« Butter-Poached Lobster Tail, Curry-Glazed Carrots, Peanut Powder, Coconut Milk Foam | Main | 18-Hour Pork Belly, Mojo de Ajo, Membrillo, Saffron Valencia Rice, Red Onion »

Agreed that many people now know it as that (though not MOST people...most people don't have a clue about the food world). Like pornography, it's hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

However, it IS a misnomer, or at least a term with various definitions, some more commonly used than others. While some restaurants like Moto and Minibar are very much driven by 'molecular gastronomy', there are plenty of others that use some of its 'discoveries' to varying degrees. I've never worked in a restaurant that could be classified as serving 'molecular gastronomy' (far from it), but in most of these restaurants, I used almost all of the powders and tricks from Alinea's 'postmodern pantry' in one way or another. The Ultra-Tex 3, for example, was developed by a bunch of hippies in the seventies (for a reason I can't remember, but it's something funny), then sold to large-scale food manufacturers to increase creaminess of certain products, and then finally found its way into fine dining kitchens. A lot of other things, like tapioca starches and agar, have been used in Asian cuisines for a long time. And of course, Ferran Adria has been doing his shtick for around twenty years, and has had lots of disciples, most of whom haven't gone on to open mini El Bullis themselves.

Of course, 'molecular gastronomy' refers more generally to the application of precise science to cooking to find the best practices for certain culinary goals (as coined by Herve This), which is why I don't think you can say it's "what modern cooking is called." Some modern cooking may have BENEFITED from the works of This and Harold McGee and chefs like Grant Achatz and Heston Blumenthal, but it's a stretch to say that modern cooking, or even the eventual path of modern cooking, will lead to a bunch of restaurants in the mold of Alinea, El Bulli, Mugaritz and the Fat Duck. There are still only a handful of such restaurants in the world, and many of these types of restaurants have failed. Cooking is a craft at heart, not an artistic movement, and while there are clearly certain identifiable trends in cooking, I think that to most chefs, cooking will always just be cooking. Some will borrow from 'molecular gastronomy' just like some will borrow flavors from Italian cuisine and some will choose to use wood-burning ovens instead of regular gas ovens, but in the end, it's just cooking, and 'molecular gastronomy' is just another set of tools.

There's a famous chef (I forget who), who when asked the same question that Chang was asked, replied that "all cooking has been about molecular gastronomy." His point is that all cuisine has been subject to improvements based on science and technology way before Herve This was even born. Sure, we know even more now, but I don't think music was made 'better' by the invention of the synthesizer. It just gave us another tool to work with.

I think that in the future, we'll see strict 'molecular gastronomy' restaurants like Minibar go away. Alinea will be around because its food isn't really grounded in molecular gastronomy but in wild and playful presentations and technically refined cuisine. The terrible places, like Farrah Olivia in Alexandria (you been there? I think it's absolutely awful) will disappear very quickly.

When I think about this trend, I remind myself of the similar trend of fusion cuisine, which peaked in the mid to late nineties and has since fallen off the face of the earth (especially Asian fusion). Of course, the people who were good at it (Jean-Georges, for example), are still doing it, and doing it well. However, the term has fallen out of favor completely, at least in the upper echelons of gastronomy. In its wake, it has left us more aware of Asian techniques and ingredients, which many people take for granted nowadays but are very much part of our culinary lexicon (even in France!) thanks to the work of fusion chefs.

To recap: I agree with Chang that it's stupid to reject 'molecular gastronomy' out of hand. However, it's equally stupid to limit oneself to the culinary vision of just one or two chefs and to feel the need to base one's food on a series of very limited techniques. Yes, spherification is cool, as are fluid gels, but creating a dish is about much more than simply applying 'cool' techniques.

(Also, El Bulli is a museum, not a restaurant. A museum I'd very much like to go to - 3 years running of failed applications! - but a museum nonetheless.)

Posted by: The Gourmet Pig at February 16, 2009 1:31 PM

I agree with pretty much everything you say. I wrote my post in the interest of brevity, but what I really mean is that the effort to apply scientific understanding to cooking will now always carry the label molecular gastronomy. That includes things chefs have been doing for fifty years. When chefs do them now, there's an awareness that what they are doing is, in some sense, an application of science as well as craft.

In the same way, lots of restaurants make dishes that incorporate ingredients and techniques brought to the fore by fusion cuisine. We don't say that a restaurant is an Asian fusion restaurant whenever it uses sesame oil or sriracha. But we might still say that a dish incorporates Asian fusion elements.

