I love foam

[LPShanet]

So, are there other types of foam, the “traditional ones?” Well, yes, but no one calls these “foams.” No one says I’m going to have some “strawberries with sweetened vanilla cream foam.” And for the most part, the foam “haters” don’t hate these substances, that from a scientifically accurate perspective could be considered foams, but no one ever calls a foam in the first place.

So why don't "foam 'haters'" dislike "traditional" foams just as much as modernist ones? I have yet to see a cogent explanation of why whipped cream on pumpkin pie is acceptable, but bone marrow foam on steak is not. I just don't see a fundamental difference between the two. Your stated reasons upthread for disliking foam are that:

Because one looks like whipped cream (which is unctuous and lovely and, well *creamy*) and the other looks like something my dogs hork up after they've been eating grass....

Which is most certainly NOT unctuous and lovely and creamy. Nor is it something I choose to put in my mouth.

What's that line about "eating with your eyes as much as your mouth...."? If it looks like dog barf, *I* don't want to eat it.

If you do, groovy. Enjoy your foams and airs and spumas (that *word* even sounds gross). But don't force it on me. And don't tell me I'm a dolt, or unsophisticated, or a rube, or somehow less than you, or not into good food and spirits because I don't share your taste.

This seems a bit biased, as there is no reason foam sauces can't be produced with that texture, and there are plenty of whipped cream applications with objectionable textures. In fact, I've had foam sauces with unctuous, creamy textures. And I've had nasty whipped cream that was more sticky than "lovely". Again, it seems to come down to execution and the open-mindedness of the eater. After all, lauding all whipped cream as lovely, and dismissing all foam sauces as looking like something one's dog coughs up is the food equivalent of racism...as if neither side is capable of the qualities of the other.

Edited April 8, 2011 by LPShanet (log)

[lancastermike]

So, are there other types of foam, the “traditional ones?” Well, yes, but no one calls these “foams.” No one says I’m going to have some “strawberries with sweetened vanilla cream foam.” And for the most part, the foam “haters” don’t hate these substances, that from a scientifically accurate perspective could be considered foams, but no one ever calls a foam in the first place.

So why don't "foam 'haters'" dislike "traditional" foams just as much as modernist ones? I have yet to see a cogent explanation of why whipped cream on pumpkin pie is acceptable, but bone marrow foam on steak is not. I just don't see a fundamental difference between the two. Your stated reasons upthread for disliking foam are that:

Because one looks like whipped cream (which is unctuous and lovely and, well *creamy*) and the other looks like something my dogs hork up after they've been eating grass....

Which is most certainly NOT unctuous and lovely and creamy. Nor is it something I choose to put in my mouth.

What's that line about "eating with your eyes as much as your mouth...."? If it looks like dog barf, *I* don't want to eat it.

If you do, groovy. Enjoy your foams and airs and spumas (that *word* even sounds gross). But don't force it on me. And don't tell me I'm a dolt, or unsophisticated, or a rube, or somehow less than you, or not into good food and spirits because I don't share your taste.

This seems a bit biased, as there is no reason foam sauces can't be produced with that texture, and there are plenty of whipped cream applications with objectionable textures. In fact, I've had foam sauces with unctuous, creamy textures. And I've had nasty whipped cream that was more sticky than "lovely". Again, it seems to come down to execution and the open-mindedness of the eater. After all, lauding all whipped cream as lovely, and dismissing all foam sauces as looking like something one's dog coughs up is the food equivalent of racism...as if neither side is capable of the qualities of the other.

Equivalent of racism? Somebody saying they don't like foams is nowhere near that equivalent. What does that even mean? Foam racists? if you really think that a discussion of culinary foams can be equal to racism I seriously doubt if you know what racism is and the effect it can have on people. Holey moley

[angevin]

"...the open-mindedness of the eater..."

Has nothing to do with open-mindedness. I've tried foam, more than once. And I'll continue to eat foamed sauces if served, although I tend to shy away. I'm just not a fan. Not liking something, even if it's due to appearance and texture more than taste, is not the same as being close-minded.

