Molecular Gastronomy and Abstract Art

[Ericandblueboy]

I'm not an artist but I've studied art history - which simply makes me aware of how to look at abstract art. If my understanding of the point behind abstract art is correct, then my interpretation of a piece of abstract art cannot be more or less correct than someone else's. Is molecular gastronomy edible abstract art? Assuming the food is cooked perfectly, can different people nevertheless reach diametrically opposed conclusions about the food and neither can be right nor wrong?

Don wrote:

Molecular Gastronomy might be confusing to some critics, but it's not confusing at all to me...Learn about it, and if you don't personally like (or aren't sure), then keep studying - one sign of a good critic is to overcome personal dislikes and tates and uncertainties, and still be able to evaluate all types of styles and cutting-edge movements fairly.

It certain seems like molecular gastronomy and abstract art both require the viewer/diner to have an open mind, and undertand the basics of the concept. Thereafter, isn't it subject to personal interpretation that can be neither right nor wrong? If so, then it's perfectly okay to disagree with the likes of Tom and Todd, but that doesn't make you right or them wrong and vice versa.

[mtureck]

Yes, and no. You can increase your appreciation of art or food with study, but both are really about your initial, visceral reaction. Saying you have to understand a type of cuisine, or understand its concepts before you're allowed to have a valid opinion of how it tastes is just plain silly. You put the food into your mouth, if it tastes good, it tastes good. If it tastes bad, it tastes bad. Knowing the science behind your meal might make you appreciate it more, but it shouldn't make you like it more.

The bottom line...taste is subjective. Period.

[Waitman]

I'm not an artist but I've studied art history - which simply makes me aware of how to look at abstract art. If my understanding of the point behind abstract art is correct, then my interpretation of a piece of abstract art cannot be more or less correct than someone else's. Is molecular gastronomy edible abstract art? Assuming the food is cooked perfectly, can different people nevertheless reach diametrically opposed conclusions about the food and neither can be right nor wrong?

Don wrote:

Molecular Gastronomy might be confusing to some critics, but it's not

confusing at all to me...Learn about it, and if you don't personally

like (or aren't sure), then keep studying - one sign of a good critic is

to overcome personal dislikes and tates and uncertainties, and still be

able to evaluate all types of styles and cutting-edge movements fairly.

It certain seems like molecular gastronomy and abstract art both require the viewer/diner to have an open mind, and undertand the basics of the concept. Thereafter, isn't it subject to personal interpretation that can be neither right nor wrong? If so, then it's perfectly okay to disagree with the likes of Tom and Todd, but that doesn't make you right or them wrong and vice versa.

Or, possibly, like most art, which does not end up in museums or art history books,it's largely forgettable stuff produced by people seeking novelty for its own sake or producing lame knock-offs of more talented artists. And used as as a cultural signifier to place oneself above the masses ("it's sad that you can't see the genius in Pollack's oevre. Fortunately, you can still buy Thomas Kincaid paintings for your tacky little home.").

I actually like much abstract art, by the way. But, though I keep an open mind, I have never been particularly impressed by molecular gastronomy, and I'm not persuaded that it's because I don't "understand the basics of the concept."

Another "sign of a good critic" critic is to stand steadfast in the face elitist trends and elite trendsetters and point out that the Emperors underwear is showing.

If I hit the lottery, you're all invited to the Hirschorn and Minibar, where we'll duke this out over many courses and a few bottles of decent wine.

[Ericandblueboy]

Saying you have to understand a type of cuisine, or understand its concepts before you're allowed to have a valid opinion of how it tastes is just plain silly. You put the food into your mouth, if it tastes good, it tastes good. If it tastes bad, it tastes bad. Knowing the science behind your meal might make you appreciate it more, but it shouldn't make you like it more.

The bottom line...taste is subjective. Period.

I agree with you about how the food tastes, that is subjective but I'm not talking about taste alone. Just because I don't like the taste of something, doesn't necessarily make that thing bad. My question is whether molecular gastronomy is like abstract art - which requires you to think about the medium, the colors, the compositioning, etc. and then arrive at your own personal interpretation. If you just taste the food without analysis, is that similar to looking at abstract art without analysis? Has food really become edible abstract art?

