I love foam

[Chris Amirault]

According to Modernist Cuisine, a foam is "a very interesting structure that's nearly all air (or some other gas) enclosed in bubbles made of thin membranes of liquid. ... You can think of a foam as a kind of gas in water emulsions." They list traditional foams including fat foams like whipped cream and parfait, starch foams found in baked goods, egg foams like zabaglione, soufflés and meringue, and protein foams like latte foams and mousse. Modernist foams include many of those types along with sugar-glass foam, fluid-gel foam, and methylcellulose foams.

Again, I think that the spit-haters aren't talking about this entire class of foams, but the foam lovers are trying to point out that bubbly foams are but one type. Babies, (bubble) bath water, all that.

[gfweb]

According to Modernist Cuisine, a foam is "a very interesting structure that's nearly all air (or some other gas) enclosed in bubbles made of thin membranes of liquid. ... You can think of a foam as a kind of gas in water emulsions."

If I remember my chemistry right, the larger component of an emulsion is what the emulsion is "in". Thus a foam is a water in gas emulsion, not the other way around.

[ruthcooks]

After I looked it up, I concluded that if someone served me paloise sauce I would say "Who in the hell ruined my hollandaise? ". The concept of hollandaise with mint is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of, i.e., all paloise sauces are badly made. Just sayin'.

I don't like any foods which are too airy, and, for example, let whipped cream sit in the fridge for a few hours until it deflates a little and becomes more solid. It doesn't help that I grew up with a slightly older girl who amused herself by constantly blowing spit bubbles. I can't stand to look at "foam" much less enjoy it.

[Moopheus]

It doesn't help that I grew up with a slightly older girl who amused herself by constantly blowing spit bubbles.

When I was a kid, I used to like blowing bubbles into chocolate milk with a straw. When my mom told me to stop, I didn't think to tell her, someday people will charge you money for this.

[nibor]

I don't have any prejudice for or against foams, but have to say that I find the photo upstream of an egg in spit foam very unappetizing.

[andiesenji]

After I looked it up, I concluded that if someone served me paloise sauce I would say "Who in the hell ruined my hollandaise? ". The concept of hollandaise with mint is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of, i.e., all paloise sauces are badly made. Just sayin'.

I don't like any foods which are too airy, and, for example, let whipped cream sit in the fridge for a few hours until it deflates a little and becomes more solid. It doesn't help that I grew up with a slightly older girl who amused herself by constantly blowing spit bubbles. I can't stand to look at "foam" much less enjoy it.

I really don't care for whipped cream as a topping for most things and use it sparingly. I prefer clotted cream or slightly whipped and sweetened sour cream.

I seem to recall that a few years ago there was a brief discussion on warm foams and one was asparagus foam, with a photo that convinced me I never wanted to try it.

If one likes (or loves) foams, they should be able to have them. It's a matter of personal preference, just not mine.

[Karri]

Please explain what is prune whip?, prunes whipped with cream to form a pruny whipped cream?

And a deconstructed sushi roll? That sounds like pretty much the smartest thing I've heard of in a while...

[LPShanet]

It seems to me that foams get so much hate because they are a symbol. They are the way that many people have chosen to quickly encapsulate the modernist cuisine/molecular gastronomy movement. There was no huge polarization of opinion on foam prior to its use in that context. No one was yelling at others about foam on coffee 20 years ago....you either ordered it or you didn't. But since the modernist cuisine movement is in itself so polarizing, foam has become the punchline, poster child and mascot for the entire movement, and the strong opinions on it are often reflective of strong opinions on the cooking style overall, though not always. Because of their light, frivolous appearance (and the fact that some have expressed a distaste for the way they look), they are an easy conceptual target.

However, in my personal opinion, the real point of foams, and their real purpose, has been glossed over in this discussion. Ferran Adria, Juan Mari Arzak and others didn't adopt them because they were trying to shock people, or make any point or introduce a novelty. Like most techniques in modernist cuisine, they were introduced for practical reasons. They served a specific purpose in the flavor profile of the dishes they were a part of. They were used because they could infuse a dish with subtle flavor elements that were much lighter in presence than a traditional sauce. They could introduce points and counterpoints that didn't take over the dish, but contributed a "translucent" (conceptually not literally) layer to the flavors. This thought process and the execution of the original intention are absolutely important contributions to cooking and the way chefs conceive dishes, and ought to be respected even if they're not liked.

