Comments on: Adria, Blumenthal, Keller and McGee with statement on “new cooking” http://blog.khymos.org/2006/12/13/adria-blumenthal-keller-and-mcgee-with-statement-on-new-cooking/ - dedicated to molecular gastronomy Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:40:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: blog.khymos.org » Blog Archive » Blumenthal: “Molecular gastronomy is dead” http://blog.khymos.org/2006/12/13/adria-blumenthal-keller-and-mcgee-with-statement-on-new-cooking/#comment-1806 blog.khymos.org » Blog Archive » Blumenthal: “Molecular gastronomy is dead” Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:00:22 +0000 http://blog.khymos.org/2006/12/13/adria-blumenthal-keller-and-mcgee-with-statement-on-new-cooking/#comment-1806 [...] As a follow up to last weeks statement from Adria, Blumenthal, Keller and McGee (article, my comments) The Guardian have interviewed Heston Blumenthal. He now says that MG creates artifical boundries: “Molecular makes it sound complicated,” he says. “And gastronomy makes it sound elitist.”. And Heston isn’t keen on either (at least not anymore…). [...] […] As a follow up to last weeks statement from Adria, Blumenthal, Keller and McGee (article, my comments) The Guardian have interviewed Heston Blumenthal. He now says that MG creates artifical boundries: “Molecular makes it sound complicated,” he says. “And gastronomy makes it sound elitist.”. And Heston isn’t keen on either (at least not anymore…). […]

]]> By: Erik http://blog.khymos.org/2006/12/13/adria-blumenthal-keller-and-mcgee-with-statement-on-new-cooking/#comment-1622 Erik Sun, 17 Dec 2006 11:30:34 +0000 http://blog.khymos.org/2006/12/13/adria-blumenthal-keller-and-mcgee-with-statement-on-new-cooking/#comment-1622 An interesting new turn in the world of, what I still would regard, MG. The probably most interesting perspective, in my eyes, is that McGee is the only one in the quartet that has been able to make a profound effect on my cooking habits at home! However, Hervé This has accomplished the same when I look at my kitchen- and culinary practice (however, I suppose my standing point is as a scientist rather than as cook, and is more subjectible to their influences). In that respect, I seem to find that McGee and This have more in common than with the other three, and that these two TOGETHER sum up the essence of MG. A few days ago, one of my students asked why a certain dish ended up one way rather than the other, and she were in fact looking for an explanation based on real knowledge about the food constituents, and how she was to revise the recipe! (and she is NOT a science student). This is the kind of experience that makes me going. I agree on the argumentation that MG benefited from it's übercool reputation, but on some way it may have lost some of it's soul/essence. When adopted by (or maybe adapted to?) Michelin star restaurants, I find that non-food-geeks may be deterred rather than attracted to this. Thus, if this field is to make an impact on people's way of thinking about food, maybe its time to move on from the high-end restaurants and into our kitchens? Finally, I think there is one pit trap that should be avoided, and this may be one reason for certain chefs/people's distrust: Hervé This' emphasis on refuting old wives’ tales may discourage people (and chefs) because "whatever you do, it may just be wrong". I think it's extremely important for the "MG scientists" not to meet others with the attitude that one are looking for faults, but as equals. One example is from Norwegian history when author (and self appointed scientist) travelled around Norway 150 years ago rebuking house wives and farmers and their kitchen practice. This resulted in what is called "grautstriden" ("the porridge dispute") with scientist Eilert Sundt about healthiness of Norwegian eating habits. In a society which has had an increasing scepticism towards science the late years, this may not be an efficient strategy. Only when scientists (or scientifically oriented individuals) and the everyday cook meet as equals in terms of having a mutual exchange relationship, we can make another step towards people in general understanding more of what they/we actually do when we cook and enjoy food. Such a mutual relationship can in fact be found in the cooperation between Pierre Gagnaire and Hervé This. Erik An interesting new turn in the world of, what I still would regard, MG. The probably most interesting perspective, in my eyes, is that McGee is the only one in the quartet that has been able to make a profound effect on my cooking habits at home! However, Hervé This has accomplished the same when I look at my kitchen- and culinary practice (however, I suppose my standing point is as a scientist rather than as cook, and is more subjectible to their influences). In that respect, I seem to find that McGee and This have more in common than with the other three, and that these two TOGETHER sum up the essence of MG. A few days ago, one of my students asked why a certain dish ended up one way rather than the other, and she were in fact looking for an explanation based on real knowledge about the food constituents, and how she was to revise the recipe! (and she is NOT a science student). This is the kind of experience that makes me going.

I agree on the argumentation that MG benefited from it’s übercool reputation, but on some way it may have lost some of it’s soul/essence. When adopted by (or maybe adapted to?) Michelin star restaurants, I find that non-food-geeks may be deterred rather than attracted to this.

Thus, if this field is to make an impact on people’s way of thinking about food, maybe its time to move on from the high-end restaurants and into our kitchens?

Finally, I think there is one pit trap that should be avoided, and this may be one reason for certain chefs/people’s distrust: Hervé This’ emphasis on refuting old wives’ tales may discourage people (and chefs) because “whatever you do, it may just be wrong”. I think it’s extremely important for the “MG scientists” not to meet others with the attitude that one are looking for faults, but as equals. One example is from Norwegian history when author (and self appointed scientist) travelled around Norway 150 years ago rebuking house wives and farmers and their kitchen practice. This resulted in what is called “grautstriden” (”the porridge dispute”) with scientist Eilert Sundt about healthiness of Norwegian eating habits. In a society which has had an increasing scepticism towards science the late years, this may not be an efficient strategy.

Only when scientists (or scientifically oriented individuals) and the everyday cook meet as equals in terms of having a mutual exchange relationship, we can make another step towards people in general understanding more of what they/we actually do when we cook and enjoy food. Such a mutual relationship can in fact be found in the cooperation between Pierre Gagnaire and Hervé This.

Erik

]]>