In the same way, I don't really think of any restaurants as being "molecular gastronomy restaurants," but a whole lot of restaurants incorporate molecular gastronomy methods. If a restaurant is using postmodern pantry ingredients, it isn't a molecular gastronomy restaurant (or else nearly all high end restaurants would be be molecular gastronomy restaurants), but it is incorporating molecular gastronomy ingredients. And YES, that is very much a misnomer. But it's what they're called in the terminology of the media and that part of the dining public that is aware of molecular gastronomy at all.

I did eat at Farrah Olivia, and thought it was good! We got very few molecular gastronomy elements (ha!) through the course of a meal. We got one alginate sphere as part of a larger dish, one maltodextrin based powder, and some mint "caviar" to go with a lamb dish. The latter two elements were nearly useless and should have been left off. The spherified persimmon with a cinnamon roasted quail was great. It certainly wasn't perfect, but I'd definitely go back. If you go to "Categories" then "Restaurants" on the menu to the right, you can find my post about Farrah Olivia.

For that matter, minibar was, to a much greater degree than I expected, based on careful and unexpected techniques and presentations, rather than just molecular gastronomy type stuff. Probably 2/3 of the dishes didn't involve anything my Mom wouldn't have understood.

Posted by: Barzelay at February 16, 2009 4:39 PM

Yeah, after I posted my tirade, I realized that that's what you were probably saying, and not implying that modern cooking (or the future of cooking) = MG. Still, I think it's not good to position MG as particularly impressive or the mark of a great cook.

When I think of all the meals I've had that have had a stronger MG bent (I'm calling it MG now, btw), they've all seemed very amateurish to me, with the exception of Alinea. Of course, in absolute terms, I had no problems with most of the food. As a question of value, though, the fine dining prices weren't warranted. Farrah Olivia was the worst, for me, and Tailor was a close second worst (though not because of a real MG bent, but because I thought most flavor combos were horrendous and the execution was sub-par...though desserts were very good) but even meals like wd-50 have become question marks to me compared to meals like Manresa. After eating at wd-50, I thought it was a pretty solid tasting menu. However, when I do a price comparison, it seems that a lot of my dollars are going to spending time making things look cool, as opposed to focusing on perfection. I went back and read my review of wd-50 (http://thegourmetpiggy.blogspot.com/2007/07/wd-50.html), and it's interesting to see how much my view on that meal has changed. The knot foie, for example, makes little sense to me. Sure, the dish tasted good, but it wasn't a perfect foie presentation, and I'm sure that the knot technique and the labor associated with brought in costs that could have been better spent somewhere else. This may be a cold way of looking at things, but I think these types of parlor tricks serve mainly to impress clap-happy diners instead of elevating anything. Maybe he could have focused on the horrendous sweetbread dish or the 'pebbles' that taste like combos. Of course, it would be a poor argument to say that chefs who focus on MG will automatically produce substandard food. However, there seems to be something about the focus on form that makes certain chefs deviate from perfecting the craft of cooking and the art of conceiving of dishes. At Manresa, I felt that everything started as an idea for a dish, rather than as a way to expose a technique or with a goal to shock the palate. To recap this convoluted speech...I just don't think this is what "modern" cooking is, and a lot of times, I think it can detract from proper craftsmanship.

(I took a look at the Farrah Olivia pics, and browsed your restaurant pics section. Nice shots! What camera do you use? I really need to buy something decent. As for Farrah Olivia, I will admit that we went there when they first opened, and that they had extended their restaurant week menu. However, it was a Tuesday night, and there was no one in the restaurant, and still the execution was piss poor. However, the main jist I got from his food is that it's poorly conceived, trying to fool the undiscerning diner with silly presentations and magic tricks. I thought the presentations looked so amateurish. Each component was on its own, which is 'deconstruction' taken to whole new level. Really, it just makes the food get colder quickly. However, the most ridiculous dish we had was a deconstructed steak tartare (why do people still do 'deconstructed' dishes when they hardly ever work?...although that clam chowder at minibar sounds cool). The presentation had to 'pylons' made of steak supporting a 'bridge' made of a cracker with a quail egg on top. The rest of the seasonings came on the side. He had included a harissa powder, which would have been much better in non-powder form. Basically, the dish was just difficult to eat. Since tartare should be combined thoroughly, it was hard to do with the plating without making a mess. That guy really loves his powders...or at least that night he did, as they were on almost every dish. In general though, I didn't think the food tasted good. Pedestrian flavors and poor execution. Maybe it's gotten better since then. But top 5 restaurants in DC? Even you just meant 'top 5 fine dining restaurants in DC', Palena, Komi, Obelisk, CityZen and Restaurant Eve (and I'm assuming minibar) are easily better, and I can think of quite a few others...and Babbo's food is not exciting?! I find it very exciting to taste Italian food prepared so expertly in the US...not that easy to find!)

