Molecular Gastronomy V's Progressive Cuisine

[Adam Chef]

Who is sick of the going back and forth debate regarding the name of our new cuisine?

For me it is getting pretty boring because depending on which Chef from which area of the world you talk to you will get a different response. The worst part is, with my job I cook all over the world and also speak at conferences. You would be surprised how many times I have had to explain what kind of food that I do as there is not just one name for our new Cuisine.

I am the Head Chef of a Lab here in Spain, it belongs to my business partner Paco and we are also contracted with El Bulli. So I am creating new food and techniques everyday, but what do we call it? I have had many discussions and debates all over the world as to what we should be calling it, in fact the closest we came was when the topic was discussed in Madrid Fusion last year and I thought we came to the conclusion of "Progressive Cuisine". But apparently not as I am hearing new names everyday!

The reason we had to change from Molecular Gastronomy to another name is for 2 points:

1. It was intimidating and scaring clients away due to it's overly scientific name, which when you really look at food it has always been a science but it's just that it has never been made as precise and measurable as it is today.

2. This point for me is the strongest and saddest one........... Once Molecular Gastronomy became fashionable many Chefs saw this as a quick way to become famous. This is when we started getting copy cats all over the world just simply copying directly from the latest El Bulli book or a simple search on the internet. So at this point people were doing something which they didn't understand and changing it slightly to say that is there "Creation", well for those of you who are not sure of the difference this is a clear case of interpretation and a very bad one at that. So then we were left with the situation of many restaurants doing something like Spherification but they were repeating it 8 times in one menu, all just so they could say they were "Molecular Gastronomy" Chefs. I have had some pretty bad examples of this all over the world, and most of it does not make sense. Whatever the cuisine is that you are cooking the basic principles of constructing a plate has to remain the same; Balance of flavors and textures, temperature and a concept which people can relate to. Putting a liquid ravioli on a spoon was a great dish of Ferrán because it was a new technique in kitchens but today it does not make sense as there is no balance or reason.

Generally you will find that any Chef or restaurant today that claims they are doing Molecular Gastronomy, will be an experience that doesn't make any sense and you are sure to see food from another chef in the menu. I will give you one of the most ridiculous examples of this; I was in a restaurant in Dubai which claims it is a Molecular Gastronomy restaurant, The first cocktail arrives and it is a martini glass full of cotton candy, we were told that there is a special chemical reaction when the liquid is poured over the top which makes the cotton candy melt into the drink........ Well I can give you the same chemical reaction if you change the special liquid for water, it's called melting.

I guess what I am trying to say (before I got on my soapbox) is why can't we find one name and stick to it, the effort to explain 10 times per week is better spent in the kitchen cooking. As an industry we have to be responsible enough to encourage people to cook honest food and not copy from others in search of quick fame, or else the next name that we agree on will become as dirty as the first and we will find ourselves in the same situation.

[Peter the eater]

Who is sick of the going back and forth debate regarding the name of our new cuisine?

Besides Molecular Gastronomy and Progressive Cuisine, what else has your food been called?

Musicians get this kind of question all the time -- maybe the answer is to not get too worked up over a label. Just call yourself an innovator and get back to that impressive lab. Let the critics worry about labels.

[Adam Chef]

Thanks for your reply Peter,

Some of the many names used are;

"New Cuisine", "Progressive Cuisine", "Nueva Cocina", "Culinary Constructivism", "Modern Cuisine", "Avant-Garde Cuisine", "Experimental Cuisine", “Techno-Emotional Cuisine”, “Molecular Cuisine” not to mention many many others!

But you are right about not worrying about it, it is just a little frustrating as I used to call my style Avant Garde before I had to change it (the name that is) due to people dirtying the name and over use. Unfortunately People are always looking to label things in society and if they don't understand it you will scare them away. This is especially important in the media as the people need to know what they are coming to your restaurant for.

[Adam Chef]

I had a very good response on my blog www.madridlab.net from a Great Chef and Friend of mine in Singapore, I thought I would share it with you as he has added some more very good points.

Hi Adam,

Great post .. a perfect example is that i was doing a food tasting yesterday and they all thought that my interpretation of progressive cuisine was with the “foams” and “liquid bubbles” … however they were surprised or if i may say shocked to find neither of the mentioned. however a very well cooked portion of seabass from the (to me at least) the best cut of the 450gm fish. delicate in flavors whihc looked simple on the plates i presented however a real task in the prep and cooking.

there was no need to “show off” much, as i explained (what i gathered from you) there is no need to do things for the sake of doing things.

