I love models. The first time I went to the new Getty Center in L.A., I spent almost the entire day not going through the galleries of the museum itself but looking at all the scale models of the museum that were housed in the basement of one of the buildings. The years and years of design and planning were reflected by a sequence of timestamped miniature models.
Last week, I read a fantastic essay by Tom Vanderbilt about visiting scale-model miniatures of cities and landscapes. Some models, such as the Queen Museum’s Panorama of New York City which still includes the two World Trade Center towers, are outdated snapshots of a city that was. Others though, like the Beijing Planning Exhibition Hall’s model of the Chinese capital, show a preformed city, the end result of urban planning still in the works. Vanderbilt calls it “anticipatory urbanism.”
“There is a pristine, uncorrupted sense to models,” Vanderbilt writes. “They are an ideal of perfection yet to be encumbered by realism, by political demands and the other contingencies of full-scale life.”
I thought of this on Saturday after Elizabeth and I botched an attempt to make gnocchi. We had as a model a carefully written recipe by a well regarded chef whose cookbook we’ve successfully used many times. Still, my first inclination was to fault the recipe for not taking into greater account all the encumbrances of realism with gnocchi — namely, all the ways you can screw it up. Boiling vs. baking the potato, overcooking it, working too slowly with the dough, overworking the dough, etc. Usually, there are one or two ways in which you can really mess up a dish. With gnocchi, it seems like every step in the recipe is a potential disaster. To what extent then should a recipe for gnocchi address these potential disasters outright?
It’s a question I often bump up against when using recipes, and it’s one Brys and I are dealing with as we compile and write recipes for Cookthink: how explicit a model should a recipe be?
To some degree, there will always be something pristine and uncorrupted about a recipe. It cannot take into account the skill level of the person using it or the exact nature of the ingredients and equipment he’s using to prepare it. Unlike a scale model of a city, a recipe is not a physical representation of the dish. But it does describe the finished dish by illustrating the process. Even without a picture attached to the recipe, don’t we — based on our past experiences both preparing and eating similar dishes — always visualize the ideal of perfection for a certain dish?
Should a recipe (writer) then be inherently optimistic and assume that everyone using the recipe is capable of translating the written instructions — “peel and rice the potato” — in such a way that will get him close to the ideal of perfection? Or should a recipe be inherently pessimistic and assume that without explicit caution — “warning: you must quickly rice the potato or your gnocchi will turn to mush” — a home cook is going to get waylaid by all the “contigencies of full-scale life” in the kitchen?
Do you prefer shorthand recipes or do you like to have it spelled out?