"Deconstructed" -- what's it mean?

[Chris Amirault]

Many good points, tomdarch:

I've been reading Heston Blumenthal's "autobiography" in The Fat Duck Cookbook. It's making me think that "Deconstruction" is, in a strict sense, probably mis-used in contemporary cuisine (though not always), but there's a sort of "spirit" that makes the term at least a bit appropriate. I wasn't around for the birth of Derrida's Deconstruction in philosophy, but I have to infer that it blew a lot of minds (I think that would be the historically accurate term for the late 60's and early 70's ) When he pointed out problems with Philosophical arguments, such as the fact that even Socrates had to rely on the concept of writing as the foundation for his argument as to why speech is "better" than writing, Derrida shook up that profession.

Similarly, a bunch of things happened as food science and cultural globalization rattled the foundations of "classical" cuisine. Blumenthal mentions how Harold McGee's observation that searing does not seal in meat juices called into question many "laws" of classical cooking. I think that there has been a spirit of ripping things apart, as far down to their foundations as current chefs can get, and building up new dishes from those insights into the underlying structures (food science, flavor parings, etc). In that sense, we're not completely off base talking about some sort of "deconstruction" and contemporary cuisine.

This may be a bit off topic, but it brings me to a concern I've been thinking about for a while. Novelty seems to be a critical component of what Adria, Blumenthal, Achatz, et al are doing. There's the expectation that dining at one of these "great" restaurants will be a "revelatory" experience. That can't go on forever.

When Derrida took on continental philosophy, many continental philosophers argued that was he was doing "wasn't philosophy," a comment echoed in accusations that what Adria, Blumenthal, Achatz, et al are doing "isn't cooking" or that they "aren't making food." Of course, in the sense that deconstructivist approaches to philosophy and food turn them into objects of critique and not homage, those comments aren't entirely wrong -- not that Adria et al would be too troubled by that.

In addition, the questions that Derrida proposed were dismissed as tricks by those who felt that Derridean concepts of play and slippage were merely clever jokes and insufficiently serious about the traditions with/against which he wrangled. How many times have you heard that critique levied against this crowd, by the likes of Marco Pierre White, among others?

Deconstruction seems more valuable to a student cook as an exercise, rather than a technique to be celebrated. Etudes are useful, but I don't want to listen to them.

This comparison makes no sense to me whatsoever. Surely dinner at Alinea, however rigorous it may be intellectually, is not a series of studious homework assignments. Quite the opposite: I think that one could characterize a meal at Alinea as symphonic, though perhaps more Arnold Schoenberg than Johannes Brahms.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Chris Amirault
To clarify citations. (log)