I love foam

[Chris Amirault]

Well, sure, but I keep thinking about what Colman Andrews said about the Brown Food Problem in the intro to Catalan Cuisine:

Catalan cuisine isn't very pretty sometimes. Like much traditional cooking around the world, it tends to be monochromatic, murky-looking brown. It is food made to be eaten, not admired from a few steps back. Its aim is not to seduce the jaded but to fill and please the hungry -- and sometimes the very act of concentrating flavors to this end demands a smudging of the palette.

Of course, el Bulli is in Catalunya....

[AaronM]

Traditional cooking is very different from restaurant cooking in my eyes.

At home, I just pile everything onto a plate - it's doesn't need to be an expression of myself. Plating isn't given any thought.

But at the restaurant, I'm giving you my expression of what this dish can be. Everything is analyzed until it's where I want it to be. And after all this time and effort I damn sure want it to be aesthetically pleasing!

[Mjx]

. . . . at the restaurant, I'm giving you my expression of what this dish can be. Everything is analyzed until it's where I want it to be. And after all this time and effort I damn sure want it to be aesthetically pleasing!

Fair point, but you can't assume that foam is going to be asthetically pleasing to the diner, especially in substantial amounts. Much as I appreciate an artistic presentation, my reaction to foam on my plate is that anything more than a few, small, fairly fine-textured bits of foam miss the character of the stuff, move from playful to heavy-handed, and frankly evoke a number of things that aren't particularly appealing from any standpoint, whether we're talking about visual aesthetics or textural experience.

[Karri]

Obviously what's happened is that somewhere along the way somebody reinvented the wheel... Was it Mr. Adria or whoever, I don't know. But foam is here to stay for many places, simply for it's capability to add dimension or for the fact that it is so much more economic...

You may not understand what a difference the dimension is, when everything is not on the same level, it has been researched thoroughly in the marketing and advertising world; how things draw your attention when they are on a certain height, separate from other items. This can all be extrapolated and used in a beautiful plate of food... How do you think the pictures (or if you're rich, your EYES) of plates from 3 Michelin star restaurants look so amazing, like little works of art? It's because the design process encompasses all...

And in my opionion Ferran Adria's plates don't even look so amazing, yeah they are cool and funky...If you want to see amazing check out Albert Adria's new e-book, or book. There are some of the most amazing things I have ever seen in my life.

And what's prune whip? (cowers)

Edited April 6, 2011 by Karri (log)

[Moopheus]

How do you think the pictures (or if you're rich, your EYES) of plates from 3 Michelin star restaurants look so amazing, like little works of art? It's because the design process encompasses all...

Actually, having worked in design and do photography, I am aware of how this works. And the main point of marketing and advertising research is to sell you something you might not actually want to buy on its own merit; that's not really a point in its favor. Yes, sometimes they look like little works of art. Often the message of that art fails, at least for me, to be "I want to eat that." The message I get from those photos posted by Soba is 'What's actually for dinner?" and "I'll probably need to eat again in and hour," as well as "Did the kitchen forget to rinse the soap off this bowl?"

Why would you want the asparagus to stand up? You can't cut it that way. The first thing the customer has to do is knock them over. That strikes me as bad design.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Moopheus (log)

[gfweb]

I put a lot of energy into making sure your food looks cool/interesting.

Well, not my food, because I do not care very much about that. I do not really want my food to look cool. I want it to look like food. Mainly I care about it tasting good. Food that looks cool is trying too hard to make me like it before I eat it.

This is an excellent point. What excites a chef, who looks at plates of food every day and may well be bored by it, is different that what excites a diner who isn't so overexposed. Food ought to look like something I should eat.

This is a terrible point.

Food at a restaurant should be an expression of the chef that designed it.

If I want your asparagus served to you standing straight up, you'll get it standing straight up.

If you don't care for artful presentation, that fine, but many more people do. You eat with your eyes first.

So its all about the chef's art and wonderfulness and not about the customer too? Interesting business plan.

[gfweb]

I could project chili looking like diarrhea onto my bowl - I don't.

Some people are just prejudice against the idea of foams right now.

So anyone who doesn't share your taste is prejudiced? Its not a "prejudice" as in an unreasoned and unjust bias. Its a dislike. I'm not prejudiced against getting poked in the eye. I dislike it for good reason.