[deangold]

There is the "case" of the art installation I believe it was at the Tate. The janitor thinking it was trash on the floor, threw it out. It is fact was an artwork worth a lot of money. I have never "Snopes"ed it as I am too enamored of the story to find out it was made up.

[lperry]

I agree with you about how the food tastes, that is subjective but I'm not talking about taste alone. Just because I don't like the taste of something, doesn't necessarily make that thing bad. My question is whether molecular gastronomy is like abstract art - which requires you to think about the medium, the colors, the compositioning, etc. and then arrive at your own personal interpretation. If you just taste the food without analysis, is that similar to looking at abstract art without analysis? Has food really become edible abstract art?

I think the two are not directly comparable, as art and food address two different needs. One is of the mind, the other of the body.

I'll also throw in that, as a cat owner, I can't bring myself to put a "foam" in my mouth.

[Waitman]

There is the "case" of the art installation I believe it was at the Tate. The janitor thinking it was trash on the floor, threw it out. It is fact was an artwork worth a lot of money. I have never "Snopes"ed it as I am too enamored of the story to find out it was made up.

That would be the Tate Modern, I assume, and not the Tate.

[MC Horoscope]

"If you just taste the food without analysis, is that similar to looking at abstract art without analysis? Has food really become edible abstract art?"

I can't use abstract art as a basis of comparison, but maybe I can use jazz which I know better. I believe some listeners can appreciate avant garde jazz both with and without analysis. They appreciate the sound and the time (I do not), but they really seem to get the most out of it (and can talk about their experience!) if they can intelligently understand the references in it, the relationship between the piece and the history of jazz that has come before, etc.

When it comes to food, I think we can say our sense of taste and texture is certainly subjective, but this "artsy" food does have an objective relation to food and cultural history that may take some background to appreciate. I will have a different experience of an artsy take on a dish I have known all my life than an artsy take on something that is not in my background. I will have more legitimate things to say about the first dish than the second, wouldn't you think?

[MsDiPesto]

Couldn't find it on Snopes, but here it is from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3604278.stm

[Waitman]

There is the "case" of the art installation I believe it was at the Tate. The janitor thinking it was trash on the floor, threw it out. It is fact was an artwork worth a lot of money. I have never "Snopes"ed it as I am too enamored of the story to find out it was made up.

Couldn't find it on Snopes, but here it is from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3604278.stm

Years ago, when our eldest was still carriage-sized, Mrs. B and I wheeled him into the Whitney Biennial -- an aggressively avant-guard proof that the phrase "there's a fine line between clever and stupid" is especially true of the art world (with plentiful examples of each). His carriage had become a repository of all the detritus you might acquire on a warm morning in Manhattan but didn't feel like carrying around: guidebook, subway map, water bottles, sunglasses and so on, plus the usualy baby stuff. He was asleep, so at each gallery we'd park him in the middle and wander around the perimeter, artifying ourselves before meeting back, collecting the baby and strolling into the next room -- at which point we would often encounter an art aficionado hovering over the buggy, chin in hand, wondering what the artist was getting at with this particular found sculpture. The look on their faces as we pushed off -- shock and alarm followed immediately by sheepish embarrassment -- was almost as interesting as the art on the walls.

[darkstar965]

I'm not an artist but I've studied art history - which simply makes me aware of how to look at abstract art. If my understanding of the point behind abstract art is correct, then my interpretation of a piece of abstract art cannot be more or less correct than someone else's. Is molecular gastronomy edible abstract art? Assuming the food is cooked perfectly, can different people nevertheless reach diametrically opposed conclusions about the food and neither can be right nor wrong? ...

Yes, and no. You can increase your appreciation of art or food with study, but both are really about your initial, visceral reaction. Saying you have to understand a type of cuisine, or understand its concepts before you're allowed to have a valid opinion of how it tastes is just plain silly. You put the food into your mouth, if it tastes good, it tastes good. If it tastes bad, it tastes bad. Knowing the science behind your meal might make you appreciate it more, but it shouldn't make you like it more.

The bottom line...taste is subjective. Period.

Or, possibly, like most art, which does not end up in museums or art history books,it's largely forgettable stuff produced by people seeking novelty for its own sake or producing lame knock-offs of more talented artists.

...

Another "sign of a good critic" critic is to stand steadfast in the face elitist trends and elite trendsetters and point out that the Emperors underwear is showing. ...

Interesting topic! I find myself agreeing with most everything above on this one, including the OP.

