'What especially tempted me, the indefatigable traveller who had voyaged through Italy and Spain, countries

where one eats poorly, and through the Caucasus and Africa, countries where one does not eat at all, was to indicate all the ways of eating better in the former category of countries and of eating somehow or other in the latter...' - Alexandre Dumas ***** Amuse-gueles Ever since we've lived on this Earth as humanity, food and drink have been pivotal to societal structures and hierarchies. Being substances vital for human life, going Darwinian view then this isn't surprising: there will naturally be conflict to get the best and most in order to survive. Inevitably, those who do so assert their dominance in order to maintain their position at the head of society. However, an observation of any society in any era anywhere on Earth will show food and drink are more than a biochemical need. They're revered. Food and drink are crucial to societies, cultures and nations; present in celebrations and festivals, in mourning, in religion, in social gatherings and in solitude. Undoubtedly, food plays a part in our cultures, societies and common human consciousness equally great as that it does for individuals looking to survive. Strangely, in our modern world of injustice, starvation and inequality of wealth, we are more intent than ever on eating more nutritious foods, cheaper foods, tastier food. 'How much can we really learn about the world in which we live from the food that arrives on our plate... is globalisation, as Mario Batali claimed, threatening to extinguish the flame of unique creativity that has for so long burned in the hearts of the world's great chefs?'[1] When globalisation has changed the way people communicate, move, speak, see, discover and cure each other, my questions is this: why are food and drink central to culture, and will that continue to be the case? ***** These terms are for your benefit. Pay attention. A society is group of people living in and/or brought up to follow a particular culture. This culture is the sum total of the achievements, beliefs and manifestations of these beliefs of a majority of agents who make up a society (usually associated with a certain environment) and anything cultural is pertaining to the mentioned culture. The cultural heritage of a society is the history of its culture: that is, the culture prior to the latest significant development in it. When added to the other defining features of a single agent such as their family, environment and beliefs not linked to their culture, that is the agent's identity. The agglomeration of 'food and drink' together under the term cuisine will be used not only to simplify but also because of the various connotations of the word we also take cuisine to be the type or style of food and drink common to a particular society the culinary culture of that society is as good a definition of cuisine as any. Occasionally in the essay, I will place cuisine within the two disciplines it's most often described as art and science. Art will mean the creation of a tangible item whose primary purpose is to induce an emotional response in humans, is not vital to life, and that doesn't facilitate or advance any material human achievement. Science is the study of all parts of a particular subject to further knowledge and understanding of it, and all physical manifestations of this practice. The reader must remember that in the culinary world, technology is dependent on science, but science can explain phenomena that occur independent of technology. The inspiration art provides and the possibility that science provides make creativity reality. Creativity can be making the abstract or metaphysical into the physical, it can be making something truly new or, in the words of chef Jacques Maximin, 'creativity means not copying.'[2] The final word requiring definition is globalisation. It is in essence the growth of anything to become worldwide, but for the purposes of this essay we will take it to mean huge advances of in terms of communication and travel, and the associated parallels of ideas, concepts and products seen across the globe as a result. ***** The Table is an Art Gallery: The Emotions and Beauty of Cuisine A plausible theory explaining how crucial cuisine is to all societies and cultures in all places at all times beyond that of pure survival can be found by looking at universality. There are very few things as universal as cuisine,