The “chefs” today which dumps a sphere here, throws in a foam there and writes the menu with the origin of the product and how long he cooked it for at what temp have in a big way condemned what we all have been working towards i guess.. even before i dared to even start a practical cooking i toiled (and still do) many long hours of reading researching and busting brain cells (what ever little ones i have .. lol) trying to understand the facts of cooking.. (as you knew when we first met) … however this is an uphill task .. hell the debate of where certain Chinese foods came from is still be questioned! great post again …

[MattyC]

I agree with you on all points my friend. I think I touched on this kind of thing a little bit in one of the other threads around here, about bad dining trends, and about how 'Molecular Gastronomy' was tossed in there, and that didn't sit right with me. Not because it was in there, but because the meaning behind that name, what started off as something completely different than it is now, is almost at times dirty or cheap feeling these days.

I do tend to call myself a molecular gastronomist, even though at times I feel ill at ease saying that. To me, this just means that I use knowledge and science to improve upon something - it doesn't mean I have to cover something in foams, or rely on gadgets, which I think is the brand of chef that gives that whole thing such a sour taste in everyone's mouth. I read, and research, and experiment all the time, not for the sake of being flashy though. While certain things in that ballpark have their uses, I think menus and concepts, like that place in Dubai that was mentioned (which I actually recall seeing things on a while back), who rely on nothing but those kinds of things, are a little too silly. Don't get me wrong, I do use spherification sometimes I feel it has it's use, or any number of other things, but not just for the sake of using it for no reason at all.

I think, honestly speaking, that the whole molecular gastronomy thing has been dragged in the mud just a little too much. People have such a bad impression of that, meals of nothing but gels and bubbling concoctions for no real reason, that I think if there was a name to be settled on, it should be something different. But, I don't know if I see that happening.

I mean, Molecular gastronomy started off as a seminar just because the science behind it all. Pretty sure the first one was about eggs. Not being flashy.

My $.02, anyway.

[Shalmanese]

I'm a big fan of avant garde and hate techno-emotional. Blech!

[Tri2Cook]

I just call it cooking... people don't seem to have a lot of trouble "getting" that one. I'm not really sure I understand what you want to accomplish. There is no name you can give a cooking style or cuisine that will prevent there being bad examples of it or that will set the good apart from the bad. In the end, the food has to do the talking no matter what label you put on it.

[Adam Chef]

Nice insight Matty, I agree whole heartedly!

It is human nature to label things, generally if people cannot put it in a category they don't know how to understand it. I would love to just call it cooking and for the people to want to go to the restaurant for the particular cooking of the Chef, but this is a dream. The people must know what they are going to eat and this will come from the style. Imagine saying to your friends, "Let's go to that restaurant where the Chef is just cooking", you could imagine the first question would be "What kind of food is it?". This is not to even mention the Media! When they get involved it all has to fit into certain boxes in order for there readers to understand.

I have had this same problem in every country I have ever lived, there is always a period of time that it takes for the people to understand what you are doing due to the fact they do not have a local label for it.

I guess what I am trying to say is that you need to label your food so you get the people in your door, once they are there I agree with you that your food should keep them coming back.

[Tri2Cook]

"Let's go to that restaurant where the Chef is just cooking", you could imagine the first question would be "What kind of food is it?".

True but, to me anyway, "molecular gastronomy" or whatever other buzzword is fashionable at the moment is not a cuisine. It's a way of thinking about and preparing food. There could be Asian, African, European, etc. (and even/especially "fusion") cuisines that are prepared via "molecular gastronomy" thinking and techniques. Saying "molecular gastronomy" in response to "What kind of food is it?" wouldn't convey to me what I will be eating. The only thing it would really tell me is that, assuming it's done well, the chef isn't afraid to look beyond tradition and conventional thinking in the pursuit of excellence. But I do understand what you're saying about peoples need for labels... so good luck with finding one that won't be followed a short time later by the inevitable label backlash.

[Adam Chef]

Thanks for your comments, I really like to discuss and debate this topic.

