I have the deepest respect for Ferran Adria, and he certainly deserves his place in the culinary history books. In many ways he is a "genius". Yet, I am not a fan of molecular gastronomy.

From genius comes it disciplines, and disciples or those who have been inspired by his/her books and the opinion of the press. This results in a lot of variations and many different and varied schools of thoughts, much like religion and its offshoots, fanatics, deviations and derivations. Some would say they are looking outside the block or pushing the leading edge. I think that the molecular gastronomy style of cooking appeals to some of the dining public because they are looking for the technical theatre, flash and dazzle, which is what they want to experience when dining. My opinion is that the genius of Adria, and by genius I mean his creativity and daring to go in a new direction, has been distilled by chefs looking to cash in or be part of a trend, and by the media, which indiscriminately shone the spotlight on any chef dabbling in molecular gastronomy. I also think some chefs feel they have to incorporate new trends to be part of the latest craze, or are pressured into it. This is when food becomes too intellectual and doesn't come from the heart, when really what guest want is to return to their favourite restaurants for the classic dishes that they have been known for and have enjoyed for years. 

Today there is more dining public than ever before and everyone is a critic and has opinions and personal choices! Some diners go out for a "great meal" and others for "shock factor dining". They are looking for pyrotechnics during their meal. A meal that will have them commenting, "it sounded so odd and how could you possibly make a sorbet out of anchovies and chocolate", "but it worked and was fun". Have you noticed the trend of bacon in everything from chocolate to ice cream?

I liken some molecular dining to flashy theatre, in that you go to see the show once, you enjoy it and you tell your friends it's great and they should experience it, but you never go back because you've seen it or there is no one thing to draw you back. To me molecular cooking, or some chef's attempt at it, is not food that has or brings the comfort of familiar flavours. In many cases I personally do not feel satiated when I eat that type of meal.

What is Eating Satisfaction?

I appreciate anything as long as it tastes good and is well executed. To me eating satisfaction comes from not a full stomach but from a balance of the palate's senses - the basic tastes of salty, bitter, sweet, sour and umami - called the savoury sense. These senses identify themselves in the palate and the nose (olfactory senses) and both are connected to the central nervous system. If one cooks with only one or two of these in mind then the food tastes unbalanced.

What is balance? To me it is the harmonising and proportionate amounts of taste elements that bring complete satisfaction in the finished dish and in the satisfaction of it to your palate. Some examples: In cooking, adding salt will balance an overly acid taste, sweet helps balance a slight amount of bitterness - and the presence of umami lends it savouriness to the flavour components. When they all meet in the mouth there should be balance. As for texture - varied textures and the characteristic of the ingredients or individual component or components (such as previously seasoned parts of the dish prepared with seasoned multiple ingredients) help refresh the palate and keep eating varied and interesting. Wine, which can contain all of the elements except salt, acts to refresh the palate as well. Palate fatigue comes after three bites of any one single same component. Changing texture, components and/or a sip of wine or a beverage can refresh the palate and keep eating interesting and varied.

They say it takes 20 minutes for the stomach to realise it is full, which is why it has to start in the mouth. The tongue was designed for defence purposes: to keep people from ingesting foods that were toxic to the system. It also sends a signal to the stomach to prepare it in readiness for the foods to be digested and to start to excrete enzymes to digest the food; the tongue works directly with the brain and in turn with the stomach. Through centuries of eating for pleasure we have lost track of the tongue's original intention. Of course our food comes from more controlled safe environments now.

Just Another Trend

In my mind I try to respect the shape of meat, fruit and vegetables on the plate. I do not see the sense of cooking and pureeing a pea and then reforming it into a pea shape, or a carrot cooked and pureed and reformed and painted or airbrushed into a perfect baby carrot.

If you study cuisine, especially in France, there have been MANY Nouvelle cuisines or new cuisines over the years where they have taken an era of cooking and studied it and over developed it into an art form and then over worked it and over developed it into a decadent and absurd art form, and complicated and codified it to death. Only for the next generation chef to come along and deem it too much and create a nouvelle cuisine, being a "genius" because he or she had the vision to simplify it - and history repeats!

There are some interesting techniques but I question the staying power of "molecular cuisine restaurants". Like any fad or trend it will be passé in the near future with about 5% of its principles and techniques standing the test of time. By then there will be a new trend. And life goes on...