but art is one of them. Cuisine is the only real constant in our lives: it can transport us to our childhood, give us waypoints to chart our life by and is integral to every societal occasion. Few are the people who can't remember the first time they tried their favourite food or attended an occasion and didn't eat the traditional fare. Not many think anything other than 'turkey' and 'pudding' when Christmas is mentioned, for example. Food is so sensual and we are so attracted to it that I have been known to describe something as 'smelling like Christmas' a mix of cinnamon, clove, nutmeg, sugar and smoke: I'm sure others have done something similar. I'm equally convinced that more people remember the pub where they had their first pint than remember the registration plate of their first car. Cuisine is so visceral, so subjective yet shared with everyone, and so entwined with our senses and our lives that we can't leave it alone. It has many of the same qualities as art then, but is arguably even more powerful. Art cannot bring people together at a table, art is not taught at a parent's side from an early age or passed through generations and finally, food can be 'the sort of dish you turn to when you need emotional as well as physical nourishment.'[3] not something art can do: comfort and satisfy us deeply. Whether it is because cuisine appeals to all five senses, because the anticipation is part of the pleasure or because we really do feel a primal connection between food and satisfaction is irrelevant: cuisine and art share aspects and effects on us, yet there is still debate as to why it isn't accepted as an art form. The suggestion that cuisine is art is surprisingly recent both Plato and Hegel, the definitive philosophers of their epochs, denounced the idea. Plato said that the description 'beautiful' could only be applied to what is perceived through sight or hearing. Hegel kept this view, arguing that the 'bodily senses' of smell, taste and touch are purely material senses, incapable of sensing the spiritual aspect that an object must have to be called beautiful or classify as art.[4] Another argument central to the debate of the artistic value of food is that it is consumed no trace is left of it after it has been enjoyed by an agent. For example, an agent can go to see a great artwork such as the Mona Lisa, appreciate it for its artistic worth and come away. The Mona Lisa herself is still there, and subjected only to gradual degradation through sunlight and other environmental factors. On the other hand, the same agent can then go to Alain Ducasse au Plaza Athne; a triple-Michelin, 28 Zagat Parisian temple of gastronomy headed by one of the all-time greats of cuisine, and eat chilled langoustes and caviar, veal sweetbreads with olives and asparagus, and a rum baba comme Monte Carlo for 330 a head.[5] Delicious it will be, an emotional experience it may be, but still there once it has been appreciated it won't be. The agent could at best take home a signed menu, some photos of their meal or blog about it on one of the myriad food blogs that inhabit the internet. The last part of the argument is an agreement: food can be beautiful, but that does not automatically make it art. It is much like Duchamp's Fountain or Tracy Emin's Bed; a toilet or bed can be exhibited and praised as a great artwork, but they can no longer be used and so stop being a toilet or bed. An agent could take an exquisitely presented plate and exhibit it, but it would no longer be food, and so food cannot be art. An immediate refute to the claim that consumption of food means it cannot be artistic is in the performance arts.[6] When an agent goes to the theatre, cinema or concert hall, what they experience is just as transient as the food they have eaten previously, the only difference is in the sense consuming it. The script to a play or sheet music to a symphony is just a set of instructions like a recipe to a plate of food. The concert hall, cinema or theatre are institutions of quality, displaying excellence in what they exhibit. The restaurant is similarly a place of hospitality, creativity and excellence: an agent goes there not for primal reasons of sustenance and nutrition, but in search of pleasure. As to the claim that food being a biochemical necessity negates it from having any artistic status, it can be argued that crystalline structures like salt or insulin are necessary: a deficiency of either has serious repercussions. However, we happily accept that crystals are beautiful, set them in precious metals and call them art. Inconsistencies such as these seem to be the root of the human problem in instinctively mistrusting the 'cuisine is art' suggestion. If this is the case, then it seems unlikely that cuisine is so pivotal to all of us because of its artistic qualities. There must be another reason that societies embrace food in the way they do. ***** Kitchen Experiments: Perfection, Molecular Gastronomy and Progress If art is not the reason that cuisine penetrates life, then we must look elsewhere. Science and technology lends itself to the debate for three reasons: the desire for knowledge and progression is as universal as art, art and

