Schuessler
Kim Schuessler
Ms. Alexis Teagarden
English 76-101-N
22 February 2010
Word Count- 805
Jonah Lehrer: Cooking is a Science, Art, and Experience
Lehrer argues that cooking is not solely a science or an art, but rather a combination of
the two that is largely based on a highly personal and individual experience on the part of the
eater. According to Lehrer, cooking is not a pure science because, “the individuality of our
experiences is what science will never be able to solve” (73). Likewise, Lehrer states that
cooking cannot be only an art form because “food was meant to be eaten” and beautifully
sculpted food was virtually inedible (63). Therefore, Lehrer’s main conclusion is that cooking is
both a little bit scientific and a little bit artistic but it is also largely a sum of the many personal
and individual experiences one has in a lifetime of eating that help shape how we, as unique
individuals, experience a meal.
Cooking cannot be considered purely scientific because there is “no theory, no formula,
and no recipe” in Escoffier’s style of cooking, and theories, formulas, and recipes are the corner
stones of scientific research and findings (73). Rather than treating cooking like a “science
experiment,” Escoffier allows “pleasure [to] be [his] guide” while cooking (54). The tongue was
Escoffier’s main focus, and the source of his revolutionary ideas in the kitchen. And, while the
scientists of Escoffier’s time believed they “had the tongue solved,” Escoffier’s cooking used a
taste that did not fit on the palate of tastes that the tongue could, according to the scientists, taste
(58). This new taste, umami, became part of “the culture of the kitchen [to] articulate a
Schuessler 2
biological truth of the tongue long before science did” (60). Escoffier, and those who used
umami in cooking accepted umami as the “definition of deliciousness” because that was the
experience they had when they ate such foods, whereas scientists needed concrete proof that
could be tested to accept umami as a legitimate taste on the tongue (61). Escoffier’s acceptance
of umami as a taste separated him and his cooking from the scientists of the day because he used
and accepted umami as a taste before the scientists had found any concrete evidence supporting
this new way to taste something.
Cooking, in the style of Escoffier, also cannot be considered purely artistic in nature
because as Lehrer states in reference to the fancy French food in Careme’s Paris that came prior
to Escoffier, “although these sculptures were pretty, they were also inedible” (62). And,
according to Escoffier, taste was valued over appearance because “food was meant to be eaten”
and not displayed as lavish sculptural pieces (63). In order to achieve the most tasteful foods,
Escoffier deviated from the previously accepted tradition of preparing sculpted foods days in
advance and then serving them cold because such foods have very little to offer as far as taste is
concerned.
Instead, Escoffier prepared food fresh and served it hot in order to preserve the
flavors in the food. But, in doing so, Escoffier also eliminated much of the “pomp and
circumstance” of dining that came along with the food that was served cold and carved (62).
Many times while eating, our “previous experiences help us to decipher the information
being received from the tongue and the nose” (69). Many times we will taste a food based on
how we remember it tasting previously and not on the actual bite of food that is in our mouth.
Lehrer provides and example of how this works with the story about the people who thought they
were tasting red and white wine and therefore responded to questions about each according to
what they thought each glass of wine should taste like rather than actually tasting the wine and
Schuessler 3
realizing both glasses were the same white wine (69). Therefore, with the wine and all other
foods, we taste by “our expectations of what the wine will taste like” before we even taste it (70).
So, though some of our tastes come from the actual food, or as philosopher Donald Davidson
was cited as stating, “an objective contribution that comes from the outside world,” much of
what we thing we are tasting is actually a “subjective contribution to knowledge that comes from
our selves” (71).
In conclusion, cooking requires a combination of science, art and personal experience to
be successful. While each aspect has particular instances where its does not completely comply
with the ideals of cooking; science’s lack of individuality, art’s lack of taste, and an individual’s
bias, all three contribute to cooking as a whole. So, cooking is scientific, artistic, and an
experience tailored to each individual.
Schuessler 4
Work Cited
Lehrer, Jonah. "Auguste Escoffier: The Essence of Taste." Proust Was a Neuroscientist.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2007. 53- 74. Print.