Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Avant-Garde Cuisine and Molecular Gastronomy


docsconz

Recommended Posts

An interesting discussion has grown out of the topic on the restaurant Gilt in the New York Forum. stemming from the use of pine in various ways amongst contemporary avant-garde restaurants like Gilt, Alinea and WD-50 and past uses by people such as Michel Bras and Ferran Adria amongst others. This topic has been spun off to allow for further and deeper discussion about the development of these movements and similarities and differences between the Adria school of avant-garde cuisine as represented by the Adrias, Grant Achatz, Jose Andres, Wylie Dufresne, Homaro Cantu and others and the Molecular Gastronomy movement as evinced by people such as Herve This, Michel Bras and Pierre Gagnaire amongst others.

Any insights into the history and development of these movements as well as similarities and differences will be appreciated and should allow for some interesting discussion. Specific written sources would be handy as well.

John Sconzo, M.D. aka "docsconz"

"Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster."

- Ferran Adria on eGullet 12/16/2004.

Docsconz - Musings on Food and Life

Slow Food Saratoga Region - Co-Founder

Twitter - @docsconz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From this post in the Gilt thread by Akwa

please remember that the 70s were not before the mg movement, the 70s were an important milestone in a longer process that was only later termed a "movement" by the media

i suspect that the mg movement a la herve this, who coincidentally coined the phrase and defined it, is markedly different from the current vogue of technological applications of food process. though wd and alinea follow the adria school this is not really consistent at all in the fundamental meaning as written by bras.

actually, gagnaire, and therefore paul would be much more consistent with the initial tenets

Will, can you elaborate on this, please?

John Sconzo, M.D. aka "docsconz"

"Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster."

- Ferran Adria on eGullet 12/16/2004.

Docsconz - Musings on Food and Life

Slow Food Saratoga Region - Co-Founder

Twitter - @docsconz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are there specific questions that you have, or a more general discussion of the mg movement?

best regards

wg

Actually both, Will. I am very interested in the history of these movements if indeed they are distinct as you imply. I was under the impression that they are of the same mold with perhaps differences in expression. In the quote from you that I posted above you seem to imply that perhaps the origens and substance really make for two distinct approaches and movements. Perhaps I am reading in to what you wrote, but that is my take on it. Specifically, what are the initial tenets of Molecular Gastronomy a la This and how do they differ from the Adria school? My own experience shows a marked difference of approach between Adria and Gagnaire for example when I dined at each restaurant within one week of the other, but are those differences of approach or simply style and from whence do they come?

I appreciate your knowledge and input and hope others will chime in as well.

John Sconzo, M.D. aka "docsconz"

"Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster."

- Ferran Adria on eGullet 12/16/2004.

Docsconz - Musings on Food and Life

Slow Food Saratoga Region - Co-Founder

Twitter - @docsconz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how this would fit into such a discussion, but it's probably worth mentioning that a lot of the ingredients that are being rediscovered in avant-garde cuisines can be traced to pretty plebian roots. My grandfather in Maine used to give me pine gum to chew when I was a little kid, and I've always thought that it was a foodstuff worth revisiting. Lacking both a current pine gum source and sufficiently mad skills in the lab, however, I've been unable to do so -- until now.

I'm also curious to know whether the Italian avantgardiste F. T. Marinetti, he of the Futurist Cookbook, is ever mentioned by chefs in these discussions. A meal at Alinea looks a lot like one of their banquets, and their concept of synesthesia would be a crucial precursor of the extensive use of senses other than taste in current avant-garde cuisine. I don't know if chef Achatz is planning any all-touch dinners, however.