science are accepted as the two fields that are closest to cuisine, and finally art and science are polar opposites. Art is an exploration of beauty and emotion. Science is, in the words of the great physical chemist Herv This, founder of note-by-note cooking and co-founder of molecular gastronomy, 'exploring phenomena.'[7]Science systematically tries to discover what we don't know, art tries to separate us from what we know. Cuisine and science have the potential, then, to marry together as well as a grilled onglet steak and a sauce marchand de vin. Before we begin, I must clarify that the argument that will be presented is not that cuisine contains elements of science that is a fact. As This writes, 'to cook, by its very nature, is a form of technical intervention... cooking is the acme, the epitome of the artificial... there isn't anything at all natural about cooking.'[8] The argument is that cooking, the process of creating cuisine, is a science in the same way that biology or astronomy are sciences. It is clear that cuisine has developed through time as has every other human activity. 'As soon as the biped, Homo erectus, now Homo sapiens by virtue of centuries of ingenuity exercised in the search of his favourite foods, could use fire without fear he decided his food would be better cooked...organized civilization brought with it the idea of cookery: the intentional preparation of foods in the traditional manner of a particular social or ethnic group [according to their cultural heritage]... As civilizations became more sophisticated all over the world, and commercial and cultural exchanges increased, the diet became ever more varied and complex.'[9]There are obvious parallels between the wealth of a society and the increasingly luxurious nature of its cuisine: those who struggle to find enough food to stay alive eat what they can, those in wealthier societies choose to eat foods that they find tastier, more exotic or rare, and frequently eat foods from other cultures. Similarly, those same impoverished societies overwhelmingly use manual tools to work in primary industries and little more than a fire and pot to cook with whilst wealthier societies have far greater use of technology, do far more scientific research and pay to go and eat in restaurants known for using advanced equipment like dessicators, Pacojets and sous-vide bains. Thus, we can deduce that cuisine, like science, is a linear measure of societal development. Cuisine and science share far more than that: they are both centred around the discovery of new methods and techniques, and the application of new ideas. Herv This' lectures, books, cooperation with Pierre Gagnaire, work with the INRA division in Paris and Ferran Adri's Harvard course in culinary physics are sciences. The great Jean-Anthelme Brillat-Savarin declared his desire for 'gastronomy' to become an accepted science, devising gastronomic tests on three levels for discerning true gastronomes. By judging the reactions of diners, Brillat-Savarin could determine their appreciation and understanding of cuisine. Hence comes his famed quotation 'tell me what you eat: I will tell you what you are.'[10] The formal study of cuisine as a science happens today, and has given light to a number of well-known foodstuffs, techniques and advances. The first aspect of culinary science that I will examine with respect to cultures the world over is improvement and the search for perfection. As we have already noted, the more a society develops (arguably improves) the more its citizens become discerning eaters. However, cuisine can transcend particular societies and form its own branches, much like science or art. The branch that seeks absolute, scientific perfection in cuisine and applies natural sciences in order to do this is known as molecular gastronomy. Begun by Herv This and Pierre Gagnaire, pursued by chefs such as Heston Blumenthal and to a lesser extent Ferran Adri, and made possible by corporations such as Firmenich, molecular gastronomy has come to the fore of culinary discovery. This is nothing new massmanufactured foods have been modified using scientific machinery and techniques since the 1960s to improve shelf life, create uniformity within products and for other commercial reasons. Nutritionists and dieticians will use science to compile the perfect meal for a person containing the optimum levels of minerals, fat and calories for their physique and lifestyle. Molecular gastronomy shares techniques and concepts with these approaches, but seeks to use science to make the most pleasing food through flavour and aesthetics there is and discover an entirely new cuisine based on foodstuffs that didn't exist prior to the emergence of culinary sciences. Indeed, This' work Building a Meal: From Molecular Gastronomy to Culinary Constructivism can be seen as a recipe book for the most perfect meal it is scientifically possible to eat at the time of publishing. In the same way that chemistry attempts to fully understand chemical reactions, use them to our advantage and make new chemicals, molecular gastronomy attempts to fully understand cuisine, use that knowledge to make perfect (a philosopher would say 'Platonic') forms of specific foods or drinks and create totally new foods. This last category comes under This' note-by-note cooking: he gives the example of a carrot. 'It is an assemblage of water, cellulose (think of absorbent cotton), pectins (which make jams set), some sugars (fructose, glucose, sucrose), amino acids and organic acids, and molecules that in very small concentrations give bouillon its characteristic smell, and therefore its flavour. All these molecules are simultaneously deposited in the pan at the very moment when the carrot is thrown in as if a pianist could play only chords. What heavy music!... Will