On one hand, I've tended to be the camp firmly not enamored by anything labeled "molecular gastronomy" (MG) since it first emerged (from Spain I guess). My thinking then, and still largely now, was that most actual manifestations of MG were, to me, cases of creators emphasizing creativity at the expense of great flavor/deliciousness and satisfying food. Some past experiences left me feeling ripped off and feeling very much like waitman expresses above. At the same time, and as Don wrote recently, there are many variations of MG emerging and I agree that seems a trend that will grow before and if it disappears. I have had a couple of meals in the past year that I enjoyed and wouldn't have labeled MG, but others labeled those same places MG restaurants. Maybe I'm seeing MG differently than I had. Or maybe MG is being defined differently. Not sure. But, I am sure mtureck's post above is my bottom line, too. For me, that's pretty absolute.

All said, it's always fun to discover new things and whether that's a new place, new ingredients or new ways of cooking, it's often very cool, educational and a lot of fun. When those things combine with great taste, I'm a fan. Agree no right or wrong.

[DonRocks]

I would be careful comparing molecular gastronomy to abstract art.

Molecular gastronomy is a method of production; abstract art is the product itself.

[mtureck]

I would be careful comparing molecular gastronomy to abstract art.

Molecular gastronomy is a method of production; abstract art is the product itself.

Not necessarily. One could argue that abstraction is a method of producing art, and that a food that has been "created" using MG is a product unto itself.

Either way, the end result is that both are can be experienced either blindly (literally, in the sense of the food, or figuratively, in viewing art without knowing any context behind it), or with added introspection.

[Anna Phor]

I think there's less room for such varied interpretation of foods as there is for varied interpretation of the arts, and I think the reason why is that eating is much more directly connected to the senses--and that human beings, as a whole, have less variation in their sensory perceptions than they do in their intellectual perceptions.

Intellectual perceptions of visual objects draw on an entire range of histories, allusions, references, experiences and knowledge, and because the range is so large, each person is likely to have a unique personal combination of taste shaped by background and personality. Perhaps I love Van Gogh and despise Monet, and your taste is entirely the opposite.

There's a much much smaller range of variation in terms of food. First off, the sense is just simply less fine-grained than our vision or our hearing. Second, it serves an important health purpose--there's a reason why although our tastes in artwork might vary tremendously, there's really not anybody who enjoys the taste of spoiled milk. I think these are two reasons why there's generally more convergence and consensus on what constitutes good food, and not so much in what constitutes good art!

I think the proper comparison might be with futurist foods

[Barbara]

It's been my experience that just like there is "comfort" food, there is also "comfort" art--the later is something plentiful in this town, for the price of bus/Metro/parking fares. Modern, Abstract art is on offer for the same price. The problem is that "Abstract" food comes at a stiff price. If you don't like what you see, then what have you lost but a bit of time along with the bus fare? If you don't like the food, however, you are out not only time but, usually, lots of $$$. And, you still might be hungry enough to have to find some more food at still more $. I think that's why a disappointing meal has more consequence than time spent looking at disappointing artwork. I am reminded of an exhibition at the Hirshorn (sp?) a year or so ago. My 93 year-old neighbor had a relative with some connection to the exhibit and he gave her a couple of tickets to the kick-off party. We absolutely chowed down on the catered food--which was unexpectedly much better than we had anticipated--and more or less smirked at the "artwork." I still have no idea why it was considered worthy of such a production. Hey! We wound up getting a free, quite tasty, dinner out of the event! For the price of a cab.

[DonRocks]

For the price of a cab.

California or Argentine?

[Barbara]

California or Argentine?

Yellow.

[B.A.R.]

As someone who read Harold McGee way before Harold McGee was cool, and who has been keenly interested in the development of molecular gastronomy, you can count me as someone who greatly appreciates the skill, precision, imagination, artistry and execution of Adria, Blumenthal, Dufresne, Cantu, etc.

But just as I appreciate the whimsy, beauty, and form of these dishes, very few have I enjoyed eating. Like, less than 10%. So, if molecular gastronomy is here to stay, I will continue to learn about it, and study it, and admire it, but I am pretty much done eating it. Pass the boudin blanc.

[darkstar965]

I think there's less room for such varied interpretation of foods as there is for varied interpretation of the arts, and I think the reason why is that eating is much more directly connected to the senses--and that human beings, as a whole, have less variation in their sensory perceptions than they do in their intellectual perceptions.

