You seemed so reasonable, grateful, even humble on Milt Rosenberg's program on 'GN the other night, Chef; what happened over the weekend?

Oh, right. The internet. I forgot: even I'm an asshole here.

Helen Rosner in the wake of the news:

http://chicago.grubstreet.com/2009/10/j ... ourna.html

He who works in glass kitchens shouldn't throw scones.

There's quite a bit in this relatively short thread to chew on (sorry). But I mean that and what I'm curious to know at this point is, what happened to the OP? Were we simply a convenient place to vent his spleen and then on his way, never to return? People can and do disagree about this (though I find Dom's little anecdote beautifully told and pretty compelling), but not a peep from the OP. C'mon, Chef, favor us with some of your reaction and comment.

Dmnkly wrote:But by this logic, if most chefs make a mess of an immersion circulator, does that mean the guy who can make it sing shouldn't have it because that style of cuisine is "over"?

I'm not saying that MG gastronomy hasn't helped produce the occasional great dish, or that its legacy won't be a positive one. I do have my doubts about that, but I'm still just saying that so far, the net effect has been to diminish food quality at restaurants. Whether it's Laurent Gras encapsulating a perfect sungold tomato with food grade Vaseline, Rick Bayless adding gummy powders to otherwise fantastic desserts, or Homaro Cantu working hours in a lab to emulate crappy fast food; for every Jean-George foie gras with egg, there are dozens an ill-conceived MG creations that disappoint. Worse, it's become harder to find great, perfectly prepared classic dishes, because that's not where most chefs' (or media members’) attention is these days. Thankfully, classic cooking is making a comeback due partly to the locavore and whole animal "movements," which have already been much more positive trends.

Most of the responses in this thread are attacking Chef des Rosiers' provocative post, which is not the route I wanted to go. It's too easy, because the post is full of obvious exaggeration, hyperbole, and sensationalist language - techniques with which Ms. Rosner and some of her peers are certainly familiar. Unlike what many of those "journalists" do though, Chef des Rosiers has actually brought up a meaningful topic that's worth discussing, and I think there's plenty of truth beneath his rhetoric.

Gypsy Boy wrote:There's quite a bit in this relatively short thread to chew on (sorry). But I mean that and what I'm curious to know at this point is, what happened to the OP? Were we simply a convenient place to vent his spleen and then on his way, never to return? People can and do disagree about this (though I find Dom's little anecdote beautifully told and pretty compelling), but not a peep from the OP. C'mon, Chef, favor us with some of your reaction and comment.

Um, it's been less than 24 hours! He's a chef of a restaurant that was open for lunch and dinner yesterday. Amazing that he and others in his same boat find time to write at all.

Kennyz wrote:

Gypsy Boy wrote:There's quite a bit in this relatively short thread to chew on (sorry). But I mean that and what I'm curious to know at this point is, what happened to the OP? Were we simply a convenient place to vent his spleen and then on his way, never to return? People can and do disagree about this (though I find Dom's little anecdote beautifully told and pretty compelling), but not a peep from the OP. C'mon, Chef, favor us with some of your reaction and comment.

Um, it's been less than 24 hours! He's a chef of a restaurant that was open for lunch and dinner yesterday. Amazing that he and others in his same boat find time to write at all.

His profile notes that he checked in last night. En route to his pillow, I couldn't blame him for not writing. But I certainly hope he won't wait too long. To drop that kind of a diatribe and then not stick around to actually discuss it would, indeed, be lame.

(Lamer than his premise )

Kennyz wrote:Um, it's been less than 24 hours! He's a chef of a restaurant that was open for lunch and dinner yesterday. Amazing that he and others in his same boat find time to write at all.

He's been responding over on Grub Street.

germuska wrote:

Kennyz wrote:Um, it's been less than 24 hours! He's a chef of a restaurant that was open for lunch and dinner yesterday. Amazing that he and others in his same boat find time to write at all.

He's been responding over on Grub Street.

not exactly. He reponded twice over a 25 minute span after people called him names in the discussion. I suppose we could try that here to get him on board this thread.

Kennyz wrote:

germuska wrote:

Kennyz wrote:Um, it's been less than 24 hours! He's a chef of a restaurant that was open for lunch and dinner yesterday. Amazing that he and others in his same boat find time to write at all.

He's been responding over on Grub Street.

not exactly. He reponded twice over a 25 minute span after people called him names in the discussion. I suppose we could try that here to get him on board this thread.

Yeah, well, it's easy to fire off a quick response when you can just say people are attacking you personally and ignore the substantive things they have to say. But when you drop a provocative bombshell and then are forced to actually defend it, that requires a little more thought... especially if you might have overplayed your position juuuuuuust a touch

And Kenny, I appreciate you trying to assemble the thoughtful, reasonable version of what he's trying to say (even if I disagree with it), but I also think you give him far too much credit by saying he's raising some truths that "those journalists" haven't. He isn't expressing anything that hasn't been said many times before -- and far more intelligently. If you're going be boorish and provocative, it helps to at least be original.