But I will have to respectfully disagree with the idea that what we are doing now is not a "cuisine" as such. But this is a 2 part thing where I agree and I disagree with you, let's first look at how Cuisine is defined (according to Wikipedia)

Cuisine (from French cuisine, "cooking; culinary art; kitchen"; ultimately from Latin coquere, "to cook") is a specific set of cooking traditions and practices, often associated with a specific culture. It is often named after the region or place where its underlining culture is present. A cuisine is primarily influenced by the ingredients that are available locally or through trade. Religious food laws can also exercise a strong influence on cuisine.

1. I agree with you whole heartedly when we are talking about the Chefs who are cooking what THEY call "Molecular Gastronomy" as generally they are doing it with no theories or concept, it is a simple copy and paste of the work of others. This does not represent a Cuisine as it does not follow a format nor does it have a continuing theme. In cases like these the Chefs will piggy-back the new techniques onto something that they already know from the cuisine they are already cooking. In other words it will be a ............. Cuisine using new technique. Generally this is where Chefs go wrong when trying to use technique as they do not know why they are doing it so they also don't know how. Some very good examples of this are when a Chef who can normally cook very well, will prepare a soup which they have always been preparing and try to put it into a sphere where it doesn't balance or make any sense at all. Whereas if they had of prepared it the way they always have then it would still be that amazing soup.

This second category is where I disagree with you (respectfully).

2. Here is where and why I believe it is a Cuisine by every definition............ I like to think what we are doing now is Understanding food. I know this sounds a little bit romantic but let me explain why: Throughout the history of cooking things have been grouped into their category and cooked as such, a classic example is Fish! For a long time fish has always been cooked the same because it is fish, the consideration was not really ever taken that maybe they all need to be cooked at a different temperature as they are different species. Now we look at every type of fish as an individual and as such they all get prepared very differently. Take the example of Turbot and Sole, they are both flat fish but yet they both have 2 totally different temperatures where the 2 fillets will fuse back together naturally when you remove the bones. We can only know this through careful studies which take a long time. This can be said for every ingredient that you can imagine. For me cooking is about overcoming any weakness an ingredient may have and enhancing the strengths. So what do we serve with this fish............... Whatever matches the profile of the flavor, so the plates will not be constructed according to tradition but what is best for the ingredients.

Think about an Oyster which emulsifies itself into a self setting custard which is served with a Natural air of Cucumber, Fried peanuts and sesame oil........... Which cuisine do you think this will fit into?

In both cases you must have a strong knowledge of traditional cuisine as it really is the backbone of any food, it represents hundreds of years of discoveries and theories from some of the most amazing Chefs the world has ever seen. But we also can't take these theories as the hard and fast true or else we will never question if it is right or wrong, everything must be tested like when your mother told you the iron was hot but you still had to go ahead and stick your hand on it to know that it is hot (or am I the only one who was stupid enough to do that?).

So in my opinion, this is why we need a name for our cuisine, not to label it but to give people a way to understand it.

Sorry for such a long comment :-)

[Adam Chef]

This is the classic example of what I am talking about.............

[Tri2Cook]

I think we actually pretty much agree on both points, I'm just not sure how you can hang one label on it that will define it as a cuisine. That's the part where I'm having a hard time jumping on board. The reason being, there is no common thread in the end result other than good food. It's not a matter of "her crawfish etouffee is better than his", there may be absolutely nothing in common between two "molecular gastronomy" places for people to be able to thread it together as a cuisine in and of itself. And those who simply do their version of what others already did are still cooking within the genre, they're just not at the forefront. If I had the ability to perfectly execute an entire Ferran Adria menu with my own flavor profiles and did it well then it would be completely non-innovative and I should probably be ashamed of myself for doing it but it would still be a valid example of that style of cooking. McDonalds didn't invent burgers and they're certainly not a prime example of burgers at their best but they are nonetheless a burger restaurant... so labels won't grant exclusivity to those who do it right. You'll still face the potential problem that McDonalds may decide to do sous vide burgers with McFoam ketchup and mustard spheres.

[TimmDavis]

I like what Heston Blumenthal had to say "Some people called it molecular gastronomy, I call it good old fashion cookery with science thrown in for good measure."