Posted by: The Gourmet Pig at February 17, 2009 2:50 PM

Babbo was good, but I stand by my statement that it was not exciting. Farrah Olivia was good, but I admit that my perspective has changed a bit since I wrote that review. I'm less easily impressed now. Still, several of his dishes were great combinations where, if there was any MG bullshit tacked on, it didn't detract. The BBQ lamb? Delicious. The cinammon roasted quail with figs? Delicious. The spiced venison loin? Delicious. Sadly, I never tried Obelisk, CityZen, or Restaurant Eve.

Regarding wd-50, I only posted pictures, and could never work up the motivation to write about it, because it was so damn disappointing. I have mentioned several times on this blog that, although many things at wd-50 were good individually, it was one of the most disappointing, least satisfying meals I've ever had. Knot foie looks cool, but in the end it just means more of the foie is left smeared across the giant plate. The combos dish was good as a snack, but not what I hoped for in fine dining. The cuttlefish and crab tail dishes seemed almost specifically designed to be as bland as possible. So while I can look back on those pictures and say, "that looked cool," I certainly do not view that experience as the pinnacle of cuisine.

Posted by: Barzelay at February 17, 2009 3:06 PM

Totally agreed on wd-50. I also think I got a particularly bad menu (and it seems like you went around same time, so did you). I went back this summer, didn't order the tasting, and it was much better, though still not worthy of the accolades.

At least, we'll always have Komi!

Posted by: The Gourmet Pig at February 17, 2009 11:18 PM

I also think that I got a particularly bad menu at wd-50. I'm still wary of tasting menus because of that experience. I kept seeing yummy-looking stuff going out to other tables, while we kept getting the "challenging" dishes. Worse yet, we went the day after they found out they got 3 stars, so they'd apparently all been up partying the whole night before.

Oh, and I really liked Tailor, but I didn't do a full meal there. In an epic culinary day, we went to Jean-Georges for lunch, Sushi Yasuda for a light pre-theater meal, then Tailor for a post-theater snack. At Tailor, three of us split 2 savory dishes (his two most widely regarded dishes--the pork belly with miso-butterscotch, and the peekytoe crab with pineapple and serrano ham) and 3 desserts. The two savory dishes were both awesome. 2 of the 3 desserts were great, with one having some excellent components but being ruined by a mustard ice cream that was one of the foulest things I've tasted.

By the way, it may have opened after you left, but one of the best meals I had in DC ended up being at Proof. Nothing fancy, just delicious, mid-priced food that was awesome.

Posted by: Barzelay at February 18, 2009 8:30 AM

Mr. T. and I didn't think that Proof was mid-priced....Yikes!

Posted by: Mrs. T. at February 18, 2009 3:39 PM

Of course, it depends on your definition of mid-priced. But in my opinion, entrees in the $20-30 range is mid-priced. Considering that you ate at The French Laundry a couple months later, I think you can understand where I'm coming from.

Posted by: Barzelay at February 18, 2009 4:04 PM

David,
A meal is never Mid-priced when feeding you, Jeanette, Betty and Jason since we don't just eat main courses! I would put French Laundry in a class of once in a lifetime experiences with an astronomical cost. FL was worth the once in a lifetime visit as Mr. T. and I would agree that the food and service ewxperience was the best that we have had in our 50+ years. I hope the 4 of you agree. We can't wait to hear your comments personally :-)

Posted by: Mrs. T. at February 19, 2009 4:38 AM

Okay, well, given what we've spent on a lot of other restaurants in the $100/person range (far less than our upcoming TFL experience), Proof, at around $40/person before tax, tip, and alcohol, is a mid-priced restaurant for us. Of course, your generosity in treating a large party to a mid-priced restaurant certainly makes for high-priced meal, overall.

Posted by: Barzelay at February 19, 2009 12:28 PM

Cooking is cooking. Before it was unheard of to cook anywhere else then from an open fire. now we have induction cooking, sous vide, vacuum packers, and the texturas.

Molecular gastronomy is what modern cooking has been labeled as. some people understand it better this way. If you are a cook, however, there are just more modern cooking techniques at our disposal so its just cooking or an evolution of cooking.

In my expereince people use the term molecular gastronomy because they cant understand whats going on on the scientific level. once you understand it its just cooking.

Posted by: roberto pengson at April 14, 2009 7:06 PM