The debate rages as to whether we speak of the ‘culinary arts’ or bow to ‘food science’. I tend to believe it is a little bit of both.
The science of recipe development and preparation has taught us some wondrous things… but it is the chef as ‘artist’ that brings it all alive. It is the chef that widens our eyes and brings wonder to the senses. However, the chef now has help.
Science News has a new article on the laboratory technicians who have rediscovered what makes food savory and delicious. The prior dilemma was presented in the article thusly:
The relationship between scientists and chefs, or lack thereof, troubled the late physicist Nicholas Kurti. At a presentation for the Royal Society of London in 1969 he lamented, “I think it is a sad reflection on our civilization that while we can and do measure the temperature in the atmosphere of Venus, we do not know what goes on inside our soufflés.”
If I had any criticism of the scientists approach, it would be towards their goal… to make things simpler, easier … omitting what makes life wonderful, such as eggs and butter. Simpler isn’t always better. Besides, years from now, we may learn that the true nutritional value of traditional ingredients was vastly underrated, while their poor substitutes were discovered to be either worthless or indeed harmful.
To me, cooking is still fun… it is still art… and unless science can help improve the taste or make the dining experience more enjoyable, then it’s value is diminished.
Roger Freberg