/ck/ - Food & Cooking

Holy. Fuck.

A clusterfuck and a waste of time and money to boot.

>this is the best food you will ever eat in your life
>of course you will never be able to afford the equipment needed to try these recipes for yourself so you can't verify that claim
>trust is tho, es reel gud

What's about the For Home edition? Is it any better?

>>4432815

Pretty much this. A useless, egotistical fap fest by a human lamprey who is ruining the tech sector and making a mockery of the patent system.

Amazingly fantastic. They're very well printed and bound. The content is amazingly extensive. As others have said some of the recipes are difficult to do without very expensive equipment, but frankly that's missing the point. Modernist Cuisine isn't so much a collection of recipes but a set of textbooks teaching you how and why certain foods and techniques work the way they do. You can use that knowledge even with basic ingredients and equipment, and frankly the amount of knowledge you get for the $400 the set costs is well worth it. I have spent more money on college classes that taught me far less. Yes it's a high price for a "cookbook", but given what you get it's well worth it IMHO. And hey, I've seen the PDFs posted here before so I'm sure you could find it that way too.

If you do want to duplicate the recipes I'd say that about a third of them require no special equipment or tools, and can be done with a very basic kitchen setup. Another third requires items that are relatively inexpensive and many home cooks have already: pressure cooker, gram scale, high quality thermometer, whipped cream siphon & chargers, meat grinder, stand mixer, blender, that sort of thing. If you're a serious amateur you probably already have most of this stuff anyway. It's only the remaining third that calls for things that are unusual or highly costly, but a resourceful cook can work around that. That's the point of the books, really--teaching you how and why.

>>4432893

thats assuming the reader is going to use all that knowledge the average joe isn't. the average joe doesn't give a shit he just wants to follow a recipe so he doesn't have to think
but a lot of the recipes in this book are too complex for the average joe

tl;dr
it's awesome if you are serious about cooking
if you just want to follow a recipe then its silly for most people

>>4432930
Pardon me but your post is like saying the Bugatti Veyron is a shit car because speed limits don't let you reach its top speed.

I get what you're saying, but your post is a valid criticism of the reader and not the book.

Modernism is a type of thinking, it's in everything from literature to visual arts and theatre. The huge significance of this book is that it formalises the ways in which food may be elevated to the level of indisputable art.

>>4432971
>The huge significance of this book is that it formalises the ways in which food may be elevated to the level of indisputable art.

No, the significance is that it presented a lot of other people's work in a visually appealing, impressively expensive format.

Most of the amazing "new" ideas are stuff that other people (Harold McGee, Hervé This, and others) already published books about. Books that were mostly boring words. Myrhvold is no dummy, but he did what any other billionaire foodie who is on a first name with Bill Gates and Ferran Adria would do. He arranged to hang out with world renowned chefs for fun, assembled an awesome room full of stupidly expensive toys, made an elaborate AMA thread on egullet about what he learned, and then turned it into a fabulously expensive coffee table book as a monument to his awesome self.

>>4432971
>but your post is a valid criticism of the reader and not the book.

yes exactly.

that's why i said it wasn't any good for joe blow but is brilliant for someone serious about cooking

>>4433013

who cares if the guy has a big ego or not? I couldn't care less who the hell the author is. Every recipe is credited to the originator so he's clearly giving credit where credit is due. Thus there should be no reason for moral offense. And, the content is both extensive and clearly documented (I don't mean photos, I mean data, techniques, definitions, explanations, that sort of thing). Who cares if it's an ego stroker for the author? The point is that it's a lot of information in a very useful format. It's pretty, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to find that compiling all the separate books from adria, blumenthal, Andres, etc.

>>4433013
Well, you're objectively wrong, but I don't think you have the intellectual tools to understand why it is that you are wrong so it doesn't matter.

But what I said was accurate: Modernist cuisine provides the template for raising the cooking process to a level of indisputable artistry. That's in the whole thing - the cooking, the ingredient selection and combination, the flavour combination and recreation, and the plating.

Modernism is a cultural movement, not a period of time. This was the world of food becoming a part of Modernist thought in a way that had substance and was not the gimmicky food lozenges of scifi films and 80s nouvelle cuisine.

>>4432893
>>4432971
>>4433089
I've downloaded the Modernist Cuisine at Home book, and this guy knows what's up. Largely agree with all of this.