MarlaCollins'Husband wrote:So much anger in the original post.

No anger, please do not imply inflection into my writing, I was passionate when I wrote this and harbor no personal anger, or negative feeling toward MG chefs. My post is only aimed at the substance of the style, not personal talent.

MarlaCollins'Husband wrote:I don't understand two things here, chef.

1) What was your goal in posting this? You're obviously not open to being convinced that you might be wrong and your rant is so full of generalities that I can't imagine that you think people are going to read it and be convinced that you're right. Perhaps if you explain why all of it is bad and how it's worse than any other technological innovations in cooking. It would help me if you included a definition of what constitutes molecular gastronomy.

The real goal is for what has happened here to happen. I want people to question it, and I want people to wonder if it is better, if it actually makes the foods' taste, or texture better. I am the first to admit I am stubborn and set in belief, however, I am also the first to admit openly when I am wrong. In fact, I believe that what Dom finished with saying that pieces of the cuisine that are worthwhile will remain and become important is completely true. I had not seen it in that way before, and I agree with him, and that is a positive outcome for all of this.

MarlaCollins'Husband wrote:2) Why, if you hate molecular gastronomy that much, do you list El Bulli on your Facebook page as the only restaurant other than your own that you're a fan of.

I list El Bulli because I respect what he is doing now, he is moving away from so much use of chemicals and extreme technique and more towards perfect, mind blowing simple,and still amazing cuisine. I do not know Ferran so please do not think I am speaking for him, but my judgement of the things he is working on at the moment are a new shift in a slightly new direction, and I like the direction.

No one should presume to understand how I feel when I write. I would not extend the same disservice to you.

Just to be informative, I am not and do not hide from anything. I will defend what I said and maybe even learn something from what everyone else has commented. But, I can not write all day long.

There was no overplaying my hand, not even a little, mostly because playing is not my intent, and it never was. What I wrote is not some bullshit PR move, I just wanted my first blog to be about something i felt passionate about, and I wanted to see if others felt the same as I do. That's it, very simple.

Santander wrote:You seemed so reasonable, grateful, even humble on Milt Rosenberg's program on 'GN the other night, Chef; what happened over the weekend?

Oh, right. The internet. I forgot: even I'm an asshole here.

Helen Rosner in the wake of the news:

http://chicago.grubstreet.com/2009/10/j ... ourna.html

He who works in glass kitchens shouldn't throw scones.

I actually am reasonable, and grateful, and mostly humble. I wrote the blog before the GN show, it was my first one and I had not gotten the site ready to post. I am not trying to me more of an ass here, I can usually accomplish that just fine in the real world.

The most surprising thing for me so far is people judging the type of person I am, or how I feel based on what I wrote. I am a vastly hard working, experienced, honest, and straightforward guy, and anyone who knows me on a personal level will agree.

JohndesRosiers wrote:No anger, please do not imply inflection into my writing, I was passionate when I wrote this and harbour no personal anger, or negative feeling toward MG chefs.

JohndesRosiers wrote:The most surprising thing for me so far is people judging the type of person I am, or how I feel based on what I wrote.

Thanks for coming back to discuss, John, but a quick thing to get out of the way before the meat of the discussion. In MarlaCollins'Husband's (and everyone's) defense, you're the one who set the tone for this thread. You can't excoriate people for being provoked by an provocative piece. And you can't put words out there and then expect not to be judged by them. They're your words. If you truly own them, then you should realize the tone you set with that post and accept that it was an angry, antagonistic tone. You can't yell and scream in somebody's face and then blame them for thinking you're angry. That said, it's clear you're attempting to change the tone here and I appreciate that and let's go with it

JohndesRosiers wrote:The real goal is for what has happened here to happen. I want people to question it, and I want people to wonder if it is better, if it actually makes the foods' taste, or texture better. I am the first to admit I am stubborn and set in belief, however, I am also the first to admit openly when I am wrong. In fact, I believe that what Dom finished with saying that pieces of the cuisine that are worthwhile will remain and become important is completely true. I had not seen it in that way before, and I agree with him, and that is a positive outcome for all of this.

I'm glad you agree with that much, because it's in very stark contrast to your original post. If I may extend upon it a bit, however, it's clear that the more over-the-top MG is not your thing, and there's nothing wrong with that. You're far from alone in that regard. But if you can see and appreciate these elements that work their way into the mainstream, and you can see the positive impact that some of this experimentation will have in the long run, how can you not respect the process that gets us there? I understand your frustration with MG as the overhyped cuisine du jour, and we can debate whether it's a fad with some benefits or a true positive culinary movement (though that debate will be largely speculative until a decade or two down the line, I imagine), but it seems to me that's a separate issue -- one of media coverage and food trends -- that has absolutely nothing to do with MG's value on its own.