Intellectual perceptions of visual objects draw on an entire range of histories, allusions, references, experiences and knowledge, and because the range is so large, each person is likely to have a unique personal combination of taste shaped by background and personality. Perhaps I love Van Gogh and despise Monet, and your taste is entirely the opposite.

There's a much much smaller range of variation in terms of food. First off, the sense is just simply less fine-grained than our vision or our hearing. Second, it serves an important health purpose--there's a reason why although our tastes in artwork might vary tremendously, there's really not anybody who enjoys the taste of spoiled milk. I think these are two reasons why there's generally more convergence and consensus on what constitutes good food, and not so much in what constitutes good art!

I think the proper comparison might be with futurist foods

^ This is really interesting and thought-provoking.

After considering it for a bit, I'm not as sure though. Clearly, there is a near-infinite number of works of art in the world with very large number of categorical labels whether "modern," "abstract," "impressionism," etc. But are our perceptions of art purely or even mostly "Intellectual?" I don't think so. Inasmuch as "sensory" relies on most or all five senses, I suppose one could argue that 1 or 2 (taste and smell) are almost never part of the mix in experiencing most traditional forms of art (thought that's not even always true). A painting is more one dimensional, usually removing taste, smell, touch and hearing from the equation. But then a movie reintroduces hearing and a symphony may even introduce touch. In any even, kjust because fewer senses are typically used for art that food, it doesn't necessarily follow that the intellectual isn't the opposite or at least similar.

Turning to food, I'd argue there is a similarly near-infinite number of dishes in the world with maybe a roughly equal number of categorical labels applied as with art. Also, that food and cooking also "... draw on an entire range of histories, allusions, references, experiences and knowledge, and because the range is so large, each person is likely to have a unique personal combination of taste shaped by background and personality."

While there is some consensus around "good food," the same could be said of "great art," particularly with famous works that have been instilled in the subconscious as 'great.' Most people recognize the Mona Lisa and Falling Water as beautiful or great, as example. And, when it comes to newer art (modern) and newer food (MG), they seem similarly likely to prompt diametrically opposed views in a way that new anything tends to do with humans wh are generally resistant to change by nature. Our own Suna topic made that pretty clear. Many loved what they experienced there while others (including the two local pro critics) hated it. The "spoiled milk" example probably isn't analogous to 'bad' or 'unpopular' art since the former is not as intended and at odds with the basic sense of taste. The analog to spoiled milk might be a water color painting that's crumpled up and at the bottom of a trash can unseen. That wouldn't be popular or admired because, like the milk, it isn't as intended by its creator and a sense (sight) has been rendered useless.

I think what I'm saying in summary is the differences between art and food perception maybe aren't as different as one might think. And, following on from that, there may actually not be more consensus around good or bad for one versus the other. My own anecdotal experience supports that whether in art museums, theaters or restaurants.

[Anna Blume]

I'm not an artist but I've studied art history - which simply makes me aware of how to look at abstract art. If my understanding of the point behind abstract art is correct, then my interpretation of a piece of abstract art cannot be more or less correct than someone else's. Is molecular gastronomy edible abstract art? Assuming the food is cooked perfectly, can different people nevertheless reach diametrically opposed conclusions about the food and neither can be right nor wrong?

...

It certain seems like molecular gastronomy and abstract art both require the viewer/diner to have an open mind, and undertand the basics of the concept. Thereafter, isn't it subject to personal interpretation that can be neither right nor wrong? If so, then it's perfectly okay to disagree with the likes of Tom and Todd, but that doesn't make you right or them wrong and vice versa.