>>4433089

I'm wrong because I suggested that Myrhvold didn't invent molecular gastronomy? Or because you used the word "indisputable" and so everyone should hush with awe?

Slightly rearranging the word order of your puffed up sentences and then reposting them isn't an argument. Go sharpen up your intellectual tools and come back when you're done. I recommend starting with the DMT D8XX. You've got some serious grinding to do.

>>4433137

No, you're wrong because you missed the point. We know Myrhvold didn't invent molecular gastronomy. But who cares? It doesn't matter if he did or not. In fact, it's completely irrelevant.

Claiming that Modernist Cuisine is somehow "bad" because Myrvold didn't invent it is just as silly as saying a dictionary is wrong because the editor didn't create the language or words contained within, or saying a physics textbook is bad because the content really came from Newton, Pascal, Kelvin, Edison, Franklin, Einstein, et al., and the author was just repeating it.

The point of the books is to present and transfer knowledge. Like any other textbook it contains information from a massive number of sources complied and organized for the reader to better understand it and look things up as a reference. It's originality isn't relevant. The content--information contained within--is. And the content of Modernist Cuisine fully justifies the price, IMHO.

I really enjoyed the books (I have the PDF's)

It felt more like a science class than a recipe book, and I personally enjoy that. It's definitely not for everyone, it's meticulous and simple things can take hundreds of pages to explain (I believe there is almost a whole book dedicated to the science of heat)

Even if you don't make any of the recipes you can learn an awful lot.

>>4433285

So, basically, you agree with my previous comment. That is to say, while unoriginal in content, it's significant for its presentation. And perhaps you disagree with my characterization of the author as a tremendous douchebag and being all around bad for humanity.

I'm not sure if you understand what "objectively" or "wrong" mean, but I'll chalk it up to English not being your first language. Next time consult a dictionary before throwing around insults in a foreign tongue.

>>4433310
The problem with your posts is that you seem to be attempting to reduce it to a matter of personalities, which is exactly the opposite of what the Modernist approach is about. Which is why it was said you might not have the mental equipment to even discuss this in the first place.

>>4433322

The fuck, is it a cult or something? It seems you forgot to capitalize "Approach". His personality isn't so much the issue as I haven't met the guy. It's his actions that I find objectionable.

Also, it appears we both agree that this book stands out because of its style, not its substance. If the style is the main selling point, then criticism of the man is perfectly valid. You can try to wave the objectivity card all you want but if it's really about cold hard facts, then those are available without the cancer from other sources.

OP here what happened to my thread?

I downloaded the entire series, looked it through once, realized I'd never have the motivation/time for any of those dishes
>tfw 22h of prep time

>>4433348
No we don't agree that, you are reading what you wish to see.
Also, you may be drunk.

>>4433603

Every single one of my posts has been based on a specific objection related to the book or the author. Every single one of your responses has been based on an insult directed at me, along with some dorky huffing and puffing about exalted heights of artistry the likes of which mere mortals can't discuss.

You've given up on the fancy pants bit in this last post and descended to bare insults. Have you gotten drunk yourself, or are you just so flabbergasted that someone would blaspheme against St. Nathan that you can't come up with a better defense?

>>4433310

4433285 here. I think you're confusing me with another poster. I didn't call you names, 4433285 and 4432893 have been my only posts in this thread so far.

I agree that the work is significant for its presentation. By that I don't mean the artwork (though it is pretty), I mean the data contained within and how it is organized. If your claim is that the work is important because of its photography and graphic design then I disagree with you. That's all nice but the book is important because it puts so much experience and knowledge from so many different chefs all in one place.

I'm not the guy who keeps posting about the Modernist approach.

What makes moderist cuisine (the BOOK, not the "movement") significant in my opinion is that it's put so much knowledge into an easy-to-access format. It's important for any kind of cooking. Even if you don't care about making hazelnut foams or hot gels or other fancy things it's a wonderful reference for kitchen basics like making crispy skin, the most tender roast, the smoothest sauce, and so on. Even if you completely ignore the fancy recipes and photos It is by far the best "cooking encyclopedia" there is, even for basics.

I have no idea if the author is douchebag or not, I've never met the man. I'm limiting my discussion to the only ting I have experience with, which is the books.

>>4433635
You opened with bare insults so don't be a hypocrite.
faget.

>>4433703

Either you're identifying too closely with someone you have no real-life connection to, or you're the author of the book in question. In the first case, that's creepy. In the second, choke on a dick.