[gfweb]

Fine dining is about eating good food. It should look appetizing and perhaps even interesting in an artistic way. But it shouldn't look repulsive to a fair percentage of diners if the restaurant is interested in pleasing its customers. EG is a pretty sophisticated group. By my count about half of the posts are anti-foam in one degree or another. Foam pushers beware.

[JHeald]

I put a lot of energy into making sure your food looks cool/interesting.

Well, not my food, because I do not care very much about that. I do not really want my food to look cool. I want it to look like food. Mainly I care about it tasting good. Food that looks cool is trying too hard to make me like it before I eat it.

This is an excellent point. What excites a chef, who looks at plates of food every day and may well be bored by it, is different that what excites a diner who isn't so overexposed. Food ought to look like something I should eat.

This is a terrible point.

Food at a restaurant should be an expression of the chef that designed it.

If I want your asparagus served to you standing straight up, you'll get it standing straight up.

If you don't care for artful presentation, that fine, but many more people do. You eat with your eyes first.

This seems to me to be a rather silly argument; you three aren't really talking about the same thing.

AaronM likes to make his food pretty and cool looking, because he likes to eat pretty and cool looking food, yet he doesn't care if others do not possess this preference. Sounds reasonable.

gfweb argues that visual stimulation and appeal may generally vary between chefs and consumers. This is not only a reasonable argument, but an argument supported by dozens of easily conceived examples. Repeated stimulation results in a heightened threshold for pleasure. Again, sounds reasonable.

Moopheus doesn't care how pretty or cool looking food is, but rather prefers that food look like "food". While this is a perfectly reasonable opinion, I would ask this; what does "food" look like? Some people think Cheetos look like food, other people look at snakes and scorpions and think "food", while still others hear "food" and think of aspics and terrines.

I would agree with AaronM that [almost] everyone eats with their eyes, and with gfweb that what is visually appealing to groups of individuals may differ widely, and with Moopheus that I prefer my food to look like "food"...although that seems to be a matter of perspective.

Edited April 6, 2011 by JHeald (log)

[Chris Amirault]

While this is a perfectly reasonable opinion, I would ask this; what does "food" look like? Some people think Cheetos look like food, other people look at snakes and scorpions and think "food", while still others hear "food" and think of aspics and terrines.

Excellent question. After all, there are probably just as many people who would look at savory aspics and think, "Ewww...."

[Moopheus]

Excellent question. After all, there are probably just as many people who would look at savory aspics and think, "Ewww...."

Yes, but that has more to do with what's in them than how they look.

[Moopheus]

I would ask this; what does "food" look like?

If you have to wonder if it is food, then it does not look like food. Yes, there's a certain amount of social conditioning, but generally food recognition is one of those things that comes pretty easily to most people, for the obvious survival reasons.

And "eating with your eyes" is of pretty limited value in my opinion. Sure, an appetizing appearance can enhance a good meal, but it cannot save a poor one. And surely we have all encountered food whose appearance promised more than it delivered. A nice appearance can be deceiving. The moment of truth is still when you stuff that thing into your pie-hole.

[gfweb]

Eating with the eyes isn't a bad thing, but it isn't the highest goal of a plate of food. Some plating can look attractive but interferes with enjoying the meal. The stacked food trend of a few years ago is an example. So often the plate turned into a pile of mushed up food with the first attempt to eat it. What was an artful mound looks like stew pretty quickly.

Edited April 6, 2011 by gfweb (log)

[lancastermike]

I've used my ISI device to make flavored foams for cocktail garnish. Yeah, pretty modernist for a guy like me. And it was cool and the added some taste to the drinks.

The thing I object too is foams as a substitute for food. A foam as a sauce or a side I think ok. But JUST a dab of foam as the serving. No thanks.

I know all them fancy big time Barcelona chefs do it. And that is fine, to me, it smacks of gimmickry.

[Karri]

Eating with the eyes is so multi faceted that it can't really be called to the stand here. Just as was said before what looks good to you does not look good to the next man; therefore it is necessary to establish certain ground rules around your own preferences. Certainly not every single fine dining restaurant in your respective areas are doing spumas?

edit: And as you argue the point that food that looks good but tastes bad is still bad food, you should agree on the counter argument then? Foam or no foam.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Karri (log)

[gfweb]

Looks bad tastes good is better than looks good tastes bad.

