Jump to content

Molecular Gastronomy


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Molecular Gastronomy will be over when journalists stop responding to its facile developments.

 

It is the culinary equivalent to indecent exposure. Reaction is everything. If ignored, its proponents will hopefully seek solace in self-funded activities and it will die quicker than the hula-hoop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Molecular Gastronomy will be over when journalists stop responding to its facile developments.

 

It is the culinary equivalent to indecent exposure. Reaction is everything. If ignored, its proponents will hopefully seek solace in self-funded activities and it will die quicker than the hula-hoop.

 

It might be possible that people like the thing. Hula hoop lasted long enough for you to remember it 40 years post mortem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It might be possible that people like the thing.

 

Oh, I'm sure they do, but for the wrong reasons.

 

Hula hoop lasted long enough for you to remember it 40 years post mortem.

 

Poor analogy, sorry. The point is that MG is a fad. There may be some good in it, but it's not a cuisine. It has no goal other than to be conspicuously different. I went to school with kids like that. They were Goths, perhaps MG is Goth too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It might be possible that people like the thing.

 

Oh, I'm sure they do, but for the wrong reasons.

 

Hula hoop lasted long enough for you to remember it 40 years post mortem.

 

Poor analogy, sorry. The point is that MG is a fad. There may be some good in it, but it's not a cuisine. It has no goal other than to be conspicuously different. I went to school with kids like that. They were Goths, perhaps MG is Goth too.

 

MG is a fad.

MG is Goth too.

 

Let me check if I am those.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It might be possible that people like the thing.

 

Oh, I'm sure they do, but for the wrong reasons.

 

Hula hoop lasted long enough for you to remember it 40 years post mortem.

 

Poor analogy, sorry. The point is that MG is a fad. There may be some good in it, but it's not a cuisine. It has no goal other than to be conspicuously different. I went to school with kids like that. They were Goths, perhaps MG is Goth too.

 

MG is a fad.

MG is Goth too.

 

Let me check if I am those.

 

I get the sensation that you're stalking me.

 

Do you have anything to say about MG?

Link to post
Share on other sites
It might be possible that people like the thing.

 

Oh, I'm sure they do, but for the wrong reasons.

 

Hula hoop lasted long enough for you to remember it 40 years post mortem.

 

Poor analogy, sorry. The point is that MG is a fad. There may be some good in it, but it's not a cuisine. It has no goal other than to be conspicuously different. I went to school with kids like that. They were Goths, perhaps MG is Goth too.

 

MG is a fad.

MG is Goth too.

 

Let me check if I am those.

 

I get the sensation that you're stalking me.

 

Do you have anything to say about MG?

 

About me? the original and cute as a button MG? I am always wrong about me. I used to stalk you but I lost your scent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If it tastes good (and when it's done well, MG cooking does actually taste good), who cares what it's called. One person's fad is another person's evolution.

 

Lots of things taste good. Donuts taste good, but they're not exalted as the vanguard of gastronomy.

 

There's a place for everything, but if there has to be a hierarchy in cooking, I don't agree that MG should be at the top. If one treats food as high fashion one is effectively saying that a few years down the line that food is going to be outmoded. Good food has universal qualities, and just being the latest thing is clearly not a universal quality. Rather, being the latest thing is about selling magazines and books, and getting traffic to your blog. MG is an expression of food as a publicity instrument.

 

Also, anecdotally, I have noticed that kind of people who rate MG are generally humorless, tend to take themselves terribly seriously, and do not have the confidence to like anything that hasn't previously been featured in a slew of magazine articles all regurgitating the same press-pack. In other words, twats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MG appears to have acquired two different meanings. The first, which I think is what This and Kurti originally intended, is the application of science to haute cuisine (for want of a better term). This, it seems to me, cannot be a bad thing as long as new methodology is evaluated critically and not applied simply for the sake of novelty. The second meaning is more or less "throwing weird shit together". And sometimes, when the chef is skilled and critical (Adria) the results can be spectacular. The problem is that when the chef is second rate (Sam Mason) or too up himself (Achatz) the results are all too often disgusting. But they get away with it because there will always be some thrill seeker with a dead palate who will praise it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...