Edited November 20, 2009 by TimmDavis (log)

[Adam Chef]

Thanks once again for your comments Tri2cook,

I think you are a person I could debate and discuss food with all day long as you have a very acute way of putting things. I think we agree pretty much on the overall concept but I think we will always define it differently, this is the wonderful thing about opinions. I believe very strongly what I am doing (as well as friends of mine all over the world who are the top in our cuisine) and I follow a very strict set of self imposed guidelines in everything which I create. My food has a very strong concept in every plate, I use technique which I have researched and discovered through trial and error to achieve the end result.

This is a debate which will still be going in years to come as there is no easy way to resolve it, it was attempted last year in Madridfusion but as a result it left more people scratching there head in frustration as they came nowhere even close to a conclusion. But I still think it is good to debate it, just reading the above link confirms that to me.

Be careful with your menu suggestions for McDonalds, I would not be surprised if there was a Chef with your burger suggestion on their menu next week, it has just the right amount of foam and spheres :-)

Thanks Timm,

Heston is a smart man and equally tired of the label "Molecular Gastronomy"

[MattyC]

Love the quote by heston. Also, I don't know how I would feel about McDonalds sous vide meat lol Maybe I would actually eat there if that were the case?

Honestly, I think in time the people who really think and believe in the reasoning behind what is Molecular gastronomy will still be doing what they are doing : putting out great, smart, and creative food, but all of the chefs who dragged down the name a bit will wander off, once the novelty wares off even more, and once people get tired of the overly-flashy spin on it. I don't believe it to be a cuisine all it's own, but rather a way of thinking, a culinary religion? (Oh I kinda like that haha)

[paulraphael]

Adam, I'm happy to read your comments here. I've had a lot of thoughts on this topic but haven't been able to test them, since I don't actively cook in any of the styles in question, and haven't had the chance to make pilgrimages to El Buli or Alinea or any other places on the vanguard. So my critiques have been from the sidelines, and usually take the form of noticing when definitions or descriptions or arguments don't make any sense.

Your argument makes a lot of sense. So thanks again.

One distinction that I think needs to be made more often: a cooking style vs. chef's larger vision. A problem I see with most of the labels (including the M word) is that it puts chefs like Adria and Achatz into much too small a box. People casually see these chefs as being about technology, tricks and spectacle. Test tubes and gadgets. This is a very superficial and limiting look at chefs who I think are about exploring and reinventing the frontiers of cooking. The gadgets are incidental; they're hardly the point. Adria invents a new style every season; Achatz evolves his steadily. Both like to retire dishes and whole techniques once they become familiar.

So in this sense, both chefs are working against the idea of an established style. They are both about forward motion and discovery. To name their cuisines with something that ties them to a particular technology, or even a particular esthetic, is limiting and I think misses the point dramatically.

Avant garde is lousy, pretentious term. Especially if you're forced to apply it to yourself. But it describes these chefs much better than anything like the M word. Maybe we can find something less cringe-inducing that says the same thing.

[Tri2Cook]

The genre (and anti-genre) as a whole contains a lot of subsets that will never all subscribe to a defining label.

There are those who get excited over new techniques even if someone else thought of it first and want to learn all they can (this is the group that often falls into the trap of trying to cram everything they learn into one meal but it's usually due mainly to enthusiasm, this group generally subscribes to whatever label is currently in use).

There are those truly on the leading edge that are constantly evolving what they do and how they do it but are still ok with the idea that not everyone is at that level (this group doesn't seem to particularly care about labels, I also personally don't care about labels but I definitely do not pretend to include myself in this elite group which is a very small percentage of the cooking world).

There are those that tend to look down their noses at those they don't consider on their level (this group wants a constantly changing label to place them seperate from (above?) others who they feel are, for whatever reason, not worthy of the label they apply to themselves).

There are those who will go to great lengths to avoid any and all association with the styles and techniques of the genre (this group contains those that think cooking can't really progress, it can only be refined and those uncomfortable with exploring the unfamiliar, this group generally uses the currently trendy label so that everybody recognizes what they are speaking out against).

There are those who do their thing and don't really seem to care what anyone has to say about it (this is the group with their middle finger in the air to the critics and those who look down their nose at what they do... I personally have a lot of respect for this group regardless of what I think of what they're actually doing).