[Moopheus]

edit: And as you argue the point that food that looks good but tastes bad is still bad food, you should agree on the counter argument then? Foam or no foam.

You mean that food that looks good and tastes good is good? Sure. But it is not made good by looking good. It is made good by tasting good.

[Karri]

Sorry, inverted argument? My english fails me sometimes... What I mean was what gfweb said.

[Shalmanese]

What's most baffling to me is how some chefs utterly fail to understand that foams dilute flavor. Foams are great for intensely flavored applications where you want to make it more subtle without adding filler like water but, about half the time, I see recipes which include a foam of an already subtle flavor. Such applications are possible but require incredibly sophisticated technique. Often, when it's actually done, the foam ends up tasting like nothing at all.

[Chris Amirault]

Excellent question. After all, there are probably just as many people who would look at savory aspics and think, "Ewww...."

Yes, but that has more to do with what's in them than how they look.

You haven't met my kids -- or my parents.

[SobaAddict70]

What's most baffling to me is how some chefs utterly fail to understand that foams dilute flavor. Foams are great for intensely flavored applications where you want to make it more subtle without adding filler like water but, about half the time, I see recipes which include a foam of an already subtle flavor. Such applications are possible but require incredibly sophisticated technique. Often, when it's actually done, the foam ends up tasting like nothing at all.

That just about sums it up, as far as I'm concerned. That was my main complaint w/r/t the yogurt foam. It just felt like an afterthought, instead of something that was added to contribute interest.

Edited April 6, 2011 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[AaronM]

I put a lot of energy into making sure your food looks cool/interesting.

Well, not my food, because I do not care very much about that. I do not really want my food to look cool. I want it to look like food. Mainly I care about it tasting good. Food that looks cool is trying too hard to make me like it before I eat it.

This is an excellent point. What excites a chef, who looks at plates of food every day and may well be bored by it, is different that what excites a diner who isn't so overexposed. Food ought to look like something I should eat.

This is a terrible point.

Food at a restaurant should be an expression of the chef that designed it.

If I want your asparagus served to you standing straight up, you'll get it standing straight up.

If you don't care for artful presentation, that fine, but many more people do. You eat with your eyes first.

So its all about the chef's art and wonderfulness and not about the customer too? Interesting business plan.

Yes. But it doesn't have to be about my ego - I don't think I'm super amazing.

Why else would you come to my restaurant than to experience my interpretation of food? I mean, I really do hope you have a good time and everything tastes and looks exceptional. And I'm very open to criticism, but if at the end of the day I disagree with you, I'm not going to change my plate design (just an example) if I disagree with you. Maybe my expression of food isn't for you - and that's ok. I refuse to cater to a lowest common denominator.

Why I say people have a prejudice against foams right now is because of the spit argument. It's weak. Like I said, I could project all manner of horror onto food, but I don't. Calling foams spit is the easy kill and invalid.

For the record, I don't serve asparagus standing up - it was just an example. But Heston Blumenthal does....

[Mjx]

. . . .

Why I say people have a prejudice against foams right now is because of the spit argument. It's weak. Like I said, I could project all manner of horror onto food, but I don't. Calling foams spit is the easy kill and invalid.

. . . .

I'm not so certain that the 'spit' argument is so easily dimissable, since rather a lot of people have this specific, visceral reaction. And, gut reactions are often beyond the reach of reason or sophistication, so attempting to reason with them is doomed (e.g. in my own case, mayonnaise in my sandwich will make me retch, possibly be sick; I've tried to think my way out of this, but this sticks, despite the fact that I enjoy making mayonnaise, and have decisnstructed the stuff countless times in my head).

[Moopheus]

For the record, I don't serve asparagus standing up - it was just an example. But Heston Blumenthal does....

Heston Blumenthal does it, therefore I have to accept it? I mean, the guys who put the produce out at the market it do it too...

Edited April 6, 2011 by Moopheus (log)

[AaronM]

If you have that strong of a feeling about the idea of the asparagus standing up, then I'd advise you to not eat at Heston's restaurant. It's how he thinks your food should be served - if you don't like it then don't go.