Chris Amirault

eG Ethics Signatory

Sir Luscious got gator belts and patty melts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

docsconz

from my conversation with herve this

the fundamental difference is quite simple

science is pursuit of knowledge

technology is application of science

the relationships can be observed as follows

under gagnaire website for science and cuisine there is a collaboration between a chef and a scientist to demonstrate a theory with a dish

el bulli materials and techniques are applications of existing machines, or even elaborations of new processes; the intent is the application of the knowledge and the results are quite noticeably different.

then you can begin the discussion of the relationship between aesthetics as fundamental or secondary and the gap widens.

with regards to marinetti, five years ago we were doing "futurist" inspired events around the world. my first response to florence fabricant, who asked if we read marinetti, was

of course.

the sensory menus he described put an even longer historical context on futurist dining than mg, but there is plenty of history for mg too.

search for the herve this description of mg from copenhagen conference.

wg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

This looks like a very interesting topic, should it get going in a major way. Coming from a science background, being involved in a food manufacturing company and having a love of food, I have naturally been drawn to find out as much as I can about MG.

I'm not sure if my view of the difference between the Adria approach and that of This is too simplistic but I was under the impression that Adria's approach was the development of avant garde cuisine for the sake of avant garde or for the sake of art. Also, my impression is that Adria's approach is for the production of a totally new cuisine using new technology and innovative ingredients or alternatively using existing technology and existing ingredients in an innovative way. The other point I feel that Adria and people of the like are doing is to challenge or shock the diner into a paradigm shift with regards to their approach to conventional cuisine by using 'unconventional' combinations of ingredients and presenting them in an unconventional manner. I'm sure there is much more to his approach than my simplistic view but as a learner in the subject of MG, I fully admit I may be missing his point. Finally, Adria appears to be highly experimental but not altogether methodological or hypothesis driven. At the risk of sounding heretical, much of his cuisine appears to be designed almost by accident or by observation after the result rather than by design (ie hypothesis). The net result of this approach is the production of a number of new cooking techniques, a new cuisine and approach to cooking and the glorification of a restaraunt and the celebration of Adria as a culinary genius.

This on the other hand appears to be attempting to validate 'old wives tales' and 'kitchen magic' by trying to find out why we sometimes do what we do in the kitchen and whether some of what we do can be validated scientifically or whether we are merely doing because we are 'blindly' following the instructions of the person who taught us to cook.

An example of something on the radio here in Australia was when an 18 year old girl was describing on a talk-back show that she always cut the bottom of the leg off when she cooked a pot-roasted leg of lamb. When asked why, she said that 'I dont know. This was what my mother always did'. They decided to ask her mother why she cut the bottom off her legs of lamb when cooking the same dish to which she replied, 'I dont know. This was what my mother always did'. They therefore decided to ask the 18 year old girl's grandmother why she cut the bottom off her legs of lamb when cooking the same dish to which she replied, 'I never had a pot big enough to fit a whole leg of lamb!'.

Here, the hypothesis is that cutting the bottom off a leg of lamb when pot-roasting improves the outcome of the dish. This hypothesis was ultimately disproved when it was discovered that the Grandmother merely did it in order to fit her leg of lamb into her particular casserole dish. It could be said then that This's approach is to use hypothesis driven scientific methodology to validate what people currently think about cuisine and current cooking techniques. The net effect of this approach is to discard the scientifically disproved theories and to embrace the scientifically validated which will in turn due to the fact that it is being used to validate conventional cooking should have beneficial effects for all people of all cooking standards.

Unfortunately, I do not know enough about Gagnaire's approach to comment on it although I have seen some of what he does and have to say that what he does looks very beautiful.

To summarize though, to me at least, it appears that as akwa states, Adria's approach is to apply technology to cuisine to create something new. This's approach on the other hand appears to be the scientific approach of hypothesis driven research to validate theories of current and/or past cuisine. What is interesting though is that whilst both approaches are termed molecular gastronomy, one for the sake of research and one almost for the sake of art, both would fit nicely into the subject of food science which is abhorred by 'food snobs' due to its connotations with mass food production. Both approaches however would have much to learn from Food Science as would Food Science from Molecular Gastronomy.

I hope this thread takes off and I would be very interested to hear what other people think.

Cheers,

Doc-G

Edited by Doc-G (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting responses. Thank you Akwa and Doc-G. I would tend to agree that Adria, Achatz and Dufresne for example (I am most well acquainted with their work) tend to use the science of food production as the means to an artistic and creative end rather than as a purely scientific end, but I would think that would be true for Bras, Gagnaire and Blumenthal as well as other chefs of this bent. The people who are exploring the primarily scientific aspects of MG are people such as This and McGee. That is why the former are chefs and the latter food scientists involved in bringing the science of food to these and other chefs and cooks. This is largely the difference between applied science and theoretical science.

