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."'"
finally I can wear a labcoat and a chefs hat in the kitchen and not feel like a dork.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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. =====
"The Endocrinological Joy Of Sex"
From the article: :-P
"What other chef writes a script in which he gets punched in the head by Boxing Nun puppets named Tender and Flaky, as they fight over whether the two textural qualities can coexist in one pie crust?" Truly an American Icon
It is only edible by humans, I've never seen anything else touch my #2. And it never spoils (leave it out and it just gets hard, no mold, no green, no nothing!).
Culinary perfection.
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?
food, sex, food, sex, food, sex...
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.
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.
That's your snobby 'chef side' talking.
;-)
Alton, himself, never calls himself a chef. In fact, he isn't trying to make you into one. He just perfects simplier dishes... and encourages people, especially geeks, to "play with their food" and understand whats going on when you do!
A true physicist may not like "Bill Nye" or "Mr.Wizard" because they do silly experiments with children, but it encourages people to delve more into science even more... Alton is much like the Mr Wizard of cooking... encouraging 'us kids' to cook and understand what's going on when we do it. And just like how Mr.Wizard didn't teach you how to make a nuclear reacture our of kitchen supplies, AB doesn't teach you how to perfect a $500 cavier/froi gras dish.
You hate AB, but anyone that DOES watch the show will easily put AB's infamous "French Chef" voice on when reading your entry.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
It would be great if Alton went over and smacked Bobby Flay upside the head with a meat tenderizer. Repeatedly. Hard.
I suppose you hate Shirley Corriher, Rose Levy Berenbaum, Harold McGee, etc... all authors who have helped me understand the science of food.
Alton recognizes that cooking is an art... his show itself is art and imho good art. But understanding how the art works leads to better ability.
Pottery is a science, heat, minerals, sand, clay, glass etc.... and darn near any fool can lump some clay together and stick it in a kiln. But the real artists either through experience or through study learn how the materials respond to pressure, heat, time etc.... use this type of clay, this composition of glaze, fire it to this level for this length of time... and voila get the desired result.
Do I hate really good potters..... could say the same for many other mediums... paint, metalwork, etc.. etc.. etc.
Don't be a culinary snob... your successes lie on the same principles and 'science' that anyone elses do and if you understand that all the better.
I just finished perusing the CIA's (Culinary Institute of America) book 'The Professional Chef' and they certainly recognize that to suceed at the art of cooking one must come to terms with the science of it, and even the math, the business acumen, the labor and the grind that it can be as well.
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.
Cooks wish they were biologists.
Bakers are, in a sense, biologists. They know that yeast in bread and rolls thrive in warm temperatures, and that the ideal temperature for yeast activity is between 120 an 130 degrees F. Heat the dough to 140, and the yeast dies. Salt will kill yeast if brought in direct contact with it as well. And yeast loves sugar - so much so that if you leave the sugar out of bread, the yeast will start breaking down the complex sugars in the flour, which in turn changes the flavor of the breads.
Bakers must know the environmental conditions they need to set up for yeast (a living fungus), or they will find themselves without a bakery. In this sense, they have to be biologists, albeit in a limited sense.
A love beyond compare...
The concept you seem to be missing, maybe due to your existing knowledge as a chemist, is that knowing the processes behind why things curdle, are tasteless or fall is part of the art of cooking. Very few TV cooks tell you the "processes behind the meal," which are essential to understanding the art of cooking. Alton fills that gap.
I certainly agree with you that it takes much more than science to get that omlette to come out just right, etc. It requires much skill and practice, the right tools and knowledge of how to use them. But I don't think Alton would disagree with you, either.
Think about one of the examples you gave: curdling. If you knew the underlying cause of curdled milk, you can apply that knowledge to a wide variety of recipies, not just the one you were working on. Yet most TV chefs don't get to that level. Sure their recipe might show you how to avoid curdling throught a precise list of steps and procedures. But very few would tell you why those steps are necessary to prevent curdling. Alton does just that.
Cooking is an art with many scientific principles behind it. Any cook who dismisses the artistry of cooking will undoubtedly never be a great chef. Any cook who ignores completely the science behind cooking will likewise never advance in his artistry.
I will admit, however, that a great chef may not have the same type of scientific knowledge that Alton advances. It may be sufficient to know, for example, that acid + milk + heat = curdled milk. But I really don't see the harm in knowing what chemical reactions happen in such a scenario.
Hey, you don't want to get to that level? Emeril airs a half hour after Good Eats. He's a fountain of enlightenment if I've ever seen one. :rolleyes:
Taft
Yes, the most important parts of the creative decision process are artistic, informed by experience and critically directed by intuition. But the science is always there, waiting to make your creative fancies and stunning insights take shape. Or fail to, because physical reality imposes a harsh penalty if you try to oppose its inexorable truths. Witness many failed souffles, burnt sauces, and other culinary disasters caused by trying something that just can't work.
By the way, haven't I seen the exact same arguments in another favorite geek arena?
Same-same, basically. No amount of creativity is going to overcome the fundamental science of your medium. The wise [cook|coder] learns how to push the science to the very edge of the envelope to accomodate brilliant new visions of [fppd|software].Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
I've found Alton to be an excellent resource for establishing the basics, at some point every chef learned how to saute, and some seasonings went with fish and chicken. After that they learned more about experimentation and expression and became artists. Alton isn't trying to teach people how to move to artists (like most of the programming on the food network) he's showing people the basics. From their curiousity can build on that knowledge and his viewers can develop their own style.
In his case the geek set, learning the basics involves a lot of science (we like to understand how things work not just that if I heat the oil on medium and drop the meat in for 5 min it cooks). I know with everything if I understand how a process works from interest rate calc derivation to quantum physics to custard formation, I'm a whole lot more likely to remember the steps involved and correctly apply them. The love of fine food comes after you've baked the salmon served it with wine, a nice salad, and asparagus with hollandaise sauce and you take a bite.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
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.
Cooking - making food - is not an art. It absolutly CAN be an art. Here's alton own words on it.
---
It's kind of like, I'd love to own a Picasso. I like Picasso. If I could own a Picasso one day, that would be swell. But I don't want to paint like Picasso. It's like the really great chefs are artists and it's like, I'm going to go to the restaurants and enjoy it. I don't want to cook like that at home and I don't want them to publish books that tell me how because you know what? You can't! You can't. You can not do it. They can write that stuff down, you're still not going to be able to do it. That's why, I think Joseph? [sic, Thomas?] Heller, amazing chef, French Laundry, out in Napa, amazing guy. I can't cook any of the stuff in his book because it's not enough to have it written down. It isn't enough. No more than it would be enough for Picasso to have written How To Paint A Picasso book. That's what we're talking about.
There's a level... It's like, I don't call myself a chef. I'm not a chef. I don't have the creative chops to call myself a chef. Can I hack out a decent meatloaf? Well, yeah, because I understand the meatloaf and yackety-yak. But I am I going to create a great dish? No? I'm not going to create a great dish. Those guys have that artistry and I wish they'd just do it and sell it and let those of us that want to eat it and enjoy it and stop writing cookbooks. Because I know more people that have given up on cooking because they couldn't make Charlie Trotter's friggin' Rabbit Reduction sauce. It's so intimidating. It infuriates me that those guys feel like they don't make enough money already that they have to make the rest of us feel bad with their cookbooks. So, I don't buy them. I don't buy those cookbooks. I very rarely buy cookbooks, to be frank.
---
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
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."
Does that make Jamie Oliver java?
Hmm..if by that you mean "overhyped nonsense", then I guess so. But it's not really fair to Java.
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.