As with most modernist techniques, when they are used by lesser talents, or in situations where the technique exists just for its own sake rather than to accomplish something, then they strike an ugly chord. But when used with a purpose that only a specific technique can accomplish, they are smart, delicious advancements in the way we cook at eat. Just like sous vide, liquid nitrogen freezing or any other modernist trope, foams can be used for good or evil, and like any such technique, it all comes down to whose hands they are put in (which can also be said for more traditional cooking techniques).

[Florida]

As for the serving of "pumpkin pie with a "sweet cream foam"" please do so. Let me know how it works out for you and how many people (count them please) ask why you didn't just call it whipped cream?

So is it just the term foam you don't like? 'Cause I could just call it "whipped Tabasco sauce," too, but I suspect you'd still object...

It’s not the term per se. It’s how the term is used by foamophiles to backhandedly defend foams.

In general culinary use, the term “foam” describes what we would all think of as “modern foams.” For example, the ravioli with Tabasco foam listed above. Now, when we go to restaurants and see the term “foam” on the menu, this modernist foam is the type of foam we all tend to think of. For better or worse, modernist foam has come to be known simply as “foam.” I didn’t give it that name and if it was called something else, I wouldn’t feel any more warm and cozy about them than I do now.

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.

However, for some reason, some smart-asses like to play the “gotcha” game and say something along the lines of “well whipped cream is a foam and you don’t hate whip cream now do you? So it’s only certain types of foam you hate.” Ha ha, gotcha!

It’s just like the term “organic.” About every six month or so, some dipshit gets on egullet and starts mouthing off about how all food is organic because all food contains a carbon molecule. Golly gee, thanks for clearing that up for all of us.

At the end of the day, I don’t care for foams for the reasons I listed above. However, if AaronM or Grant Achatz want to use foam at their restaurants, I’m not going to stop them or say they shouldn’t. I’ve eaten at Alinea and some of the dishes came with foam and it wasn’t as if I sent them back with a message to “get this foam off of my plate.” If someone wants to use a foam, I’m fine with that, it’s their restaurant, they can do want they want. Of course, it doesn’t mean I have to like it either.

[andiesenji]

Please explain what is prune whip?, prunes whipped with cream to form a pruny whipped cream?

And a deconstructed sushi roll? That sounds like pretty much the smartest thing I've heard of in a while...

Prune whip is composed of prunes stewed in a small amount of water or other liquid (I use ruby port)

then put through a sieve and the puree cooked a bit more with some sugar and a bit of lemon juice.

Egg whites are whipped, the puree folded into it, then the stuff is transferred to a buttered baking dish and baked until done.

It is often served with a custard.

[mkayahara]

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:

I find that they are often flavorless, rarely add anything to a dish, and are not aesthetically pleasing.

I've had I-can't-tell-you-how-many modernist foams that were more flavourful, more aesthetically pleasing and added more to the dishes they were part of than whipped cream ever did to pumpkin pie.

Which brings us back to the idea that there are well-prepared modernist foams that serve a useful purpose, and poorly prepared ones that add nothing, but to dismiss all of them with a sweeping gesture is simply unfair.

[AaronM]

Many people seem to object to the appearance and feel of foams in the mouth. They say it looks and feels like spit. But that criticism exists outside of the foam itself. It is most certainly not spit. It's baggage that they're bringing to the table.

You can not care for them - that's fine.

Just be aware that it's your fault - not the foam.

So when criticizing someone for using them, it's not fair to project that onto the critique. It's not a well thought out and valid assessment. It's an individual opinion.

[gfweb]

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:

I find that they are often flavorless, rarely add anything to a dish, and are not aesthetically pleasing.

I've had I-can't-tell-you-how-many modernist foams that were more flavourful, more aesthetically pleasing and added more to the dishes they were part of than whipped cream ever did to pumpkin pie.

Which brings us back to the idea that there are well-prepared modernist foams that serve a useful purpose, and poorlybalysis prepared ones that add nothing, but to dismiss all of them with a sweeping gesture is simply unfair.