Edited April 8, 2011 by angevin (log)

[Florida]

...the food equivalent of racism...as if neither side is capable of the qualities of the other.

Cue Seinfeld episode here.

[Chris Amirault]

LPShanet, perhaps you can explain a bit more clearly how disliking the look and texture of a particular item of food is akin to racism.

I can think of dozens of other examples -- people dislike the sensation of spicy foods; people prefer very sweet or not at all sweet items; etc. etc. -- that I've always written off as personal preference. And while those preferences probably have a significant sociocultural basis, I can't quite make the leap from disliking something to demonstrating a systematic exploitation of and prejudice against a modernist food technique that can maintain serious comparison with, say, the Ku Klux Klan or National Socialism.

[gfweb]

Whenever open mindedness is invoked...or an opinion labeled a phobia or a hatred ...you know that arguers position is weak if not baseless. Disliking foam has no moral component.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[technophile50]

"So, are there other types of foam, the “traditional ones?” Well, yes, but no one calls these “foams.”

Technically (science geek), not gastronomically, a foam is a dispersion of gas bubbles in a liquid or solid.

So, technically, cheetos are a cheesy foam. Rice cakes, popcorn, and bread are also foams.

[Karri]

So now we await the subculture or separation of the "spuma movement". First they will develop a way to recognize one another, perhaps a little bit of saffron foam preserved in polymer?

Next comes their own lingo, or has that happened already? With the airs and whatnots.

And to Ferran Adria never being accused of stealing any ideas, I believe they made the Maxim of Maximus or whatever it's called, but then again as the saying goes "good artists borrow, great artists steal". (I am not saying he stole anything, but if you put Iberico ham fat in one more way somewhere I think the pigs are going to go on strike)

To dislike or to like foam is in my opinion a question of taste, and everyone here should know what arguing about opinions and tastes is like... It never leads anywhere.

[thayes1c]

Godwin's law strikes eGullet. Are there any other foods or preparations as contentious as foam? Miracle Whip, perhaps?

[gfweb]

I'm amazed at the venom directed against those who fail to bow to the siphon.

Who'd have thunk?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[Karri]

I'm amazed at the venom directed against those who fail to bow to the siphon.

Who'd have thunk?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

It's like this: Either you love it or you hate it, if you hate it you are just too 'low-brow' to understand the intrinsic value of this innovation, it is constantly evolving and it is the future. If you just can't understand what an amazing thing it is, maybe you should just.. you know... maybe get over it and get on the bandwagon! (Sarcasm, geddit?)

Only two things come from Texas.

[Mjx]

. . . .

It's like this: Either you love it or you hate it. . . .

I don't know about that... I really doubt I'm alone in the 'take it or leave it' camp, with some foam-involving incidents experienced as peachy-keen, others being altogether underwhelming, and most being entirely unremarkable one way or the other.

[IndyRob]

LPShanet, perhaps you can explain a bit more clearly how disliking the look and texture of a particular item of food is akin to racism.

I can think of dozens of other examples -- people dislike the sensation of spicy foods; people prefer very sweet or not at all sweet items; etc. etc. -- that I've always written off as personal preference. And while those preferences probably have a significant sociocultural basis, I can't quite make the leap from disliking something to demonstrating a systematic exploitation of and prejudice against a modernist food technique that can maintain serious comparison with, say, the Ku Klux Klan or National Socialism.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but have found the thread entertaining. I had found this great popcorn-munching animated gif that, unfortunately, I couldn't post here. So I'd like to try to defuse this statement to keep the thread on track.

I think the racism reference was meant in the stereotype sense - Painting all foams with a broad brush and viewing them all the same - excluding them from consideration based on superficial characteristics. Not in the militant connotation of the term.

'Prejudiced', perhaps, might have been a better word.

[IndyRob]

Godwin's law strikes eGullet. Are there any other foods or preparations as contentious as foam? Miracle Whip, perhaps?

Cool Whip!

