Are we so bored with our food that we need to find new and sometimes freaky ways to deliver the very same flavors we've gotten extremely used to over the last millennium of eating? I understand the artistry behind Molecular Gastronomy but I've always wondered why it was neccessary for the diner to surrender himself to the experience in order to partake in the particular "magic" the kitchen was producing. Now I've yet to make my way to El Bulli outside Barcelona, Ferran Adria's world class restaurant and undisputed Mecca of MG. (It is a primary mission in my life by the way to get there) I gladly join the throngs of culinarians hailing Ferran Adria as a genius. After all, he was the brave and forward thinking first cook to imagine the possibilities of this new way of cooking. I'm not calling all the other disciple of the practice charlatans either. Wily Dufrense and Grant Achatz are among the elite club of molecular practitioners who deserve every bit of praise they've received. They are just a few of the artistic pioneers who truly understand this new art form and have helped pushed it's boundaries like any good visionary artists should. But (and its a big one folks) the process put forth, first by the master himself Ferran adria of El Bulli, was to perform this culinary prestidigitation in a two and sometimes three hour showcase comprised of several dozen tastings, one more spectacular than the other. Each dish a work of art on to itself. In his pictorial journal "A Day At El Bulli", you begin to understand the hard work and dedication it takes to be an artist of his metal. But I always wondered tow things. Why can't the guest order from a menu and why are so many of the dishes artsy analogs of ordinary food.
Jose Andres has finally broken this mold, somewhat at Bazaar. In a recent review by New York Times critic Frank Bruni, he lauds Chef Andres for finally taking that first step showcasing the cutting edge his cooking style side by side with more traditional methods. For instance, Bruni waxes poetically on a dish of old world stuffed olives paired with orbs of olive essence trapped in a thin membrane (of what we're not sure) each orb delicatley placed in its own porcelain spoon. Bruni describes this dish as an attempt by the artist/Chef to allow us to compare the two worlds of cooking side by side. Ok, but what I got out of it was why bother with the orbs of olive essence if all the Chef is trying to do is fool us into thinking these are really olives. Why not just give me olives!! The way I see it it's kind of like trying to make a violin sound like a french horn. Sure it may be possible on some level, but why try. If you want to listen to a French horn, play a French horn. If you want to eat an olive...well you get the point.
So is it just culinary boredom that's opened this window into a world where Chefs try make things taste and look like their real counterparts? Wily Dufesne is famous for his eggs. Concoctions made of coconut whites and mango yolks, ok that's fun but what's the point other than the novelty. Great cooking should be more than just novelty. The last real breakthrough in cuisine was nearly 100 years ago when August Escoffier took us from the pomp and contrived cooking of Careme to the style of cooking we have today. Escoffier's cuisine demanded the Chef must understand the flavors, textures and characters of his ingredients. A cuisine who's simple rules demanded that everything on the plate be edible and the presentation of the food be recognizable as food. As an artistic force Molecular Gastronomy is expected to break these rules. All I've got to say is why? If it's art for art's sake, then I understand. But a cuisine needs to be more than that if it's going to be called cooking. Sure it's beautiful, fun, different and new...but for now I see it taking the same path as Nouvelle Cuisine that made a big splash nearly 40 years ago, then faded into anonymity leaving behind a method for making lighter sauces (good) and a presentation style (bad) that still reverberates like a fading echo through the kitchens of many old school Chefs. Molecular Gastronomy may be hurtling towards the same fate faster than Nouvelle Cuisine ever did because the specialized tools, equipment and chemicals are expensive and inaccessible to the average Chef. Besides in the latest issue of Saveur, their Dining in America issue, they listed their 12 restaurants that mattered. Not one sported a kitchen with a tank of liquid nitrogen.
Comments