And that doesn't even go into those such as you describe yourself who just want a way to define what they do for the masses with no ulterior motives involved, those that publicly pretend to hate the whole thing just to be "cool", those that want food just to be food and are against the whole idea of fun and excitement being thrown into the mix, those who really are parroting others as a fast track to local fame and/or fortune and undoubtedly many more groups that I can't think of right now.

Every group will have a list of reasons for thinking the way they do and I'm not prepared to say I'm right and everybody who doesn't agree with me is wrong so I'm not really sure how to go about debating a one correct label.

Just to be fair, since I'm putting people in groups, I'd say I would be a blend of the "excited over new techniques regardless of who thought of them first" group and the "middle finger in the air to those who look down their nose at what I do" group. I am always eager to learn and honestly don't care if anybody (other than those who eat it) likes what I do or how I do it. I think fun, excitement and suprise are valid reasons to do things. I think it's ok to use techniques and ideas that enhance the mental enjoyment of the meal even if the food would have been equally tasty without it. I don't think that those who choose to add a fun factor to what they do are beneath those who only use science and techniques to attempt to perfect what they do. I think they are equally valid expressions of the genre. And I have absolutely no idea what title I would label the genre with.

[nickrey]

I just couldn't read through all this thread without thinking of music.

Composers do "variations on a theme."

They do "improvisations."

Jazz, in particular, takes these concepts and moves them forward. Listening to jazz, you can identify common musical phrases but then the music takes you to an unexpected place using complex variations.

If the music is not integrated and played by a more than competent musician, it can sound forced and discordant. This is the same sort of feeling I get when trying "MG" or similar food by people who don't understand the requirement to create a balanced, self contained, product.

If you are talking about teasing simple but complete structures from complex processes in a hitherto unrealised fashion how about calling it "emergent cuisine?" This would be a realised version of "emerging cuisine" and captures the forward motion and discovery that people have talked about here.

[Adam Chef]

The object of this topic is to not conclude on one particular name as this will be impossible. Besides the biggest names in the industry have tried to settle on one name and not even they can.

Nor is this topic about labeling simply for the sake of labeling.

What I am trying to achieve here is to really start a productive conversation into what we can call what we do without sounding pretentious. This is a question I am asked everyday and there is not one good answer I can give that doesn't require a lengthy explanation. I am just about to open my restaurant in Manhattan and for marketing purposes I am trying to reach a better understanding of how it is perceived.

2 Years ago I started writing a blog, this was due to the fact that I eat all over the world and I started seeing a scary pattern of copycat Chefs doing things they knew nothing about, somewhere dining was starting to loose it's sense. So now I write my blog www.madridlab.net in an attempt to make those Chefs who are just starting out understand what they are doing and try to make them think for themselves. I also do conferences in developed and emerging countries like Eastern Europe, Middle East and Asia, In these conferences I of course show new Technique but with less of the Magic show. So I feel an obligation when teaching these things to spend 70% of the time explaining the WHY.

I am not sure if I missunderstood the comment of Tri2cook, but understand I am not criticizing the enthusiasm of the new Chefs but instead trying to help them understand that they should be doing things from the heart and not from what they have seen on the internet. This takes me a lot of time but it will ensure I might eat better meals when I travel.

Thanks for your Comments Nick,

I like your comparison to Music, this is a very good point.

Good to hear from another Aussie as after 8 years living abroad I miss Australia.

Ciao

[paulraphael]

trying to help them understand that they should be doing things from the heart and not from what they have seen on the internet. This takes me a lot of time but it will ensure I might eat better meals when I travel.

I don't necessarily think copying other people is bad, if the copying is used a point of departure. We all learn from each other, build on each other's ideas. I might phrase the suggestion, "if you're going to copy someone, make sure you actually understand what they're doing, so don't mimic the superficial stuff while missing the point."

[Shalmanese]

2 Years ago I started writing a blog, this was due to the fact that I eat all over the world and I started seeing a scary pattern of copycat Chefs doing things they knew nothing about, somewhere dining was starting to loose it's sense. So now I write my blog www.madridlab.net in an attempt to make those Chefs who are just starting out understand what they are doing and try to make them think for themselves. I also do conferences in developed and emerging countries like Eastern Europe, Middle East and Asia, In these conferences I of course show new Technique but with less of the Magic show. So I feel an obligation when teaching these things to spend 70% of the time explaining the WHY.