the cooking of tomorrow be synthetic, or note-by-note as I call it? The possibilities for creating new and more precise flavours would be greatly increased in that case, of course, but perils await... this new continent will have to withstand torrents of gastronomical criticism, sometimes running aground on the distant shores of the inedible.'[11] This is exactly the same process as other forms of science: hypotheses are tested, experimented upon and proven successful or otherwise. By this method and with communication, cuisine can advance as a science. We will learn more about what we eat, how to cook it, what to drink with it and why we find it so irresistible. This mirrors the thirst for knowledge that all humans have the reason why cultures and societies develop over time. The new and the innovative are why we no longer clothe ourselves in animal furs, live in caves or hunt in packs. Molecular gastronomy's birth is just more proof that it is part of the human condition that means cuisine is integral to culture. Everyone who cooks is a scientist. They use techniques discovered by humans to manipulate nature's products to make them safer, more palatable, more nutritious (or not, as is often the case) and more easily digested. Gradually, they go further in their exploits. They might a new-found herb, grill where they previously boiled, serve the results in a different way. Hardly revolutionary, I agree, but it is curiosity and development. Those ideas that work are remembered and continued, and those that don't aren't pursued further. This is a science, albeit tailored to the palate of the agent. In the same way that scientific discoveries are named after prominent scientists or those who discovered them, culinary discoveries are named after their place of creation, chef or patron. There is little difference between Einsteinium and a Peach Melba. The counter-argument to the above is simple: cuisine is no more a science than anything else. Over time, humans have refined all aspects of their lives from the home to communication and, through evolution, themselves. The natural sciences discover what will be its laws are universally applicable and thus we can predict to a certain degree of accuracy what we expect of the future. Culinary science does not do this we have very little idea of what we will be eating in a century or two as cuisine only progresses as fast as culture develops. Granted, examples such as This' Chantilly emulsions are definite progression, but he has first and foremost developed a technique he makes suggestions, and the delicious results of using them are the dependent variable of his work. This deserves credit in the culinary world, but in the same way as he who discovered temperature kills pathogens in food: their work is more deserving of a Nobel Prize than Michelin Star. It is up to chefs to use these suggestions be they Chantilly emulsions or cooking suspect flesh to improve cuisine. That is progression, but it is not science. Indeed, global megachefs Ferran Adri, Thomas Keller and Heston Blumenthal wrote a piece for the international culinary community declaring 'we can choose from the entire planet's ingredients, cooking methods and traditions, and draw on all of human knowledge to explore what it is possible to do with food and the experience of eating. This is not a new idea, but a new opportunity... as with everything in life, our craft evolves, and has done so from the moment when man first realised the powers of fire. We embrace this natural process of evolution and aspire to influence it. We respect our rich history and at the same time attempt to play a small part in the history of tomorrow... we do not pursue novelty for its own sake... the disciplines of food chemistry and food technology are valuable sources of information and ideas for all cooks. Even the most straightforward traditional preparation can be strengthened by an understanding of its ingredients and methods... the term 'molecular gastronomy does not describe our cooking, or indeed any style of cooking... we believe that cooking can affect people in profound ways, and that a spirit of collaboration and sharing is essential to true progress in developing this potential.'[12]Anyone in any way associated with cuisine owes a vast debt to science, that is certain. The technological and theoretical advances that science has given us are invaluable in the kitchen, wine cellar, brewery, recipe book, food blog or any other culinary domain. That does not make chefs, vintners, brewers, cookbook writers or food bloggers scientists. They are, however, all agents in the culture of their environment and part of a wider food culture, where the appreciation and understanding of food and pleasure is the common factor. That isn't science, but it is laudable. ***** Cuisine is more powerful now than it ever has been. Huge numbers of people buy books, watch television programmes and eat in the restaurants of the great chefs. The Grand Masters of the stove (Carme, Escoffier, Bocuse...) are still revered in culinary academies the world over. The Internet has created, in a very short space of time, a monster: the food blog. Social networking has revolutionised popular cuisine anyone can now set up their own portal to this at no expense and instantly have access to all the major works of culinary literature, message

