Slashdot Mirror
The Thermochemical Joy of Cooking
daeley writes "Wired has a feature on Alton Brown, host of FoodNetwork's Good Eats and favorite chef of geek foodies everywhere: The Thermochemical Joy of Cooking. AB has his own website, of course, and his own blog, of course. (If you are familiar with Alton's distinctive delivery, you can hear his voice as you read. My only complaint is that he doesn't write anywhere near often enough.) He's also been interviewed on Slashdot. From the Wired article: 'Brown, 41, is a culinary hacker, the poster boy for a movement that's coming to a boil in kitchens across America. The essence: Cooking is a science, not an art, informed by chemistry, physics, and biology. "Everything in food is science," Brown says. "The only subjective part is when you eat it."'"
and I *hate* alton. yes, there is a lot of chemistry and science in cooking, and it is very interesting, and a lot of it can be boiled down to quantifiable, deterministic values - but ultimately, COOKING IS AN ART. if it wasn't, any regular joe could pick up a copy of the Joy of Cooking and be running a four-star restaurant in a week. i can't count how often something i've tried in the kitchen that chemically and scientifically should have worked fine, but in the end came out curdled, or tasteless, or fallen. maybe "regular" home cooking can be broken down into pure numbers that anybody can grind out, but making truly excellent food will always need that certain artists' touch.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Understanding the science behind cookery does not eliminate the art. Computers can generate sonnets which are grammatically and syntactically perfect, but they're not worth reading. Painting can be reduced to a science as well, but only if you limit it to paint-by-numbers.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
My only complaint with his show is that we're not getting enough new episodes. They should make Food Network the "All-Alton-Brown-All-The-Time network!" Well maybe not that much, but you get the idea :-)
His hour-long salt episode which aired just recently was pretty cool too.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Obviously, there are certain guidelines to follow, or it's not science (or cooking), it's just messing around. But as long as you're within those guidelines--for both disciplines--it's important to be as creative as possible.
But the main difference here with cooking is that you don't really need to know WHY something works, just that it work. If 10 minutes in the fridge makes my pie crust flakier, great! I don't care if it's about the dual-bond lipids remaining in a suspension long enough for the proteins to bond...
The CB App. What's your 20?
My favorite part:
I'd apply the same principles to cooking. Alton is a culinary chemist, maybe. A culinary hacker, never.
There is more to cooking than just science. Think about it - how many variations of 'proteins, acids, amino acids, fats, carbohydrates' are out there? It's not in how those ingredients are being mixed, the magic lies in which ones you mix together. Of course discard the word 'magic' in the context of British recipes ;-)
You're talking about cooking as a creative and expressive medium, and that's perfectly valid. If you're trying to create something new, something you haven't tried before, then yes, you're absolutely spot on.
On the other hand, if you're cooking because you're hungry and you want to eat, then it's a bit of a different story.
Cooking is the act of preparing something (as food), usually by the application of heat. Beyond that, any definition you read into it is your own. Cooking as art and cooking as a way to get rid of hunger are both acceptable uses of the word.
Cooking as art is creative. Cooking as hunger-elimination is usually not. Day in and day out, I gotta eat, and I usually use the second definition. Once I know how to prepare a thing, I can prepare that thing the same way virtually every time (hey, I'm only human, I screw it up sometimes). If I want to create something different though, then I can do that as well. But I don't often have that kind of time.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
That's such a useless generalization. That's like saying everything in art is science which is about as good as saying everything in science is art. All these are true to a degree and useful in certain contexts, but generally ambiguous enough to be meaningless.
Shouldn't be complicated?
Cooking is an area where it can be as complicated as you want it to be-ranging all the way from sticking a piece of meat into the fire to a masterful blend of 72 ingredients into a pot of French soup simmered for eight hours over charcoal. Most people do not do anything very complicated, but if you don't think that there isn't science in cooking, then all of our safety precautions, refrigeration technology, FDA guides, food pyramid, nutritional labels, calorie counts, and everything else really isn't necessary. The human diet is one of the most studied scientific areas in history; even more so if you take medicine and drugs into consideration.