I am interested here primarily in the development of the movement that brought science into creative restaurant kitchens. Technique has always been important, even if people never really understood why certain techniques were important and others didn't matter. What the applied scientists are doing is stretching the boundaries of food and science, because in their own experimentation they are discovering new techniques and ingredients to make them work and creat alchemical equations. Of course while a number of these equations are gold others are merely pyrrhite.

According to my interpretation of Akwa's information it would appear that the application of science first started entering into restaurant kitchens in the 70's. That seem to go along with the development of nouvelle cuisine. The concepts of nouvelle cuisine would seem to support that, as it involved explorations of techniques and ingredients to achieve particular culinary effect without some of the cuisine's ancestral chains. Efforts were made to lighten food and present it in unique ways without sacrificing flavor or texture.

I am not familiar with the futurist movement as applied to food in the 1930's, although I am familiar with the movement a applied to painting and sculpture. From what I can see the culinary component of that movement did not involve so much an application of scientific principles into art as much as just an artistic statement. Am I correct with this conclusion or off-base? If correct it seems to me that that movement may be an influence on today's avant-garde cuisine from a creative, but perhaps not a technical perspective.

While I am an aficionado of avant-garde cuisine and MG, I am by no means an expert in its history and development. I do find this subject fascinating and wish to increase my understanding. There is enough knowledge and experience on these fora to provide significant historical context or so i would imagine. I appreciate Akwa's insights and knowledge of this matter, but hope for even more detail from him and others While I appreciate the general search reference for the Copenhage Conference, half the fun is the interaction here with others of similar interest. I think that we have got off to a good start by defining what we are examining with these movements.

John Sconzo, M.D. aka "docsconz"

"Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster."

- Ferran Adria on eGullet 12/16/2004.

Docsconz - Musings on Food and Life

Slow Food Saratoga Region - Co-Founder

Twitter - @docsconz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what Ferrán Adrià told us in the eG Q&A with him:

To be a chef, you have to have knowledge of products, classic techniques, contemporary techniques, history of cooking, gastronomic culture. If you want to have a restaurant, you have to know how to manage it. If you’re looking to get some exposure in the media, you have to know how to relate with them. And you have to have some knowledge about the scientific world. It doesn’t make too much sense that a chef starts studying chemistry from scratch, neither does it that he starts learning how to grow tomatoes. You look for the person who knows more about tomatoes, don’t you? It’s the same with chemistry, and it’s a major change.

You have to differentiate between two type of technical actions: the knowledge about what already exists and the knowledge to create. There are two type of work, two type of knowledge. It can be wonderful that a scientist cooperates to make the perfect roast beef. But that would be it. It can be wonderful that a scientist helps us to create a thin layer of caramel, but made of salt instead of caramel. There are two different concepts. The latest trend, which covers the last 2-3 years, 4 at the most, goes in this direction. Until then, perhaps the scientist around the kitchen (there have always been scientists in kitchens) preferred more to explain what already existed.

At elBulli, we've worked with scientists since 2003. All the techniques before 2003 were developed without their help. The hot gelatine, which without any doubt is one of the greatest contemporary techniques, was pure logic. We went to a Japanese restaurant, they served us agar-agar and we saw that it didn’t melt.

What’s the purpose of the scientific world in the kitchen? Today, thanks to Pere and Ingrid, we started to discover seven or eight natural gelling agents. You go at a different pace.

I don’t understand the characterization of molecular gastronomy as a type of cuisine. It’s happening the same that happened years ago with fusion, it’s becoming a common place. There isn’t a molecular cuisine. There’s a molecular movement, the molecular gastronomy, where some scientists cooperate with the world of cooking. Clearly, the move acts upon cooking, but I don’t think it’s a cuisine per se.

In twenty years, we could look back and see how many new techniques, more than concepts, were introduced thanks to this movement. Having said this, whoever says that this movement doesn’t have a future, only has to pick up a phone, turn on the TV or log-in the internet. Science has changed the world.