accepted authorities, read and write about any restaurant, supplier, shop or ingredient in the world, instantly. The almost unlimited potential that there is for cuisine online is yet to be tapped. Like legends are passed down from generation to generation over time, inspiration and recipes can be passed from continent to continent instantly. For example, I for one can begin a food blog, post my thoughts about certain dishes online and hold real-time discussions with two authors whose work I have referenced in this essay. Within a decade it will, surely, revolutionise attitudes the world over towards cuisine. It doesn't detract from the cultural heritage of a society, or diminish the value of domestic cuisine. Generosity, congeniality and hospitality will still be as appreciated tomorrow as they are today. Cuisine is merely an escape: an agent cannot learn a language, visit a country or understand a culture in an evening, but they can cook an authentic dish from that culture and it would be the start. So long as the artistry that comes into cuisine has emotional, cultural or aesthetic value then it is welcome. Science, technology and understanding can only make food taste better, be safer and more nutritious. The connection to the land won't be lost food and place are always inextricably linked. I personally hope to see as many people as possible getting as much pleasure as possible from cuisine, for cuisine to use art and science as inspiration instead of constraints, and for us to discover far more about each other through indigenous cuisines. Let us also hope, for the future, that every discovery poses several new questions.

...and because I have worked in kitchens and know this to be true, 'even were a cook to cook a fly, he'd keep the breast for himself.' - Polish proverb. (Not strictly true - in chicken, it's always the petit muscle or oyster that I go for)

[1] Jay Rayner, The Man Who Ate The World: In Search of the Perfect Dinner (London: Headline, 2008) p. 16.

[2] A Day at elBulli: an insight into the ideas, methods and creativity of Ferran Adri Albert Adri, Ferran Adri, Juli Soler, trans. by Equipo de Edicion and Cillero & De Motta (London: Phaidon, 2008) p. 41.

[3] Simon Majumdar, Eat my Globe (London: John Murray, 2009) p.13.

[4] Kevin W. Sweeney, 'Can a Soup be Beautiful? The Rise of Gastronomy and the Aesthetics of Food' in 'Food and Philosophy' ed. by Fritz Allhof and Dave Monroe (Oxford: Blackwell 2003) pp.117-129. (p.117).

[5] Alain Ducasse and Christophe Saintagne, Menu Diner: Et 2012, linked on the Alain Ducasse official website www.alain-ducasse.com, accessed [30/08/12] Page URL (http://www.alainducasse.com/sites/default/files/12.06.20_carte_des_mets_adpa_ete_2012_fr_0.pdf).

[6] Dave Monroe, 'Can Food be Art? The Problem of Consumption' in ' Food and Philosophy' ed. by Fritz Allhof and Dave Monroe (Oxford: Blackwell 2003) pp. 133-144 (p. 136, 139, 142).

[7] Herv This, 'Science and Diet' in 'Building a Meal: From Molecular Gastronomy to Culinary Constructivism', trans. by M. B. DeBevoise in 2009 (Chichester: Columbia University Press, 2007) p.77.

[8] Herv This, 'Good for Your Health?' in 'Building a Meal: From Molecular Gastronomy to Culinary Constructivism', trans. by M. B. DeBevoise (Chichester: Columbia University Press, 2007) trans. 2009 p.78.

[9] Maguelonne Toussaint-Samat, 'A History of Food', trans. by Anthea Bell in 1994 (Oxford: 2009) 2nd edition pp. 2-3.

[10] Jean-Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, The Pleasures of the Table, trans. by Anne Drayton in 1970, (London: Penguin, 2011) p.1. taken from The Philosopher in the Kitchen (London: Penguin, 1970).

[11] Herv This, 'Note-by-Note Cooking' in 'Building a Meal: From Molecular Gastronomy to Culinary Constructivism', trans. by M. B. DeBevoise in 2009 (Chichester: Columbia University Press, 2007) p.111.

[12] Heston Blumenthal, Thomas Keller, Ferran Adri, 'Statement on the New Cookery' taken from Heston Blumenthal, 'The Fat Duck Cookbook', (London: Bloomsbury, 2009) 2nd edition. pp.126-7.