That said, I do understand the consumers’ hesitance to accept something with a daunting title of “molecular gastronomy.” It sounds cold, scientific, laborious… pardon the pun. It’s not molecular at all – In fact, it’s just as scientific as applying heat to seer a piece of meat to reach a specific level of doneness. I suspect most people have grilled a burger, steak, veggie, something. What Achatz, Adia, Blumenthal are trying to do is make sense of what it means to do so and discover, if there is, a better way to do things.

For me, I don’t need a name for it but if I did, perhaps “gastronomic jazz” would be an appropriate fit.

You can check it out here.

Molecular Gastronomy?

Its when you view food as science. I’ve gone back to college to study Physics and Chemistry and M.G. cooking could very well be a classroom experiment to prove some law of ionization or imcomplete combustion, etc.

Its the science of food as a molecular compound, and how those compounds can be manipulated (but still remain edible food).

All of this talk and look who wins the James Beard Award for Top Chef.

Your waiter will appear bearing a small steel contraption. Wires radiate up and out, like the skeleton of an upside-down umbrella. Snuggled into those spokes will be a small bunch of grapes, but the grapes are gone—all but two, which still cling to their denuded branch, partly visible through a lacy, paper-thin wrapping of toast. It won’t look like food, exactly, but you’re in a restaurant and this seems to be your first course and you’re hungry, so you will pick up the whole weird mess by the stem, dangle it over your mouth, Roman emperor-style, and bite. The outside will be crisp; inside will be something juicy. A grape, of course. But there will be something else, something sticky and totally, utterly familiar. You’ve known this taste since before you could tie your own shoes. A peanut butter and jelly sandwich! And you will wonder: Just what kind of restaurant is this, anyway?

It’s called Alinea, and when it opens in Chicago this month, I predict that it will quickly prove itself one of America’s most unusual, provocative, challenging and entertaining restaurants. Also, I’ll bet, one of its best. <<<

enough said… google more if you will

When tradition becomes the rule, the atmosphere becomes stifling and creativity suffers. Sometimes, “traditionalist” and “reactionary” become interchangeable, and that is always a bad thing.

Whether an experiment works or not, the fact that it happened is valid, and even if it fails, there’s always another step to take. Plus, if you don’t like it, don’t eat it!

I think the former is born out curiosity and innovation while the latter is born out of a comfort with the familiar, easy, and predictable. Everybody’s got some of both, just the mixes are different.

It doesn’t always work, but I’d rather see somebody swing for the fence now and then.

What is “Molecular Gastronomy?”
Food modified/synthesized/ and conceived in Science including all the artificial flavoring I have ranted about to some’s dismay.

There are several places that I don’t think you can easily label. For example, Schwa (Yes, it’s all tasting menu all the time, but that isn’t very useful, is it?), Sook Harbour House (Well, we can list ingredients, but that doesn’t tell the story, now, does it?) and no doubt a whole bunch of others.

Unless you can definitively state that a place is, for example, a French bistro or a Northern Italian place, labels only serve to limit expectations.

So things that are too new to be “traditions” shouldn’t get labeled? Why make that distinction?

Cuisine is defined as “a style or method of cooking, esp. as characteristic of a particular country, region, or establishment”. If these places share a style or method of cooking (and they do to at least some degree), they DO have a cuisine.

Luis, you seem so fixated on spam and cheetos that you’re not even capable of keeping your mind open enough to even think about what these restaurants are doing. Let us know when you’re done with the knee jerk reactions and actually willing to participate in a discussion.

Of course you wouldn’t ask the chef for a competitor, I’m talking about if you were going to ask a friend or a restaurant critic. You don’t think it’s useful to be able to describe different kinds of restaurants?

“However, I frequently see reviews posted where the writer is desperately hunting for a label for a new place and comes up with something utterly absurd, like “Korean-inspired Nouveau-American with a French influence.”

What’s the alternative? Just say “I can’t describe it, but trust me, it’s really good…”? Useless.

“What in blazes are we supposed to make of that?”

That is combines elements of the things listed? Sure, it’s awkward, but it’s more useful than nothing.

“I think it’s nonsense. Tell me what you ate, tell me if you liked it or not, describe the menu and leave it at that. I think the majority of the dining public is bright enough to make a decision based on that, don’t you?”

Sure, that will work. But if the menu is made up of Korean and French elements, isn’t that just going to be what you’re going to end up describing?