I am curious as to how you can "virtually guarantee" that the term will never catch on? The term describes a very specific cuisine and approach to it.

The reasons I can virtually guarantee it are (1) the fact that "molecular gastronomy" already has plenty of traction (it's much more difficult to replace an entrenched designation than it is to come up with a new one for something new); (2) the simple fact that the word "technoemotional" does not trip easily from the tongue (consider that we're having enough trouble getting world leaders to correctly pronounce "nuclear"); (3) it seems highly likely that plenty of chefs working in this style won't like the word "technoemotional" any more than they like "molecular gastronomy," further hindering any possibility this new designation has at replacing the current one; and (4) while certain infulential "movement" chefs are currently using the term, this doesn't seem like a group that is exactly known for tenacity when it comes to terminology, which makes me wonder what term they might prefer in 2010..

I mean... it's possible we'll all be saying things like, "the technoemotional cuisine of Ferran Adria" three years from now. But, if I were a betting man, I'd put pretty heavy odds on "technoemotional" seeming like a silly affectation when we look back in 2011. What's the Spanish word for it? I'd give that much better odds of sticking around in the English-speaking world (after all, "nouvelle cuisine" works much better than "new cooking").

←

The Spanish word is not that much different - tecnoemocional - simply rolls off the tongue more smoothly with somewhat different accenting.

[slkinsey]

Well... it will be interesting to see how it worrks out. It seems to me that the proponents of a particular style or movement don't often get to decide what it is called. For example, I don't think you'll find too many popular musicians of the l;ate 1970s and early 1980s who preferred to have their work described as "New Wave" -- and yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_W...nds_and_artists

Edited October 1, 2008 by slkinsey (log)

[docsconz]

Well... it will be interesting to see how it worrks out.  It seems to me that the proponents of a particular style or movement don't often get to decide what it is called.  For example, I don't think you'll find too many popular musicians of the l;ate 1970s and early 1980s who preferred to have their work described as "New Wave" -- and yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_W...nds_and_artists

←

I don't think it is quite the same thing. While there were a number of stars there, there wasn't any clear or undisputed leader or set of leaders that assumed a different mantle that covered them more completely as there is with the example of tecnoemocional.

[slkinsey]

Like I say, anything's possible. But, Sean Combs notwithstanding, I don't think history is rife with examples of people who have successfully pursuaded everyone to stop using a reasonably well recognized and widely used designation in favor of a somewhat silly-sounding invented alternative.

[ermintrude]

Most people take "Molecular gastronomy" to take this type of cooking to be things that are unusual- Mellon Caviar, Foams, Hot ice Cream, involve liquid niitrogen etc.

However the best chefs to use "Molecular gastronomy" use the science behind cooking and human psychology to develop good food.

For me a good meal at a restaurant (or dinner party( has many components the three major ones being:- Food, Company, Setting.

For example I recently did an 8 course dinner and there were several "Molecular" dishes.

Sous Vide Scalops - All the diners saw were tender butter poached scalops seared on the outside.

Clear Bloody Mary Shot - Well not 100% clear and done via gelatin clarification - that got the conversation going.

Soup Sphere - A reverse spherification of toato and pepper soup in parmisan foam with deep fried parma ham. When the sphere is prodded it bursts and a bowl of soup is there!

The scallops were there - because they taste better that way. The Clear Bloody Mary Shot because the texture is lighter, the Soup Sphere because it was fun and made people smile and talk and so helped in the whole meal.

Anyway back to the Soup Sphere this was a reverse spherification made by adding Calcium Gluconate to the soup, freezing into semi hemispherical molds then drooping into an alginate bath. They were then removed and just before serving poached to bring them to temperature. When complete the spheres were 1/2 way between the size of a tennis and golf ball, While this worked, as a fun dish, the problem was when the sphere was popped it left a skin of alginate that had no flavor. Next time I'd like to use a flavored alginate in the bath. E.g. Tomato soup with a basil alginate - this would should give a green sphere that fills the bowl with red soup when popped.

[docsconz]

There is a difference between "molecular gastronomy" and tecnoemotional cooking. Molecular gastronomy, the science behind cooking is interested in that for its own sake. Tecnoemotional cooking is interested in science and technology, but as a means to achieve particular effects. The response of the diner is important. Emotion is key, something apparent when dining at the restaurants of the top practitioners of the style. What separates tecnoemocional cuisine from its earlier cousin, is its reliance on technology to achieve the effects the chef is looking for. Heston Blumenthal's "Perfect Christmas" is a perfect example of this.

[Peter the eater]

Like I say, anything's possible.  But, Sean Combs notwithstanding, I don't think history is rife with examples of people who have successfully pursuaded everyone to stop using a reasonably well recognized and widely used designation in favor of a somewhat silly-sounding invented alternative.

←

The artist formerly known as Prince?

[Chefb28]

There is a difference between "molecular gastronomy" and tecnoemotional cooking. Molecular gastronomy, the science behind cooking is interested in that for its own sake. Tecnoemotional cooking is interested in science and technology, but as a means to achieve particular effects. The response of the diner is important. Emotion is key, something apparent when dining at  the restaurants of the top practitioners of the style. What separates tecnoemocional cuisine from its earlier cousin, is its reliance on technology to achieve the effects the chef is looking for. Heston Blumenthal's "Perfect Christmas" is a perfect example of this.

←

This isn't just for you Doc, this is for eveybody. I'm really happy to see everybody facinated with this subject and evryone getting in to it, It's great I didn't think that this would go far, but it just goes to show that therenare people out there who actullly give a s*&t. Thanks all even I learned somethings about post-modern cooking out of this.

Thanks