[LPShanet]

LPShanet, perhaps you can explain a bit more clearly how disliking the look and texture of a particular item of food is akin to racism.

I can think of dozens of other examples -- people dislike the sensation of spicy foods; people prefer very sweet or not at all sweet items; etc. etc. -- that I've always written off as personal preference. And while those preferences probably have a significant sociocultural basis, I can't quite make the leap from disliking something to demonstrating a systematic exploitation of and prejudice against a modernist food technique that can maintain serious comparison with, say, the Ku Klux Klan or National Socialism.

My apologies if I wasn't able to be clear, but my point wasn't that disliking any particular food item is ethically equivalent to racism. Let me try to clarify further: I was responding to the statement someone made that foam (in the modernist sauce sense) was like dog spit while whipped cream was a beautiful, sexy substance. Obviously, it is easy to make a foam sauce with the exact consistency of whipped cream, so this seemed confusing. There are many foam sauces that have been made that way, and that have the exact consistency that people laud so highly in the whipped cream. At the same time, the world has seen a pretty wide variety of things that have been called whipped cream. Some of them are truly disgusting in texture in ways far worse than dog spit. And it's fairly easy to imagine that there's whipped cream out there with the exact consistency that's been described as being so awful in foam sauces. I've eaten it. It exists.

So it seemed to me unfair and inaccurate that someone would dismiss all foam sauces as having one specific texture (that is awful), and praise the entire whipped cream category as having one specific texture that is wonderful. Technically, whipped cream IS a foam sauce. It's simply an innocuous one that many people are comfortable with. The racism analogy was based on the idea that racism is often described as attributing specific qualities (intelligence, stupidity, laziness, good/bad smell, criminality, athleticism, etc.) to an entire race, rather than recognizing the varying degrees of those qualities in individual members. And it seemed that the specific qualities of a few particular foam sauce experiences were being attributed to the entire category, rather than recognizing that different individual examples might have very different textures. I wasn't suggesting for a second that people who disliked a particular food item were actual racists, and I think that's pretty obvious. But to assume that all foam sauces have one specific consistency and that all are objectionable in the exact same way, while all whipped cream is great is also irrational. The analogy does stand in the terms explained. I assume you don't actually think I was saying that sauces are being exploited, as I think it's pretty clear that makes no sense. And I wasn't making a morality statement. While I apologize if the analogy offended, it really is important to understand I was making an analogy and not applying a moral equivalency...or any statement about ethics at all. This is food, not sociology. When we say that something "kills our tastebuds", we aren't actually assuming people or beings are dying rather than sensory reactions being blunted.

In terms of fact, foam sauces are not a modernist technique at all. They have been around for hundreds of years. Whipped cream is one of them. So while your comparison to someone who hates spicy or sweet foods isn't parallel, we can use a similar example that is. Saying that foam sauce is disgusting dog spit, but that whipped cream is glorious, sexy and beautiful is like saying that all kinds of hot sauce are disgusting and inedible, but that Tabasco sauce is delicious. Or that candy and sweets are disgusting across the board and repulsive to eat, but that Lifesavers are beautiful and delicious. It seems biased and seems to create a logic gap.

Edited April 9, 2011 by LPShanet (log)

[LPShanet]

"...the open-mindedness of the eater..."

Has nothing to do with open-mindedness. I've tried foam, more than once. And I'll continue to eat foamed sauces if served, although I tend to shy away. I'm just not a fan. Not liking something, even if it's due to appearance and texture more than taste, is not the same as being close-minded.

Actually, the attitude you've described is one I think most would called open-minded. Your willingness to eat them if served, or even just to allow for the possibility that one you like might exist somewhere in the universe both suggest you're very open-minded. This is a contrast when compared to those who simply won't allow for the idea that it might be possible to create one that eliminates the objectionable qualities (which as far as I can determine from the entries in this thread stem mostly from bubble size, which is clearly a continuum and not something with a hard line).

