Why I Hate Molecular Gastronomy

by Amy Sherman

Last month I got a chance to see inside the geeked-out laboratory of Nathan Myhrvold. Myhrvold is a technologist working on a massive set of volumes on new cooking techniques called Modernist Cuisine, with any luck, available early next spring. His lab is filled with unusual ingredients and high-tech equipment. A team of chefs demonstrated recipes and explained the science behind them. I tried about eight dishes altogether. But the experience left me cold. The truth is, I haven't eaten at the temples of the avant-garde - Alinea, El Bulli, The Fat Duck or wd-50 - so you could say I'm judging it all too prematurely. But I have heard quite a number of leading chefs and experts lecture on the topic and I am always left feeling somewhat depressed. For the record, I have heard not only Nathan Myhrvold, but Herve This, Grant Achatz, Homaro Cantu, Ben Roche Jose Andres and Harold McGee speak about techniques commonly associated with molecular gastronomy. I've also tried dishes made by just about all of them. I don't have a problem with the use of alginates, circulators, homongenizers, liquid nitrogen and rotary evaporators if it makes food taste better. The problem is, in my experience, it doesn't. I've had some good sous vide dishes, but truly tasty foam? Gels? Powders? Bubble-like spheres of liquid? Not really. I want food to be absolutely delicious, and if I'm lucky, a window into another culture and a way to connect with people I care about, across the table. Molecular gastronomy has yet to accomplish this for me. It's innovative leaders try too hard to make food into art or theater or in the words of Nathan Myhrrvold, "cool culinary effects." I'm not opposed to food that entertains me or makes me think, my meals at the French Laundry certainly did that, but more importantly they provided a wonderful dining experience and stunningly delicious food. Food, like design, serves a real function. It is not art for art's sake. Perhaps "hate" is too strong a word, but when it comes to food, taste trumps everything and in my experience, molecular gastronomy fails to deliver.

Tagged with:

tkwtkw

11:07:09 PM on

09/28/10

alinea's food is delicious. you should really try it some time. in contrast, moto's food is not delicious. you should not try it, ever.



THUNUPA

04:29:00 PM on

09/28/10

Obviously the author is unaware that Thomas Keller of The French Laundry employs the use of sous-vide. Shame that she didn't bother to research, and an even bigger shame that Epicurious gave her a soapbox for which to speak on a topic that she so obviously knows little about.

EveryCliche

03:06:33 PM on

09/28/10

My best friend and I ate at Alinea for our birthdays last year. We had been reading about it for years and finally decided to treat ourselves. When my best friend called to make a reservation they only had one opening at 9 pm the day of her birthday (1 week after mine). It was well worth the money that we spent and the years waiting/wanting to go. I loved every minute of it and everything tasted great. Yes, there is some crazy stuff going on but that's what makes it fun. Sucking bubble-like spheres of liquid out of tubes made me laugh. Seriously, you need to eat at one of these restaurants before you judge them. I thought food critics were suppose to eat at a place before they review it.

MLindsey1

12:08:57 PM on

09/27/10

I can certainly respect innovation or vision, but I agree that flavor is the main thing that I want from a meal (although that can get trumped by learning about a new culture). To me, the problem with molecular gastronomy is that it goes against some fundamental observations that I have made about food: simpler meals are harder to do perfectly because you can't hide your errors, and the better the ingredients, the more simply they should be prepared. If you doubt the first observation, try making pie crust, flour tortillas, or a roast chicken. If you doubt the second, pick a tomato and sprinkle it with sea salt or try plucking a ripe peach off of a tree.

heydemann3

02:27:36 PM on

09/26/10

Isn't it wonderful that there's room in the world for all kinds of food and cooking? Those who want their dinner to be a cultural memory can find that and those who find interest in spheres of olive floating in consomme garnished with vacuum brined cucumber can get that as well.

An essay saying nothing more than "I don't like it" is a waste of our time.

ontaria

11:40:21 PM on

09/25/10

In all seriousness was there a thought process behind this at all? First and foremost, being a chef is more than just cooking. It is creating an experience for your guests. Chefs like Homaro Cantu, Ben Roche, Grant Achatz, and many more are using innovative methods and techniques to create an amazingly different experience for guests who are tired of the predictable. Let me guess, you must be a fan of vanilla and missionary as well? These chefs are amazing not because of the technique, but because they are masters of the craft. They have learned the basics and know food just as well as any "normal" (as you so eloquently suggested) chef out there. They have the same if not better philosophies of using the best ingredients, providing the best service, and making a meal a memorable experience among a lot of other things. It is not a trend it is innovation. You don't have to like it but you should learn to respect it. Im sure the amish hate you for using a computer instead of paper, does that make you wrong?

AppetitesPersonalChef

11:19:40 PM on

09/25/10

I agree with you that no matter how artfully designed and scientifically produced my food is, I want it to taste good. A few years ago, I worked at Moto in Chicago for Homaro Cantu. It was very important to Homaro that the food tasted outstanding. Working there was a great experience for me and taught me to look at and think about food in a new way. Could I, or would I want to make those dishes at home, or for my clients? No way! But I would love to eat at any of the restaurants named above. I think that you really need to go to a few of these Molecular Gastronomy restaurants and have the full meal (or at least the tasting menu) to appreciate them. After all, the dishes that are pictured in magazines and that these chefs are famous for are the craziest, wackiest, most experimental dish on their menu, because if the dish was normal, there would not be so much fuss made about them!

bbeenn

11:07:38 PM on

09/25/10

Wow, thank you for the informative article! I hope you get an 'A' in your journalism class. Thank you for not just 'writing an article for the sake of writing an article'. I think I'm gonna go shoot myself in the face now :) - Ben Roche

jharris2

05:14:57 AM on

09/25/10

In an age where so few people cook, this method will only scare them away from the kitchen. You can't easily try this stuff at home, boys and girls.

cookingwithamy

01:50:32 AM on

09/25/10

I was at IFBC, but the food from the "lab" didn't wow me. It was whimsical, interesting but fantastically delicious? Not so much.

chefjd

01:29:10 AM on

09/25/10

look, i have eaten at Alinea, The Fat Duck, Bazaar, commerc 24 in barcelona, and all i can say is the people that knock this cuisine have not had it done well. If anything, the food i had at these places gave me a real sense of the chef and his vision. But again, if you don't like the technique, then you probably should avoid these kind of restaurants. Most of these places have long waiting lists anyway.

crpaulk

12:30:40 AM on

09/25/10

Amy !

Were you at the IFBC in Seattle? I always have made fun of molecular gastronomy until I tried the sampling from Modernist Cuisine at the IFBC. Still trying to figure out how to do that!

marin215

10:15:49 PM on

09/24/10

Thanks for this, Amy Sherman. I've been thinking about this and I feel like this trend is both hugely elitist and probably a reaction to more people attempting to care about making real, good food at home...so some chefs are going space age. Eh.

sheilazb

08:27:40 PM on

09/24/10