"Molecular Gastronomy" and BUHLEENEE

Just so you know, Top Chef's planned reruns of episode 2 today are right smack in my prime time with my guy, so I don't know if I'll get a chance to fill in my notes today. Friday rerun is a little earlier so it's more likely I'll get to it then, so hopefully expanded recaps will be up over the weekend.

Anyhow, just a few morning comments after reading blogs.

I think Ted Allen and I were dipping into the same collective unconsciousness... he not only mentions the blini pronunciation (and spells the mispronunciation similarly) but also he doesn't like the term "Molecular Gastronomy" either and like me, isn't sure why people were expecting miracles from farmer's market meat.

Anyhow, I've been meaning to write about my problem with That Term, so here we go: while the chefs who use the techniques are definitely into the science behind why certain foods combine well and how the foods react to different ways of preparing them, they aren't generally toting around electron microscopes, as far as I know, unless a miniaturized one of those is being sold next to immersion blenders and I didn't notice. Unless they're actually into the details of how the molecules are reacting to their changes, they're not really doing molecular anything at the time they're cooking... and besides which, knowing the results of scientific experimentation and incorporating them is not the same as being the scientist. Either that, or I am a physicist every time I freeze something. Take your pick.

I like the term "food science". I suppose the problem with using it officially is that "food science" has a specific, broad meaning, but on the other hand, it's a meaning that includes all of the little bits that go into the big MG term. (Technically MG is a subset of "food science", but the people who use the term are doing some of the related fields, too, albeit perhaps on another level than organized science.) But in context, it gets the point across, and some people do use it, and I prefer the term, myself.

In fact, I actually like the concept. The idea of, for instance, taking a list of food esters and matching things up based on that list that you might otherwise never think to put together is just neat. I'm sure the results aren't always the best, but that's true no matter how you select ingredients. And I think the little physical property tricks you can pull by the right combinations of ingredients and tools could probably result in some really interesting textures... and as someone who is particularly picky about food texture as well as taste (there are several foods where I like the taste but hate the texture and therefore avoid them) I'm all for finding new ways to present textures. Maybe someone can make me some artichokes I like.

Last on the anti-use-of-this-term, there's a psychological factor. People who like throwing around the term Molecular Gastronomy every 5 minutes seem to be really full of themselves... and people who hear the term reject the concept out of hand because of it. At this point it's hard not to wince when you hear the term... which is probably why Richard is so self-conscious about it and why we didn't hear it from Andrew at all even while he was using those techniques.

And this could be a whole post by itself, but while I've got the editor open, I also wanted to note a few more things:

• Ted Allen and I are joined by Rocco in the detest of the three-syllable "blini" pronunciation.


• Harold makes a really funny little "not mentioning any names" comment regarding food science, Richard, and Other People.


• Tom and Gail both were suitably harsh on Nikki's decisions but go into a bit more detail about why Valerie's were worse, and I'm feeling a little less annoyed after reading them.

I thought I had something more than that to say but it's escaped me, so I'll leave you to enjoy your morning coffee in peace.

Edit: No, I do have one more thing to say. There's a bio & interview of Wylie Dufresne up that goes well with my ranting about MG, specifically this bit here:

Bravotv.com: More generally: What is molecular gastronomy?
At this point, it means many things to many different people. The term was coined by a scientist to explain the relationship between cooking and science, but it has gone on to encompass more.

Bravotv.com: What do you think most people's misperception about it is?
I think the term is unfortunate in that it has a clinical aspect and makes people think of lab coats. It sounds as if the human element has been removed from the cooking process. I like to think of it as a term that just refers to the information that enables a chef to achieve certain goals, a scientific means to an end that still requires all of the human side of cooking. Ideally, it assists in making us better cooks.

Bravotv.com: Do you think Top Chef has made the concept of molecular gastronomy more well-known and accessible? Are you surprised with how Top Chef fans have embraced it after seeing chefs, especially Marcel, use it?
For better or for worse, Marcel has increased awareness. But chefs are now distancing themselves from the term because of the connotations it conveys.

Okay. Now you may have your morning coffee.