Loading ...Is It the Mole-Gas, Or Is It Us?
Posted by Foobooz on January 25th, 2008
As people who love to eat pretty much anything, the Foobooz team read David “Philafoodie” Snyder’s article “Foam Over Function: why don’t we ‘get’ molecular gastronomy?” in the City Paper with great interest. We heart Philafoodie, but we were both a little perplexed–irked, even–by the comments made by the people interviewed in the article. Our takes after the jump, both with Whiz:
Art said:
Without getting back to our Quaker roots and staid parochial ways, I’d like to at least comment that Philadelphians has never been that impressed with flash or what’s hip and trendy. We knew enough to boo Kobe [the Bryant, not the beef] before the rest of the country found out he wasn’t the person he pretended to be. And so it is with food. If we are skeptical of molecular gastronomy for molecular gastronomy’s sake, then so be it. When the fad has passed and we’re left with the true improvements of the science, let it be said that we didn’t take the wacky ride but remembered what’s important: How does it taste? After all, if we feared the science, could we have embraced Cheez Whiz?
Kirsten said:
What really bothers me here is the underlying assumption that people don’t like this food because they don’t get it or they are narrow-minded. I really think that when people don’t like food, they don’t like it because it doesn’t taste good to them, not because they’re afraid of a tasteless seaweed additive or a method of cooking that involves a vacuum. You can accuse them of perhaps not having a sophisticated palate, but as a good chef or restaurateur, your job is not to accuse the palate of your audience, but to please it. If you try and you fail, then you must try something different.
Do these chefs and restaurateurs really believe that the diners at their restaurants are so inexperienced that they aren’t willing to give food prepared this way a fair chance? They’re forgetting their customer base. The restaurants that serve this kind of fare are upscale and so is the clientele. The kind of customer who spends money going to a place like Lacroix, for example, has a good amount of expendable income and is a relatively sophisticated diner. These are not people who are going to be fearful of a new technique, especially if it has delicious results.
Ultimately, the thing to remember is that this discussion (much like the great foie gras debate) affects very few people. What is of greater concern is the ’science’ that goes on in the corporations that make the food that the majority of the population eats. Partially hydrogenated oil, anyone? Maybe you’d like some high fructose corn syrup with your chicken part slurry? And, of course, there’s Cheez Whiz, the ultimate in food science.
Agar-a-phobia? [PhilaFoodie]
Related Tags: Molecular-Gastronomy, Opinions, philafoodie
January 25th, 2008 at 11:30 am
When the fad has passed and we’re left with the true improvements of the science, let it be said that we didn’t take the wacky ride but remembered what’s important: How does it taste?
Art, I think your comment really sums up the point of the article. While “molecular” type techniques have been really hot on the dining grid in the past few years (e.g. Chicago’s Alinea being named top restaurant in the U.S. by Gourmet in 2006), Philly is one place where these kind of trends often have trouble finding footing. I like to think it’s because we keep it generally real, and not because we’re ignorant.
I think the chefs featured in Snyder’s piece know this, too. They’re not sprinkling dehydrated tonka bean dust or whatever on everything just for the sake of doing it — they realize what Philly likes, and know that in order to be successful, they have to cater to the tastes of their public. That’s why chefs like Snackbar’s McDonald decided to change their menus after receiving feedback. (”Bottom line is that we want to cook for people. I’m not too worried what it is that we’re cooking — as long as I get to cook.”)
Elsewhere in the piece, Around Philly’s Brian Freedman points out that Philly chefs apply such techniques in a “sensible way.” I took that as a compliment, not an insult. Yes, Philly diners tend to see through unnecessary bells and whistles when it comes to eating. But that’s because this city knows what it likes and doesn’t need it froofily dressed up to justify its existence.
To that end, being particular and being closeminded are two different things. A restaurant like WD-50 would probably never catch on in Philly, but not because we’re unable or unwilling to understand “molecular gastronomy” — it’s because our dining pedigree simply differs from a place like NYC. As Michael Solomonov says, “we’ll use modern cooking when it is appropriate — not for the sake of doing it. Only when [it] makes sense.” That this city’s chefs know that they can’t put any BS past us is, in my eyes, the biggest compliment of all.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Art,
It’s not that we don’t “understand” these techniques, it’s that most in this area have come to appreciate real “food” that’s not driven by silly fads.
Just as I’m not terribly impressed by super-ripe, overly-extracted, reverse-osmosis, vacuum-concentrated, MegaPurple-enhanced “wine,” I’m not impressed by technologically, “improved” food.