I am not sure if I missunderstood the comment of Tri2cook, but understand I am not criticizing the enthusiasm of the new Chefs but instead trying to help them understand that they should be doing things from the heart and not from what they have seen on the internet. This takes me a lot of time but it will ensure I might eat better meals when I travel.

This is the nature of any new movement. There will be misguided fools, charlatans, geniuses, unsung heroes, the whole works. People who don't want to immerse themselves in study & just want dependable food that they know they'll like eat the traditional stuff. The people who are enthusiastic about molecular gastronomy/avant garde cooking/progressive cooking are the ones who are willing to do the research and separate hype from reality and deal with their fair share of disappointments. It's what they signed up for. Don't worry about what you call yourselves, worry about putting out a good product to a discerning & jaded audience. Let word of mouth spread. It doesn't matter what you call it, you'll survive on the quality of your food.

Good to hear from another Aussie as after 8 years living abroad I miss Australia.

Another Aussie living abroad checking in . 3 years in in Seattle so far & counting.

[Adam Chef]

Thanks for your comments Paul,

I have a very different opinion when it comes to copying, I think it should be the 8th deadly sin.

I believe you need to take a broad enough education while you are training and working under other Chefs, as this is your time to learn and really decide which one is for you. I think once you branch out and take your first Head Chef job it is then the time to create your own cuisine as this is how you will be identified.

I don't have a problem with Chefs putting the occasional dish of another Chef in there menu as it might fit in perfectly, but in this case they must pay homage to the Chef who's plate it is. I have a big problem with Chefs all over the world miss leading dinners into thinking that certain dishes belong to them and then if one day they eventually eat the dish from the Creator they will say "oh yeah I've had this before, it's a plate from.........". This has happened to me many times when it was actually a plate which I had created before and someone had copied. There is of course the second point which is the most dangerous. This is when a Chef will copy your work and miss some of the points which they think are not needed, so when the guest will eat this dish and not like it then that dish will forever be tarnished purely on name, so the next time they see this dish on a menu they will instantly have the perception it is bad and not order it or eat it with the preconceived notion that it will be bad thus ruining the experience.

It sounds harsh, but I say if the Chef is not capable of Creating in a Creative restaurant then they should not be in that position. The exception to this is a Chef in Traditional cuisine restaurants where they are Craftsmen and perfecting classic dishes, whom I have an absolute respect for.

Thanks Shalmanese,

I couldn't agree more with your comments!

Great to hear from another Aussie, We will be neighbors next year as I am moving to NYC to open a restaurant!

[MattyC]

Opening a restaurant Adam? I'll have to come down, i'll be in boston by then which isn't too far away :-p

Good luck.

[Tri2Cook]

I don't have a problem with Chefs putting the occasional dish of another Chef in there menu as it might fit in perfectly, but in this case they must pay homage to the Chef who's plate it is. I have a big problem with Chefs all over the world miss leading dinners into thinking that certain dishes belong to them and then if one day they eventually eat the dish from the Creator they will say "oh yeah I've had this before, it's a plate from.........".

It turns out we pretty much agreed all along. I was viewing your argument from a completely different angle. You are debating dishes and I was debating techniques. I will never agree with anyone that using techniques discovered by others is a bad thing but I do agree that, in a commercial environment, blatantly stealing unique signature dishes isn't cool. The difficulty with the dish debate is that lines have to be drawn somewhere. I mean, somebody at some point created macaroni and cheese and may have considered it their signature dish but nobody is going to argue that everyone doing it in their restaurant is a thief. Anyway, I think we're on the same page now.

[paulraphael]

It turns out we pretty much agreed all along. I was viewing your argument from a completely different angle. You are debating dishes and I was debating techniques. I will never agree with anyone that using techniques discovered by others is a bad thing but I do agree that, in a commercial environment, blatantly stealing unique signature dishes isn't cool

That's exactly what I was talking about. Copying dishes is lame. I don't even like to do it at home! But there are only a handful of chefs in the world who are putting menus together based even largely on techniques they've invented.

And, of course, what they're doing is exciting, so a lot of people copy them, even when their ultimate goal is to be the same kind of pioneer.

What I think has given molecular gastronomy a bad name (besides the bad name) is people copying techniques without understanding the vision behind them ... they take the superficial aspects of someone's cuisine but are unable to justify to their diners and critics why they've done so. They're all about surface, not substance.