02. A thought related to David Ruy's "Molecular Gastronomy"

In his comparison between so called "molecular gastronomists" and "digital architects", David Ruy reveals a misunderstanding prevalent within the broader fields of both food and architecture.

As molecular gastronomy gets criticized for being "too exclusive and elitist" and for ignoring "far more urgent problems regarding hunger and sustainable agriculture", as well as not being "respectful of cultural heritage", there seems to be a desire to levy upon chefs of contemporary haute cuisine this pre-conceived set of social responsibilities. Professional architects have been subject to similar social responsibilities to some degree as long as they've existed, and are often considered controversial if they openly shirk these responsibilities.

It seems that such controversies in both fields are due to a lack of distinction made between the haute and the basse; the high and the low. Perhaps this something that the egalitarian segments of modernism, or other proceeding movements, have removed from conversation. The average lay person, say, in the United States, is likely to scoff at this notion - "So you are too good for your social responsibilities?", they might say. But my argument is more about observing an existing division of labor; there are architects whose work serves the discourse of building construction, of institutions, of sociology, etc., and there are architects who design grand, magnificent constructions to serve, primarily, individuals with wealth and power. [edit note: I soon realize that the concept of "low" is something else entirely, more on that later.]

I would imagine professionals of the culinary arts are finding themselves in a comparable situation; food science (which ought to be responsible), or haute cuisine (which needn't be - not to the same degree anyway)?

The important thing to understand is that the two are basically different in their purposes. Perhaps the first may be thought as more of an scientist (engineer might be a closer word, but it is loaded in ways I don't intend), and the second is more of an artist. The "scientist" type is concerned with developing functional systems, whereas the "artist" type is concerned with crafting new sensory experiences. Is being an artist-architect (or artist-chef) less legitimate than being a scientist-architect (or scientist-chef)? Perhaps, if social responsibility is perceived to be important, or if one insists that serving many is inherently better than serving few, which are both certainly sensible.

After reflecting on it, I realize that I have made an error. The traditional understanding of the 'low' refers not to the scientists (obvious when those words are assembled together). 'Low' really refers to the vulgar, i.e. the lay, the pragmatists who fulfill basic needs of food preparation and building design for the masses. So, there are actually three classes of professional to be considered.