Edited April 9, 2011 by LPShanet (log)

[phatj]

I've never had a foam qua foam, as I cannot afford to eat out often (ever, really) and I'm not sure there are any restaurants around here that use them. I will say that the photos I've seen have not looked particularly appetizing. However, I'm in the camp that finds that how a dish smells and tastes is far, far more important to my enjoyment than how it looks. But by the same token, I don't understand why you would go to the trouble of making a Tabasco foam when you could introduce a subtle Tabasco flavor to your lobster ravioli just by putting a little Tabasco in the filling - the easy path is also the more aesthetically pleasing to me. I'll grant that the foam could have a different textural effect, but isn't this extremely fleeting?

[mkayahara]

I'll grant that the foam could have a different textural effect, but isn't this extremely fleeting?

That's not a bug; it's a feature!

[dcarch]

A very interesting thread indeed. Food Psychology/Sociology in action.

I wonder about the reactions to blue cheese when it first came out. The most disgusting, and vile looking, tasting, smelling substance ever to appear on the face of the earth.

dcarch

[pen_h]

A very interesting thread indeed. Food Psychology/Sociology in action.

I wonder about the reactions to blue cheese when it first came out. The most disgusting, and vile looking, tasting, smelling substance ever to appear on the face of the earth.

dcarch

You've hit the nail on the head here.

Humans, as omnivores, have natural reactions to certain flavors and mouthfeels to protect us from poisoning. We're designed not to like bitter, moldy, slimy, grainy... and foamy. Foams can be the result of certain bacteria. The "ewww" factor is built-in. However, certain societies have overcome some of those tendencies - some of us eat blue cheese (mold), okra (slime), etc. When we're surrounded by people we trust and they encourage us to eat a food, and have obvious enjoyment in eating it themselves, we overcome our natural tendencies and may grow to love that food too. The younger you are when first encouraged to do this, the easier it is.

Also, there's the spit association - in many cultures eating someone else's spit is viewed with disgust. Observant Brahmins (hindu) might even avoid food that someone else has tasted, because it might be contaminated by their saliva. On the other extreme, in traditional cultures mothers might chew food and spit it out to give to their young children. It's not only for kids - some versions of chicha beer call for the corn to be chewed by someone before the beer is brewed.

I would guess that an unusually large proportion of people on this list are neophiles who like to try new things. Neophobes eat what they're used to, and don't like change. Later in life, neophiles are more likely to be able to overcome their natural disgust mechanism to try new things like foam on food.

[Will]

Agree with everything gfweb said. Honestly, I'm surprised this thread even exists.

I don't think it's appealing or attractive, but it's not just that. It's also that I have never had it (even during the time when foam actually was somewhat in vogue) add anything (visually or in terms of taste / texture) to a dish or really elevate it. What surprises me most is that people seem to keep using it, despite the fact that the trend has clearly run its course.

[AaronM]

You use the word trend.

I'm uninterested in any trends. Just in making the best food I can. Sometimes that means foam.

[Karri]

Bringing out your opinions as facts is a great way to steer a conversation forward, as... I... have... heard.

Foams are foams, just because it was a hip thing and people who didn't -or still don't -know what they were doing; did it, it doesn't mean that all foam dishes are bad. Just like AaronM said.

But it is a dividing subject, I actually did a bit of a study on this matter at my workplace, and the saffron foam we use for a dish is much less appealing to some guests, than the Tomato cappuchino that is served in a glass with a white tomato foam on top. The reason I believe is you connect it in your brain, Cappuccino -> foam, and it looks like 'a frothy red coffee'

[Wholemeal Crank]

I discovered this thread and have been following with some interest. I really haven't had much opportunity to try modernist dishes with new foams (but have MC, will be trying some), but in theory I love the idea of using a foam to bring some strong flavor to a dish without turning them into a traditional sauce that dilutes the flavors with thickening agents and may add a lot of fat calories. I would not be excited if the foam looked like spit on my plate, but as long as it didn't bring up strong associations of bodily effluvia, I'd love to try more of it.

[gfweb]

I agree. Adding strong flavor without dilution is a nice idea. But what does the air add to the product? Foam shmoam.