I am very tired, so please forgive me if I am misinterpreting comments that I merely skimmed vs. gave a close, critical reading. I am not sure how the term "abstract art" is being used, first of all; it's a term that should be distinguished from nonrepresentational art. A work "abstracted" from nature or the world of human experience (including music) is usually one way the former is defined, for example, one of Whistler's Nocturnes or one of Kandinsky's paintings with discernible horses midst the colorful planes--as opposed to his famous nonrepresentational watercolor of 1913. Picasso's handlebars from a bicycle re-imagined as a bull's skull as opposed to one of Robert Morris's plywood boxes. Many of the artists you're grouping together couldn't care a tiddly-wat what you ericblueboy think or feel when you stand in front of them, though Klee would suggest you need a chair to sit and contemplate rather than stand. For one thing, they're dead. But were you to defy those leftist frogs, Chicago Schools and degenerate Yalies of lit crit and not reconfigure visual works of art into readerly texts, I do not believe you were ever meant to be Polonius looking up at clouds and seeing whatever you choose to see. Same with Sol LeWitt, Rothko and others who explore(d) what it means to create works of art devoid of representational content. (Malevich: If you want to see a cow, go to a field, not an art gallery. In other words, art is supposed to be art and not about something other than itself and its unique "vocabulary" of form.) Pollock may have called a canvas Blue Poles, say, suggesting abstraction (and thus an art-historical category coined by a critic), but in fact, his works were more about the process and a way of initiating white guys from the United States into the Western European cult of the Artist, fashioning the brushstroke as relic. He wasn't asking you to tie those poles to his Jungian philosophy and totems, nor would he agree that you'd be just as right to see the Blue Boy's gleaming satin in them wiggly lines...unless you really plied him with a whole lot of booze and gave him a bunch of commissions. In other words, you can be wrong, you can be very, wrong, in your characterization of an abstract or nonrepresentational work of visual art, especially if you assume it is meant to be interpreted.

[Barbara]

California or Argentine?

Yellow.

Make that Nigerian.

[darkstar965]

I am very tired, so please forgive me if I am misinterpreting comments that I merely skimmed vs. gave a close, critical reading. I am not sure how the term "abstract art" is being used, first of all; it's a term that should be distinguished from nonrepresentational art. A work "abstracted" from nature or the world of human experience (including music) is usually one way the former is defined, for example, one of Whistler's Nocturnes or one of Kandinsky's paintings with discernible horses midst the colorful planes--as opposed to his famous nonrepresentational watercolor of 1913. Picasso's handlebars from a bicycle re-imagined as a bull's skull as opposed to one of Robert Morris's plywood boxes. Many of the artists you're grouping together couldn't care a tiddly-wat what you ericblueboy think or feel when you stand in front of them, though Klee would suggest you need a chair to sit and contemplate rather than stand. For one thing, they're dead. But were you to defy those leftist frogs, Chicago Schools and degenerate Yalies of lit crit and not reconfigure visual works of art into readerly texts, I do not believe you were ever meant to be Polonius looking up at clouds and seeing whatever you choose to see. Same with Sol LeWitt, Rothko and others who explore(d) what it means to create works of art devoid of representational content. (Malevich: If you want to see a cow, go to a field, not an art gallery. In other words, art is supposed to be art and not about something other than itself and its unique "vocabulary" of form.) Pollock may have called a canvas Blue Poles, say, suggesting abstraction (and thus an art-historical category coined by a critic), but in fact, his works were more about the process and a way of initiating white guys from the United States into the Western European cult of the Artist, fashioning the brushstroke as relic. He wasn't asking you to tie those poles to his Jungian philosophy and totems, nor would he agree that you'd be just as right to see the Blue Boy's gleaming satin in them wiggly lines...unless you really plied him with a whole lot of booze and gave him a bunch of commissions. In other words, you can be wrong, you can be very, wrong, in your characterization of an abstract or nonrepresentational work of visual art, especially if you assume it is meant to be interpreted.

For "very tired," this is great stuff. I've now read it twice and will read it a few more times in the near future. One of the central points I think I'm reading is that, because artists (whether abstract or nonrepresentational) had something specific (or at least something they articulated or could articulate) in mind as they created, completed and then interpreted a work, that defines the "right" perception. Other reactions, while innocent and perhaps even interesting at times, are thus definitionally incorrect.

This prompts a question for Anna or others like her that know the art world much better than I do. I know I've read, watched or heard interviews with some modern artists in which they were asked what they intended to convey with a work. In some of these, the artist was better at explaining her motivation (or at least context in which the work was created) than an intended goal or objective of any kind. In some tellings, I know I've heard some artists shift the responsibility to the viewer or consumer of the art, some even taking delight in the different perceptions that people have. Does that at all call into question whether a regular consumer of art can be "wrong," particularly with a non-representation work? Or, are artists like my hypothetical lesser artists inconsistent with what nonrepresentational art is 'supposed to be?'