Now, granted I don't bother to pay attention to most of the research being done nowadays because taste and effects are so individualized, but there certainly is science involved in the process of cooking beyond a simple receipe for something that tastes good.
I advise you to wear something under that chefs hat and lab coat, especially if you are using sharp knives or hot oil.
:)
I love cooking.. always have.. and I don't believe that it can always be reduced to science.. at least not to practical science. (Think three body problem.) The chicken you buy today will not have exactly the same flavour as the chicken you buy next week. And every beef cut needs to be treated like the individual it is.
I cook well, but have friend who are masters. I can taste what they taste, but can't say "okay, this needs a pinch of cumin and a little cardamon to make it perfect. These guys have the knowledge of what works with what, but also the honed taste abilites and experiences that tell you then what is needed.
And, to all those who haven't yet discovered it, cooking will get you chicks. My fianceé fell first for my cooking
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Things like presentation or even knowing how to choose the right ingredients is not an exact science. Then there is variety. Do you want your food made the exact same way with no variety every time and everywhere, because someone is following a set script? Makes me think about food replicators with dread!
I agree, but isn't that what he is saying by the statement "The only subjective part is when you eat it."? I mean, taste is subjective, and that is where the chef really puts the paint to the canvas, so to speak. I mean, if you have art, but you don't know the science, then you are producing pretty stuff that doesn't taste good. Well, I guess technically you don't need to know the science, but if something works well, it is based on science.
I love Alton's shows, because he tells the WHYs. I also love the book Cookwise for the same reasons. If you know why certain things work and why others don't, it gives you a building block for making better food. The chef really needs to be the gauge and the creator. They need to know their audience. They have to put all the "stuff" together in creative (or simple) ways. If you know why things work the way they do, even on a simple level, it helps. A lot. Sure, it may suffice to know things without knowing the science, but learning the WHYs is fun and interesting.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
It can be as complicated as you want it to be.
If you want to just follow the recipe, it's not that complicated. Step 1, beat eggs, step 2, add flour, etc.
But, if you want to see what you can do with it, to put your own spin on it, to hack it, then you need to be a bit more complicated. And to do that, you need to understand what's happening and more importantly, why it's happening.
Visual Basic is to Emeril as Perl is to Alton Brown
Actually, I like the choice of chefs... There's a chef to love (Batali), a chef to hate (Flay), and a chef that just floors you on how he can make any ingredients into something amazing (Puck).
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I know how to cook. Somewhat. But when I watch Alton do what he does, it puts "another tool in the toolbox." I learn a new trick, or a reason why, or something that'll make my next attempt better. Hopefully.
It's a lot like watching Bob Vila. He won't make anyone into a DIY guru. You won't be able to build a palace in your backyard just by watching him. But he'll show you a few new tricks, or how to use a tool properly, or something useful that you'll someday use.
Having more tools won't make you an artist, true. But it might make a budding artist more able to express himself.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Visual Basic is to Emeril as Perl is to Alton Brown
Does that make Jamie Oliver java?
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I never saw the show, but the article was overall pretty insipid - the author doesn't understand the nature of either cooking or science. Take this paragraph:
Brown's hyperrational approach defies conventional wisdom about food preparation. Cooks typically regard their culinary traditions as gospel, whether they learned them at the Sorbonne or from their great aunt Sibby. Tampering with recipes only leads to trouble.
All the serious cooks I've ever met (I've been cooking professionally for several years, by the way) tamper with recipes every day. That's what serious cooks DO. Who wants to have a "perfect" chocolate mousse if it's indistinguishable from the one they're serving across the street? (Although chefs HAVE been known to get offended if I mess with their old family recipies.)
By the way, the Sorbonne is a liberal arts university - just because they're French doesn't mean they teach cooking.
The "art or science" question misses the point. Cooking is a synthesis of technical knowledge and aesthetic knowledge. The two are mutually dependent - if you ignore the first one, your food will be ruined half the time, if you ignore the second one, you'll wind up with mass-produced McFood.
I don't remember where I read it (probably fortune ;) but I remember reading somewhere "Cooking is an art, baking is a Science"
I largely agree because the quality of ingredients in cooking can vary so wildly, but if you buy "brand X" flour, it's pretty consistent.
