Molecular Gastronomy or not!
Posted: 20/08/2009 11:02:12 a.m.
Molecular Gastronomy; I have stood back from this debate until now but find that pressure from others has persuaded me to respond and present my position.
Firstly I am in agreement with those that find the terms “molecular gastronomy”or “Techno Emotional Cuisine” difficult to live with. Would there have been all this vehement comment had we simply accepted it as a series of cutting edge culinary techniques? Physicist and food lover Nicholas Kurti coined molecular gastronomy to describe his research into the chemical reactions of foods in 1969 , so perhaps the label is not appropriate. I for one would have been happier to not have it labeled. . Whilst the true experts, and I am not one of them, want to call it whatever they will, I will go along with it. Ferran Adria, arguably the foremost exponent, commands a greater speaking fee world wide than does President Clinton and that conveys to me that far more talented chefs than I believe he is making a major contribution to our industry. I have met the man, dined in his famous El Buli restaurant and have the greatest respect for both him and his achievements. It would be a brave person to disparage his achievements without the benefit of understanding them or experiencing an expert demonstration of the capabilities.
We all, to a greater or lesser extent, resist change; it pushes us out of our comfort zone and can create a feeling of insecurity. We can explore the consequences of the change and take rational decisions or we can reject and disparage the suggested change without giving it the consideration it deserves. A top chef who wants to master his craft will always be open to new ideas. Honest, informed and unbiased appraisal of things new is a prerequisite of sound decision making.
What really is new? Children have delighted in the techniques for generations. Take a flavoured drink and convert it to an ice block or a jelly. The enjoyment that stems from these structural changes is very easy to understand. The flavor remains but the appearance and texture are totally different and pleasing to both the eye and the pallet.
I would comment to those that refer to the results as ”rubbish” and “not food” as being ignorant of the true intentions of the techniques. What quarrel do they have with the ability to create a hot jelly or a bubble of intense flavor that can lie in wait within a dish to surprise and embellish the overall taste appeal?
The totally natural additives (seaweed, tapioca etc) available allow us to make foam, airs, spheres, caviar and hot jellies, but if they taste solely of foam or air the time preparing them has been wasted and of course the techniques are worthless. The taste must be REAL and AUTHENTIC, the TEXTURE pleasing and the APPEARANCE exciting. All these attributes and more are possible, but research and commitment come with the territory
I fear the most critical are those that have tried some of the simpler techniques without adequate research or training and been disappointed with the results. For my part I admit to many creations that were disappointing to the point of disaster. Those ventures served only to push me to continue because I could see hugely important advantages for my menu constructions. The health issues alone justified perseverance. I could see the formerly unimaginable possibility of a soufflé without eggs or flour, an eggless meringue, a thickened sauce without butter or flour and all of this done without destroying the flavour or injecting any artificiality. To be able to make batters which remain crisp in the presence of moisture and more importantly reduce the amount of fat absorbance were goals the have proven irresistible to me.
To appreciate fully these unbelievably exciting innovations we need to consider the contributions made by the engineers who have provided us with the tools that make possible the wildly imaginative ideas. We can do things with food temperatures and textures that was formerly impossible, but and there is always a “but”. Restraint is required and a fine line should be established and rigorously observed so that the enjoyment of food is not sacrificed to the god of science.
Techniques and equipment are evolving and we all need to assess whether these techniques and aids work better or not for us; the machines that make culinary miracles possible exist. I would not presume to dictate the style of cuisine others present, that is personal to the style of the establishment. If it works for them, then it is the best. What works for me is equally personal and I will continue to follow innovative ideas that have the promise of giving my menus a point of difference.