So, basically science + chef + creativity -> molecular gastronomy

PedroEspinosa (aka pedro)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . . .

Finally, Adria appears to be highly experimental but not altogether methodological or hypothesis driven. At the risk of sounding heretical, much of his cuisine appears to be designed almost by accident or by observation after the result rather than by design (ie hypothesis). The net result of this approach is the production of a number of new cooking techniques, a new cuisine and approach to cooking and the glorification of a restaraunt and the celebration of Adria as a culinary genius.

. . . . .

On the contrary, the approach Adrià takes involves a great deal of methodology. Some of the methods they use to come up with new techniques and dishes is explained in the elBulli 83-93 books. Of course, inspiration and observation always help.

PedroEspinosa (aka pedro)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like pedro i would be very quick to question the methodology of el bulli

partly because i was working in the lab when it moved to its official destination "taller"

at the same time i think that both ferran and herve this have a great deal at stake in asserting the primacy of their vision; while it is true that science does not equal grand cuisine, there is an important distinction that is absent:

this: science plus art (aesthetics)

adria: creativity with technology

i am very comfortable saying that they are both legitimate; just this statement goes against the current lumping together of quite disparate groups, just because most food writers are completely ignorant of either the history or the reality of the lines of work.

there have been evolutionary threads throughout history and generally during the moment it is hard to distinguish who will eventually be more influential, this doesnt mean they are the same and can be easily dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concede the point regarding methodology. Of course there must be significant methodology in place firstly for evolution of his dishes and merely for the dishes to be consistent.

I wonder however if you could elaborate on how hypothesis driven the work of Adria is? This is important as I feel that this may be one of the key differences between the two approaches.

I have had the pleasure of reading El Bulli 3 98-02 and noticed a partiular dish which had the consistency and 'look' of sand. The notes explained that this particular dish was 'discovered' whilst making sorbet. They discovered that when you open the sorbet machine just before it starts to set, it has this particular consistency. This is an example of observational research. Similarly, from the eg Q&A you quoted 'We went to a Japanese restaurant, they served us agar-agar and we saw that it didn’t melt.' Again this is another example of observational research which led to the development of a number of highly innovative dishes.

Does Adria begin the deveopment of a new dish or technique with a hypothesis and if so is the hypothesis rigorously tested?

This however appears to approach MG from this angle and this is what I feel distinguishes the two.

I do not feel that this makes one approach more legitimate that the other and I also feel that both approaches are totally consistent with the basic tenets of MG. It is important however to recognise the difference between the two and celebrate them both equally for what they are. One for providing a rich understanding of the way food works (This) and another for providing innovative, beautiful and provocative new dishes (Adria).

This is a very interesting thread. I hope it continues.

Cheers,

Doc-G

Edited by Doc-G (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there's any dispute between This and Adrià's, neither in the theoretical field or in the relationship among them.

from my experience they have a tremendous amount of respect for each other

and are perfectly content to pursue the chosen paths

it is from my third person perspective that i feel there is a lot at stake;

but only time will tell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is difficult for me to distinguish between what docg clearly delineates as observational and hypothesis based research;

for example, the hot gelees,

if you see a gelee that doesnt melt at room temperature,

you then hypothesize that the gelee will be resistant to high temperature

then you test the hypothesis by applying different conditions

isnt this the same thing;

the most interesting point of departure for me is the declared intent:

for this, the knowledge, for adria, the product final

both men among the most influential of the last century of cooking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Akwa, do you or anyone else see a difference in what This and McGee are doing? You apparently feel This is more influential of the two. Why?

John Sconzo, M.D. aka "docsconz"

"Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster."

- Ferran Adria on eGullet 12/16/2004.

Docsconz - Musings on Food and Life

Slow Food Saratoga Region - Co-Founder

Twitter - @docsconz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that This is more influential than McGee (though this is, of course, debatable):

a) Hypermodernism is a European born trend and This is closer to the leaders of this movement.

b) I think This not only explains the scientific mechanisms that occurs in "normal" cooking processes but also looks at new techniques and methods. For instance, Adrià said in the Q&A we had with him that it was This who first used liquid nitrogen to cook something back in ¡1996!