And, of course, whether right or wrong interpretation is proper with works of art, should an answer to that change one's opinion about molecular gastronomy? Does it make art and food less analogous than assumed from the start of this thread? Or, is it easier or harder to say that a creative chef (however defined) expects a certain perception and reaction to any dish presented and thus other reactions could be termed 'wrong?'

Finally, this is interesting because it is very multifaceted and variable depending on one's personal understanding, experience and knowledge of art. We've mostly used painting or drawing (with a couple mentions of music) as examples here. Add in sculpture, photography, architecture and film, and the the number of variables driving answers and opinion become even more complex. Maybe best addressed earlier in a day after a few cups of strong (but still high quality ) coffee.

[lion]

I'm not an artist but I've studied art history - which simply makes me aware of how to look at abstract art. If my understanding of the point behind abstract art is correct, then my interpretation of a piece of abstract art cannot be more or less correct than someone else's. Is molecular gastronomy edible abstract art? Assuming the food is cooked perfectly, can different people nevertheless reach diametrically opposed conclusions about the food and neither can be right nor wrong?

...

It certain seems like molecular gastronomy and abstract art both require the viewer/diner to have an open mind, and undertand the basics of the concept. Thereafter, isn't it subject to personal interpretation that can be neither right nor wrong? If so, then it's perfectly okay to disagree with the likes of Tom and Todd, but that doesn't make you right or them wrong and vice versa.

Molecular Gastronomy is an evolution of technique. The ideology of only appealing to the visual sense without regard to taste and smell as well, is a well worn criticism for food that occurred before the words 'Molecular Gastronomy' were used. Food that looked pretty but didn't taste well was not good. However, others might say that assertion was dependent upon the eye of the beholder.

So many of the more 'main stream' techniques used in Molecular Gastronomy were of course abducted from Chemical and Biological sciences. In these laboratories, these techniques were used to isolate and purify elements or compounds. Every age of cooking from outdoor wood fires, preserving and curing meats for the seasons, coal fires, trading spices across continents, etc... thru the history of human beings allowed for a new language of food to be created during the changes.

Looking at http://www.bullipedia.com, it is clear the goal is to disseminate information that has been investigated and learned. This is the model used in science, knowledge should be shared, which is how incremental and evolutional changes occur.

Regardless of the purity of a flavor or how it combines within a dish, it still has to capture the senses to create a taste that has significance. Something that you want to taste again.

In terms of local critics and their opinions, everyone is entitled to theirs. Can it make a difference if a restaurant is to survive? Of course. Personally, however I stopped reading critics reviews as a primary filter to choosing something. I would rather experience it, good or bad, because the experience will and should be unique to myself.

[Ericandblueboy]

I was wondering if by analysis and contemplation, you can learn to like something. So maybe it didn't taste good the first time, but the more you think about it, the more you appreciate and learn to enjoy the dish. In other words, can you acquire a taste for molecular gastronomy?

As for the difference between food and art, some chefs might argue food is art with another dimension (i.e., taste). Maybe one should think about why something is on a plate rather than just hoovering the food down.

[DonRocks]

I was wondering if by analysis and contemplation, you can learn to like something. So maybe it didn't taste good the first time, but the more you think about it, the more you appreciate and learn to enjoy the dish. In other words, can you acquire a taste for molecular gastronomy?

This cuts right into the heart of my "Tastes Good" <> (Not Equal To) "Is Good" philosophy that I've been beating to death over the years.

Molecular Gastronomy hasn't introduced any new taste to the food lexicon; it has resulted primarily in textural and thermal transplantation. So it's more a matter of getting comfortable with the notion of a cold, gelatinous orb tasting of Dover Sole than anything else (sometimes accompanied by the chipper bar chef, male, late 20s, standing there, waiting for you to Oohh and Aahh over the genius behind the preparation).

They say that once you've worked in a sausage factory, you'll never eat another sausage. I'm more comfortable in remaining ignorant about some of the chemistries behind Molecular Gastronomy; but then again, maybe not (I want to be a mysterious woman).

[mtureck]

Molecular Gastronomy hasn't introduced any new taste to the food lexicon; it has resulted primarily in textural and thermal transplantation. So it's more a matter of getting comfortable with the notion of a cold, gelatinous orb tasting of Dover Sole than anything else (sometimes accompanied by the chipper bar chef, male, late 20s, standing there, waiting for you to Oohh and Aahh over the genius behind the preparation).