And further, if MG has produced some positive benefit -- however much you believe it to be -- why would you wish for it to end? To drift a little further out of the center of attention, sure, but these guys are coming up with new things all the time, and there's only more benefit to be found. MG is very scientific, but not in the way most people think, I believe. People think of MG as scientific because of the chemicals, the gadgets, the machines, the often futuristic aesthetic. But to me, the way in which MG truly takes a cue from science is in its philosophy -- that of constant revision, questioning, testing and exploration. Is this really the best way to cook this protein? Is there a way I can make this new and interesting? By applying this technique, can I bring out flavors in this ingredient that didn't come out before? What hasn't been done to food that might result in new and delicious dishes? When you focus on the chemicals and the gadgets, I think you gloss over the philosophy, which is far more central to what MG is all about. And I think you do that philosophy a disservice -- to put it mildly -- when you come out swinging and call it a "bunch of shit".

Actually, based on the name of your restaurant and some of the comments you've made here and elsewhere, I suspect you have far more in common with MG chefs than you think.

In a stunning reversal of the usual thread dynamics, it seems to me that the most unreasonable post in this thread is the OP's, and that the ensuing discussion has been almost exclusively fervent but civil. (This observation isn't directly germane to MG, but it struck me forcibly as I scrolled through.)

You really could substitute exactly this discussion for a billion identical debates that don't really get anywhere on virtually any cultural topic---undergraduate syllabi, high-concept productions of Shakespeare or the Ring Cycle, free jazz, modern architecture, 20th century "serious" music, modern art, modern art criticism, lit crit., ad nauseum.

Whatever the discipline you tend to end up with those in the field feeling absolutely, passionately that a given trend is "wrong,"---fundamentally, morally even. Dishonest, a breach of faith with the past, and destructive of the efforts of others, displacing work of greater virtue and less flash, with dazzling meretricious crap. Etc.

But everything shakes out in the end. If you don't like it, don't eat it. (Or listen to it, or read it, or watch it, etc.)

In some fields you could at least make an arugument that it's a zero sum game: if you're not a deconstructionist Lacanian commie you can't get published or hired at a university, if you don't stage offensive hollow spectacles with naked Wagnerian sopranos swinging from trapezes and electric guitars added to the orchestra you can't have a first-tier music career, or whatever. (Not my opinion, but the argument could be made.)

But with MG, I don't think you can even go that far. It's a very narrow little niche. Where are the decent, honest, trattorie that are being snuffed out by temples of MG? Are they popping up like Starbucks on every corner? Are they taking away Manny's breakfast business?

It seems like a very, very small piece of the pie to generate as much emotional heat as it does in the OP and that's where I tend to agree largely with Dom. and Kenny. I have read a lot about MG and developed no real interest in it. At least no interest that corresponds to the time and $ commitment required to investigate. So I haven't. Whatever they're doing, it has had zero impact on my dining life.

In the end, as other posters have pointed out, as soon as you apply heat to protein, you've done something "unnatural." After that, it's all about your skills and your imagination and your taste as to how well or poorly you utilize the always evolving technology.

IMHO.

JohndesRosiers wrote:implore

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I've just kind of come to the point where I realize that some folks just don't get MG and what it's about. That's fine with me, but that's no reason to stop innovating in the kitchen.

MincyBits wrote:

JohndesRosiers wrote:implore

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It doesn't; he means "employ."

Apparently Chef Des Rosiers killed his blog.

While I was in between tasks, I read a lot of this thread and while I don't agree with everything the OP said, I do think it was maybe more passion/thought provoking than pure vitriol

In any case, if I thought nothing of spending $30 on a little piece of food that farts food smells in my face, more power to me and my money.

I know, I know, the whole point of the OP was to hit on journalists for spending so much time and effort on this type of cuisine. But they're journalists for gosh sake. They're paid to write, or talk, or look nice, not to think or analyze.

imvclear wrote:But they're journalists for gosh sake. They're paid to write, or talk, or look nice, not to think or analyze.

Oh, no you didn't!

Really, that's a tough generalization to support in a city that has Eng, Borelli, Nagrant, Sula, Daley, Fuller and others eating and analyzing and writing good stuff all the time.

imvclear wrote: if I thought nothing of spending $30 on a little piece of food that farts food smells in my face,

that is one of the funniest things I have ever read on LTH,

thank you.

MarlaCollins'Husband wrote:Apparently Chef Des Rosiers killed his blog.

Seems back up: http://inovasithought.blogspot.com/2009 ... r-day.html