I know that cuisines evolve as a function of cultural, historical, and agricultural possibilities (as does “real” wine), and appreciate (and respect) more, the chef or restaurant that celebrates this rich diversity of natural cooking.
January 25th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I think this is an interesting debate since Food & Wine listed a lack of experimental chefs as one of the main reasons why Philly falls short of being a great restaurant city.
January 25th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Also, Philadelphia has clearly accepted the “local” movement with open arms, and as a city we’re pretty sympathetic to the slow food “trend” as well. I think the emphasis on simplicity and rustic ideals set by these two movements are, for many people, at odds with the hyper-stylized molecular gastronomy movement. We clearly aren’t turned off by “weird” food: a trip to Capo Giro for a gelato will reveal a lot of flavor combinations that are truly unique and presented in an unusual texture.
This may have something to do with the farmlands and the bounty surrounding Philly, or with the type of industry that exists in the greater Philly area, or with the fact that Marcel from Top Chef pissed everyone off. I’m not sure. And certainly there is room for great, even simple, food to emerge from an immersion circulator. Just as a city we’ve tasted enough to know that just because it’s a saffron-baby corn foam doesn’t mean it’s worth $30.
I bet if Molecular Mixology came into existence, though, we would embrace it with open arms.
January 25th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“To that end, being particular and being closeminded are two different things. A restaurant like WD-50 would probably never catch on in Philly, but not because we’re unable or unwilling to understand “molecular gastronomy” — it’s because our dining pedigree simply differs from a place like NYC. As Michael Solomonov says, “we’ll use modern cooking when it is appropriate — not for the sake of doing it. Only when [it] makes sense.” That this city’s chefs know that they can’t put any BS past us is, in my eyes, the biggest compliment of all.”
I see your point, Drew, but none of the chefs in the article are really saying that they appreciate the ability of Philadelphians to have amazing bullshit detectors. They’re saying that they have to sneak in the techniques just like a mom might have to sneak vegetables onto a picky child’s plate. They can’t come right out and tell us they’re using mole-gas because it might frighten people away from what’s good for them. Are we a dining population of petulant children who need to be force-fed new things or are we mature adults who can make our decisions solely based on how tasty food the finished product is?
McDonald deserves a lot of credit for adjusting his menu in response to his customers’ needs – a lot of chefs have egos that prevent them from doing that. Although, if you have an empty dining room for six months, your business sense might have to trump your ego.
January 25th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I see your point, Drew, but none of the chefs in the article are really saying that they appreciate the ability of Philadelphians to have amazing bullshit detectors.
Sorry, I think that is more my personal perception of the issue than the overt perceptions of the chefs featured in the piece. In that, chefs around these parts know (either from growing up/working here or from retooling a menu to jive with customers a la Snackbar) that there are certain things to expect when catering to Philly diners.
If you ask me, I don’t think this city’s chefs (particularly the chefs in the article) think we’re stupid. But they know what people here like and dislike, through experience and trial and error. How much of this is attached to taste/execution of a “mole-gas” dish and how much of this is preconceived notions about the school of cooking itself? It’s tough to tell. I would say it’s a little bit of both, especially when you take an example like Solomonov’s Marigold Kitchen sweetbreads dish, which was very mainstream popular (written up in Philly Mag, etc) and used a “mole-gas” technique.
I guess my point is just because some diners are perplexed by “mole-gas” cooking doesn’t mean they’re immature or uncultured. But they ARE out there. Me personally, I like to try anything new I can get my hands on. But another guy might have a sour look spread across his face if a server told him that the sauce for his porkchop was made from a synthetic product crafted in a lab. Am I a “better” or “more informed” diner than this guy? Absolutely not. But the fact that there ARE options in Philly for people who want to try this kind of stuff — if they want — is great.
And yes, I completely agree with the sentiment that this “affects very few people.”
DiNic’s, anyone?
January 25th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
“How much of this is attached to taste/execution of a “mole-gas” dish and how much of this is preconceived notions about the school of cooking itself? It’s tough to tell.”
Hmmm. Very good point. Are we in the media to blame for hyperventilating over it to begin with or for abandoning it once we got bored and moved on to the Next Big Thing in food?
Also tough to tell.
Mmmmm, roast pork.
January 25th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I’d suggest that the lack of molecular gastronomy has nothing to do with our palates and everything to do with our liquor control board and our byzantine zoning process. The real reason Philadelphia usually takes so long to embrace new foodie trends is the high cost of doing business. BYOBs don’t support the margins necessary to attract CIA-trained talent. Combine that with the nightmare that is L&I and you’ve got a recipe for food conservatism.