I don't think there's ever been a better paragraph written to describe why some people hate the concept of MG.

[Anna Blume]

Molecular Gastronomy hasn't introduced any new taste to the food lexicon; it has resulted primarily in textural and thermal transplantation. So it's more a matter of getting comfortable with the notion of a cold, gelatinous orb tasting of Dover Sole than anything else (sometimes accompanied by the chipper bar chef, male, late 20s, standing there, waiting for you to Oohh and Aahh over the genius behind the preparation).

I don't think there's ever been a better paragraph written to describe why some people hate the concept of MG.

Keep in mind some of the folks accused of being MGists dislike the rubric ascribed to their cooking as well.

One could argue that "tastes good" is a rather simplistic criterion for evaluating food when it is the sole criterion for assessing quality. While I know a farmer who would argue for nutrition, I cannot imagine anything more immediate and central than flavor, but look at me: the context in which I eat is decidedly Western and late 20th- to early 21st-century.

Quibble about the term "MG" aside, to its credit, it elevates texture as an essential component of a dish, a criterion that, from what I understand, has long been more important in many Asian cultures than W. European/American ones.

We've got "Snap, crackle, POP!", true, and perhaps that's why culinary professionals who view their work as art like to play with Rice Krispies. Sounds, aroma, feeling of food upon the tongue (touch) and its transformation as it melts (temporal factors), architectural place settings, color, shape, composition (sight), and temperature as DR notes all create an interplay of senses that complement flavor, ideally. Results may not be your cup of tea, but we ought to give practitioners some credit for sincere engagement in their work, a respect for their materials and a desire to please guests as much as themselves and their staffs.

"If we push the boundaries of craftsmanship and artisanship, we see that they are not just mechanical skills but are actually an exploration of the very nature of the materials they employ, a challenging, a questioning of wood or stone materials. This changes our perspective." --Ai Weiweii

At the recent exhibition of the artist's works at The Hirshhorn, the first independent, free-standing sculpture on display in galleries upstairs was a towering, blocky wooden rectangle with metal bars on top and framing sides. Platform below. Planes on all four visible sides relatively flat. The work was a clearly a composite as opposed to a seamless block, almost resembling a miraculously compact wood pile with all its irregular planks and beams stacked as if pieces of a 3-dimensional puzzle; they seemed to have been designed to fit together from the beginning. Nonetheless, this work was assembled from demolished Chinese temples. Clear respect of materials places the artist at the nexus of his place of birth and the art movements he encountered in NYC as a student in the 80s. Amazing craftsmanship. Profound, non-verbal response to his country, history and his position in a chain (or chains) of tradition.

Can't similar things be said of Wylie, Grant, RJ et al whether you are into small plates and minibars or not? [Copyright]

[sheldman]

Not to take this very interesting discussion too far away from theories of aesthetics -

but to me, the analogy to modern/abstract/nonrepresentational art is also interesting because it calls to mind the enormous differences in the commercial (to be crass, "where's the money coming from?") aspects of the two practices (visual art, and food).

When we learn about modern/abstract/nonrepresentational art, and learn to enjoy or appreciate it despite any initial misgivings, we are able to access it without enormous expense - because of museums ($20 or so at MOMA, free in DC, and free or inexpensive through cheap reproduction). The artists who make a living at it, probably mostly do so because the prices for their original works are very high, and because there are a relative few who can/will pay to sustain the "industry." Some other artists make, without making a living.

When we eat at restaurants, by contrast, we pay the whole cost. And there are very few people who want to pay substantial money for food that gives the intellectual pleasure of understanding a challenging artist's work.

In practice, then, food is therefore more like music, or like art purchased for the home. There are not very many of us who buy records, or buy things to hang on our walls, in hopes that they will grow on us despite our initial shock and that we will learn something. (I do, to an extent, and maybe many DR.com readers do too. But more people listen to, and hang on their walls, the stuff that they "like" without hesitation.) When we venture outside comfort zone, it is much easier to convince ourselves to pay $20 for a meal that will expand our horizons (e.g., at a restaurant serving the food of a country or region that we don't know much about) than to pay $100 for a meal that might leave us scratching our heads.