Why is it so hard to grasp that foamy stuff looks unappetizing to a segment of the population? It doesn't need analysis... it is a matter of personal taste.

I quite clearly understand the chemistry of emulsions and am not afraid of them. Some of my favorite sauces are emulsions. I don't need condescending lectures.

It isn't a rejection of modernity

Its a rejection of something that is not attractive.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[Florida]

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.

Is there a fundamental difference between a Ford Escort and a Koenigsegg. I mean, they're both cars, right? Four wheels and an engine. What's the difference?

I find that they are often flavorless, rarely add anything to a dish, and are not aesthetically pleasing.

I've had I-can't-tell-you-how-many modernist foams that were more flavourful, more aesthetically pleasing and added more to the dishes they were part of than whipped cream ever did to pumpkin pie.

Which brings us back to the idea that there are well-prepared modernist foams that serve a useful purpose, and poorly prepared ones that add nothing, but to dismiss all of them with a sweeping gesture is simply unfair.

I'm at a loss to explain this. Some people like them, some people don't. This does not seem like a difficult concept to understand.

[angevin]

Many people seem to object to the appearance and feel of foams in the mouth. They say it looks and feels like spit. But that criticism exists outside of the foam itself. It is most certainly not spit. It's baggage that they're bringing to the table.

This.

I first encountered foam a few years ago (the spit kind) before I had a clue as to what it was or what the chef's intention was in using it. All's I could think of was "ewwww...". That response was definitely a product of me 1. encountering something I'd never seen, felt, tasted before combined with 2. Not really being blown away enough to counteract that initial visceral reaction.

I could entertain the possibility that if I had grown up on the spit-like type of foam and was presented with whipped cream, that I would have had the same reaction.

However, on top of the "ewww''' reaction, I began to hear all about this fabulous new style of cooking, that all of the important, trendy high-end restaurants are doing...and then to see the very same foam thatI had detested. One can imagine two possible reactions to this scenario. The first from those who embrace novelty, innovation and love to follow trends, always looking for something new and different. Those might say..."well, maybe I was too hasty on judgeing the foam thing", and then go on to become huge fans.

The opposite reaction is from those who stubbornly resist "going along with fashion", individualists...who would say "yuck! these sheeple have no clue what's good; they just like what the "in" folks tell them to like.Goddamnit - I'll never like foam!"

Me? I kind of fall into the latter, but can be easily convinced with enough exposure. So yeah, I've had quite a bit since that initial try, I'm still not a big fan. But if the trend ceases to be a trend and becomes integrated into mainstream fine dining, I am wide open to the possibility that it will grow on me and I'll come to love it.

So for me, I guess time will tell.

[pastrygirl]

me, too

[Pierogi]

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.

[mkayahara]

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.

I never said anything of the sort. Kindly don't put words in my mouth.

[Karri]

So... anyone like modern art?

[gfweb]

So... anyone like modern art?

No. Too foamy-looking.

[Karri]

So... anyone like modern art?

No. Too foamy-looking.

Indeed.

[JHeald]

Is it just me, or do most of the visceral rejection of foams seem to be based on a visual objection to things they resemble? Of the negative comments regarding foam (and btw, I don't have a significant opinion on them) most of them seem to reject foams that look gross, or feel gross in the mouth, rather than rejecting based on taste.

This makes a lot of sense, and probably explains why so many people seem to find dubious the explanations for rejecting these foams. The rejection of a food based on personal perception or visual appearance of oral texture could be hard to convey, especially when discussing such an impermanent substance.

Shouldn't "I just don't like it" be a sufficient answer when talking about food?

[Moopheus]

So... anyone like modern art?

No. Too foamy-looking.

Indeed.

Well, I have to give Ferran Adria credit for one thing--no one that I know of has accused him of stealing their work. Unlike a number of contemporary artists (Fairey, Koons, Prince...).

[andiesenji]

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.

Yeah! What Roberta said.

Foams I like? Meringues - baked till done or poached till done. Whipped gelatin stuff. Looks sort of like foam but it has structure and density.

Edited April 8, 2011 by andiesenji (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.

Well said Roberta, well said