Of course, that's my interpretation of influential, that is, influencing in avant-garde or hypermodern cuisine. I believe it's the opposite if we speak of disemination of their work among the general public: On Food and Cooking is by large the reference text.

PedroEspinosa (aka pedro)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree with pedros conclusion regarding this/mcgee

i see a great difference between the two

but mostly in terms of style and influence

mcgee is the standard reference text in the united states, but i dont know of many chefs who have taken mcgee's tenets and run with them, the way that this has engendered a generation of science minded cooks who both pursue knowledge and apply theory in an artful way

also mcgee is a bit dryer and his text does not suggest applications or historical context in the same way

they are both superior minds in the field; i am not as familiar with peter barham, but as well he would probably be included if the discussion extended to uk/au/heston fenom etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am somwhat familiar with the hostory of El Bulli and the development of the cuisine of Ferran Adria as that has been so well documented. What about Juan Marie Arzak? Can anyone relate a timeline of the evolution of his cuisine, especially as it relates to the concurrent evolution of Adria's? Santamaria takes a different view of cuisine than these too and so I think must be viewed differently. Are there others that are as important or nearly so in the development of avant-garde cuisine in Spain? I am talking about from the early days of the development of the movement, not current practitioners. How long has Berasategui been on the seen and is his cuisine of the same movement (I have not yet tried his cooking)? The Roca brothers?

John Sconzo, M.D. aka "docsconz"

"Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster."

- Ferran Adria on eGullet 12/16/2004.

Docsconz - Musings on Food and Life

Slow Food Saratoga Region - Co-Founder

Twitter - @docsconz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avant garde cuisine as we know it starts in Spain and probably in the world with Adrià. Juan Mari Arzak and his contemporaries who created the Nueva Cocina Vasca (New Basque Cuisine) over 25 years ago reinterpreted the Nouvelle Cuisine that the French masters were doing (the influence of Bocuse, Guerard and Bras in this development can hardly be overrated). With her daughter Elena playing a more important role in Arzak's kitchen, more hypermodern dishes started to appear in their restaurant not many years ago.

Regarding Berasategui, I'd say he's closer to Santi Santamaría than he is to Adrià. Joan Roca was a disciple of Adrià who has matured enough to develop a style of his own. So from my point of view, at least in Spain, it's Adrià and the second wave formed by people who's been working for him.

PedroEspinosa (aka pedro)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is interesting that Elena Arzak is the one bringing "hypermodern" cooking into Arzak. Is that a newly coined term, Pedro, or one that has found its way into general use? It seems to fit, but despite my interest in this area I can't say that I can recall seeing it used before.

John Sconzo, M.D. aka "docsconz"

"Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster."

- Ferran Adria on eGullet 12/16/2004.

Docsconz - Musings on Food and Life

Slow Food Saratoga Region - Co-Founder

Twitter - @docsconz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been used before and to me sounds better than avant-garde does. I read it for the first time in one of Steingarten's post in the Alinea Thread and I've adopted it since, but a search in the forums reveals that it was used back in 2003 by the Gault Millau magazine referring to some recipes: Avant Garde cooking and elBulli

PedroEspinosa (aka pedro)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypermodern seems a more useful term in the context of cultural history as well. "Avant garde" generally refers to a movement in the early- to mid-20th century focused on a group of artists seeking to break from the restraints of late 19th and turn-of-the-century cultural practices: the Surrealists, the Dadaists, the Futurists, etc. There are a bunch of different reasons why Adria et al aren't really avant garde in that sense, even if they borrow from some avant garde techniques (see above).

However, they do seem to be hypermodern, in the sense that they are taking some of the tenets of high modernism to their extremes. Trying to find and express the essence of an ingredient, for example, seems to have a logical connection to the modernist's eschewing ornament and seeking a thing's essential meaning.

"Hypermodern" does seem to miss a few things, imho; someone around here ought to coin a new phrase.... :wink:

Chris Amirault

eG Ethics Signatory

Sir Luscious got gator belts and patty melts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...