One more thought, and then I will be quiet: I love Roy Lichtenstein's art. But I went to the retrospective at the National Gallery a few months ago, and left (after seeing a huge number of works) with a hollow feeling: that it was only "art about art" and not "art about anything else." Sort of like listening all day to rock and roll songs about rock and roll itself - just too much. A smaller portion is better. The danger of modernist/clever cuisine is that it is "food about food." If it has a viable future that is not just being a fringe for the few most prosperous and food-obsessed among us, maybe the route is to have *some elements* of it at a time, rather than a whole meal.

[DonRocks]

The danger of modernist/clever cuisine is that it is "food about food."

This is a deadly awesome sentence.

Early Molecular Gastronomy ... Making a Comeback.

[Anna Blume]

Martha Graham is a major force in modern dance, recognized for "primal" urgency in works often based on Ancient Greek myth and drama which she plumbed not so much for rarified, classical elements, but viewed in ways similar to the so-called "primitive" art and artifacts that left her contemporaries in the visual arts enthralled.

Choreographers such as Balanchine are credited for extracting the narrative impulse from many of their works in a desire to foreground dance itself, in many ways a more challenging endeavor in light of tradition-bound ballet than in modern dance which deliberately set itself up as rebellious and new (bare feet vs. toe shoes, etc.). You could argue that works assuming the titles of classical music are more referential than self-referential, but the idea is to embrace the purity of both arts: the dancer's art about the composer's art; movement about sound and the sensations they inspire.

In Florence, I rented an apartment in a working class neighborhood on the other side of the Arno and one of my major challenges was hiring a plumber to deal with a rather horrifying emergency. Hard to do with a very limited, specialized vocabulary that had little to do with contemporary life other than shopping and gaining entry into forbidden places. Boy, was I glad when neighbors and my landlady helped and the guy fixed the pipes and so on.

Why are plumbers admired as professionals who do plumbing solely about plumbing and artists have to fulfill some expectation of high-falauting profundity that reaches across time and culture to speak to everyone in a deeply meaningful way?

Why does a work of art have to be instantly accessible to everyone yet we don't expect a presentation at an academic conference of chemical engineers to make any sense unless we've also been trained in both the vocabulary and field(s) of specialization?

Since when is food about food a bad thing?

[sheldman]

...

Why are plumbers admired as professionals who do plumbing solely about plumbing and artists have to fulfill some expectation of high-falauting profundity that reaches across time and culture to speak to everyone in a deeply meaningful way?

Why does a work of art have to be instantly accessible to everyone yet we don't expect a presentation at an academic conference of chemical engineers to make any sense unless we've also been trained in both the vocabulary and field(s) of specialization?

Since when is food about food a bad thing?

If I am right that you are responding largely to me - I think that you misunderstood me. (If not responding largely to me, then I am misreading, and in any event don't mean to pick a fight.)

I don't think, and didn't say, that artists in any medium (visual, performance, food, whatever) "have to ... speak to everyone" or that their works "have to be instantly accessible to everyone" - and didn't even say or mean that "food about food is a bad thing." Artists in all media, including food, should by all means do what they want to do.

But when artists do something that appeals to a smallish group - or when artists want to push the envelope and do something that changes the way people perceive the form - artists are wise to figure out a way to fund that work, if the artists want to make art their source of income. For the "fine arts" (dance being among them, in our culture) this very often involves finding ways to make the rich willingly turn over lots of money, to build concert halls with their names over the door, to buy paintings and sculptures that cost tens of thousands of dollars, etc.

In the food-as-art world, I guess this is what Minibar has figured out (though I've never eaten there). Very few seats, with very high prices (so high that even most of the people in this city who care, were squirming and grumbling at the recent prices). The business model (combining high prices and exclusivity with an element of celebrity, drawing on a nationwide or worldwide audience) seems to work - and that's cool if that's what they want to do! Good for them.

I guess I was saying that, for me, "food about food" is better in smaller doses. That's just me - just as I would not want to listen to "Rock Around the Clock" (ugh) followed by "We Built This City on Rock and Roll" (double ugh) followed by several more songs about rock and roll.

[B.A.R.]

I agree with this.

"The molecular gastronomy cuisine has some good things about it," he said, "but I - I count my cooking by the looks of satisfaction on the faces of the people who have eaten my food. I don't want them to be impressed; I want them to be pleased." Andre Soltner