Also, things like humidity can affect how your baking turns out, and knowing how to compensate is simply a matter of knowhow.
I was very close to enrolling in a local chef school until I found out how poorly the average chef gets paid around here. (And even how poorly the above average chef gets paid around here.)
No it's not OK, and yes, it is the fault of the consumer. Educated consumers don't fall for crap marketing - they educate themselves so they know what they're paying for.
Is it not partly the responsibility of society to educate ourselves to protect against such opportunists?
What is society, if not a collective of individuals? You answered your own question when you said society needs to educate "ourselves" - it's an individual pursuit, not a collective one.
There are powerful, wealthy forces working for people to spend their money every day at McDonalds
Marketing campaigns prey on people's emotional weaknesses, to get them to think their lives will be better if only they buy brand X, which is much better than brand Y and so much better than not buying anything at all. Once you can get past the emotional response to crafted marketing and be objective and use reason to make decisions, then you can stop "lovin' it" and stop blaming corporations for doing what they're best at, i.e. making money.
I'm not sure lawsuits are the best way to go about this, and if they're not the courts will eventually throw them out.
Calling bullshit here. Courts live on lawsuits - lawyers and judges get paid because there's a market for their services in the form of lawsuits. High visibility lawsuits with a defendant with deep pockets (fast food, tobacco, asbestos, etc.) make for a growing market, not a decreasing one. It's silly to think that the courts will reduce the number of lawsuits, any more than McDonald's will stop selling burgers at profit because there's less nutritional value in them than in a home-made meal.
It's a complicated situation, with businesses doing what they have to to sell product, including petitioning government for assistance, subsidies, bail-outs, favors, etc. (can't find the clause in my copy of the Constitution that says government will do what it can to protect business, but I'm using a 1789 copy that also includes the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments as well...), but the basis of our economic and political system is that the People decide what they want. We do this in the voting booth, and every day by purchasing goods from businesses that make the things we want/need. No one wants to buy what you're selling for whatever reason? No more business, or a greatly reduced business (see buggy whips, vaccuum tubes, console radios, 8086 computers, petticoats, etc.) People want something new? A new business is born (see PDA's, handheld GPS systems, DSL service, TV dinners, CD/DVD players, etc.). You can make an argument that it is naive to think everything is controlled by the consumer, but you're naive to think that the consumer, and his relative education level, does not matter.
...and you run and you run and you can't stop what's been done...
There, he had sound scientific knowledge (milk + acid + heat = curdled milk) which he combined with artistry (use curdling to me advantage) to produce a "super buerre blanc." The perfect marriage of science and art.
I think the grandparent poster misunderstood Alton's use of science in his show and was reacting to the the story-posters comments.
Taft
But I think AB teaching the science behind cooking is the key to becoming and artist with food. By helping people understand what is happening, it helps them experiment in useful directions. Understanding why one quickbread recipe calls for baking soda and another does not frees me from discouraging failed experiments, thanks to AB I know its about pH balance. Good Eats encourages experimentation, unlike many other cooking shows.
But I think the comparison to art is good in another way, because almost every good artist out there knows the science behind his medium, wither its a photographer understanding the film grain and how the optics distort the images he produces, to a sculptor understanding the composition and weaknesses of his materials. Some artists may never understand "how" it is they know these things, much like many major league sluggers fail at coaching because they never had a concious understanding of what they did.
Those chefs who can look at dough at tell wether it will rise or fall know because they've seen thousands of doughs, they know the smell of healthy yeast, know the pliability of the dough they want, know how sticky it should be, etc. They get that from years of cooking, experimenting, failing.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
Yes, it's fun to construct replies to fabricated positions.
You have it completely mixed up. The mock beurre did not curdle. His "scientific knowledge" was unsound, which is why the observed behavior was a surprise. A more complete scientific model explains that behavior, as well as the other properties the poster noted (that the sauce did not break even when overheated or frozen and thawed). No amount of art is going to account for that.
In short, this example scores a point for science in cooking, not art.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.