[MUSIC PLAYING] Good afternoon, and thanks
for inviting me. So I’ve been given this
challenge to present to you how I believe cuisine will
be in the future. But before I deal with
this, I want to introduce you to Pau Arenos. He’s a Catalan journalist. And he was the person who
defined contemporary cuisine by giving it this name,
technical, emotional cuisine– techno-emotional cuisine. He, with his Cooking For Brave
People, developed a map with everything– all the most major milestones
that had taken place in cuisine, up until that point,
and those people who had had a key role in evolving cuisine,
up until that point. So what is techno-emotional
cuisine? Basically, it’s contemporary
cuisine which has, to a certain extent, evolved. There’s a great deal of
technique and knowledge in this field. But it has a vocation
at the same time. It has to stimulate and excite
people so that they have a unique experience. All the most important chefs
in the world today– those who are awake, giving
rise to a great deal of interest in this area are
already experimenting in techno-emotional cuisine. But let’s go back to this term, techno-emotional cuisine. All the chefs in the 1980s,
which, in their own way, generated change and were
revolutionary, were very innovative and created
something with a great deal of value. They not only were sowing the
seeds for techno-emotional cuisine, but in their own way,
were actually practicing this kind of techno-emotional cuisine
in the same way that their predecessors
were, as well. Because in the history of
cooking, there have been several points in time where
a new concept has emerged. So let’s go back to the
question, what will fine dining of the future be like. What will haute cuisine
of the future be like? In order to answer this
question, I’d like to present three key ideas. The first idea is, when we try
and project into the future, and think about a future idea,
we do that from our current perspective. Using destructive
technologies– we see that in the future. And we also take into account
our culture, our own prejudices. But we mustn’t forget that our
brains are a machine which are designed to anticipate
the future. It receives information
through our senses. It establishes hypotheses,
and then, tries to select the best one. Because in many cases, it’s
a survival strategy. That is the main function of
our brains, in any case. To live means to adapt. And anticipation is the best
possible adaptation strategy. This has always the case,
because brains are capable of designing virtual
spaces, things that haven’t yet happened. I can cook in my mind. I can create flavours
in my mind. But at the same time,
I can also generate emotional virtually. And there are people who,
perhaps, find themselves in very difficult situations
because of their imagination, because of a sense of
panic, for example. But if the mind is focused,
then, we can begin to create. When we try and anticipate,
there are always a number of factors that come into play. And they will condition our
vision of the future. For example, 100 years ago, more
or less, it was thought that cuisine, in the year 2000,
would be based in pills, would be eaten– meals in pill form. And that was because people
were already thinking that something which we now know
as vitamins existed. This wasn’t discovered
until the beginning of the 20th century. When a disruptive technology
like electricity is discovered, it not only was
thought that the future would involve using electricity for
lighting and heating. It was also thought, at the
time, that electricity would be used for growing plants and
vegetables, and for absorbing nitrogen in the air. These were disruptive
technologies which, at the time, were considered
very important. Here are some prints that can
be found in the National Library in Paris. They are prints from the end of
the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century. And this is how people
perceived the future. It seems here that everyone
would fly. Firefighters would fly. Rescues would take place
from the air. There would be helicopters. There would be an electric
train, obviously, which would go from Paris to Beijing. Skates with motors, cars. I particularly like this one
here because these are international, or
intercontinental, trips that are depicted here. So how could anyone have thought
of that back at the time, in the 19th century. It’s the zeppelin. It’s what was in someone’s
mind at that time. And also, a mechanised
world, with robots. Robot hairdressers,
robot tailors. Kitchens would be like
laboratories, with different handles, and devices, and
mechanisms, using steam and hydraulics. And food would be
in pill format. But how would we dress? Ask yourself that question. Well, in the same way as people
dressed in the 1900s, because our imagination
limits us in that way. This is an idea that has been
passed on through time. At a point, there were cartoons
in the newspapers depicting people eating
meals in pill format. Here we can see that the
character is saying, “This is the second time this week it’s
taken me four minutes to eat a meal,” as if saying that’s
a really long time. [INAUDIBLE], which was one of
the main food critics in Paris at the time, was outraged. Because in the cafes and
restaurants in Paris– in at least some of them– there were
signs saying that, here, you can eat quickly, and well. And he said that that makes
no sense whatsoever. You can’t eat quickly
and well. You either eat well,
or you eat quickly. Time does not respect any
activity that is carried out without that being taken
into consideration. So once this is popularised,
this idea, you can find it in Hollywood. Here we can see a character
who’s struck by lightning. He arrives in Manhattan in the
1980s, where children come out of vending machines,
where flying ships have replaced cars. And also, this idea of eating
meals in pill form is seen, once again. But there have always been
people who object to this concept, or who have been
more intelligent. Not everyone in the industry
thought that food would be in pill format. Filippo Tommaso Marinetti was an
Italian poet, and was part of the futurist movement. He was born in Italy. And he travelled to the
UK, and to France. And he wanted to
change society. He wanted to change the world. And he presented a future
in which human beings would develop. They would develop their
capabilities. In 1930, he presented this
manifesto for future cuisine, where he presented very
interesting ideas that food would change through society. And this is the interesting
bit. From 1933 onwards, the first
meal taking into account this futurist movement was created. And there were very
sophisticated dishes which embodied the entire
philosophy. This is a philosophy which
is quite interesting. Because this is something that
came about more than 80 years ago, but it’s still very much
present in haute cuisine. It involves originality
in meals. The context is as important
as the meal itself. And sensory stimulation
is also a key aspect. The context is important. That’s why you can’t talk about
politics, or football, while you’re eating. The senses need to be stimulated
through touch. And this is incredible. Because all of this– all of these elements– are
very contemporary, very modern, which are very
much present in pioneering cuisine today. But this was something
that was anticipated already, in the ’80s. This idea of predicting the
future is something that we’ve seen constantly. And I have to insist that the
most disruptive technologies and ideas are always envisaged
for the future. In the future, it was envisaged
that plants would be mixed with meats, or there
would be fat plants. Nuclear energy, for example, was
something that would also affect agriculture, and
grow huge vegetables. It wasn’t considered something
negative at the time. The concept of factory farming,
and food associated with factories, wasn’t
perceived negatively. And this is something
that was developed throughout the 20th century. We would use robots. We would colonise the desert. And we would use all of this
technology to develop a world which had an incredibly
futuristic perspective. In 2013, farmers, as we know
them today, would be in museums, according to those who
presented these ideas in the last century. Michael Pollan is an important
journalist who’s written a number of articles
in publications. And he described how, in the
’60s, when he was younger, the space race also generated a
climate which would already make people predisposed to
this new kind of cuisine. It was very much focused on
synthetic foods, synthetic juices which would dominate,
and would overcome, nature. The future would be synthetic,
and would surpass nature, which is associated with
risks, and hard. All these projects are very far
from how the future has actually panned out. And there are quite a number
of interesting examples. This book, by Barbara Ford,
talks about the food of the present, and how, perhaps, there
is a possibility that we would be eating insects. A few weeks ago, the UN food
organisation stated that, in the future, this was
a real possibility. But these are visionaries. For example, this journalist
says that there’s no food that would be– food is going
to be more local. Because it makes no sense that
products come from much further afield. And the second idea is that, in
many cases, techniques and technologies are used to keep us
doing the same things over and over again, sometimes
faster, and sometimes better. What’s this? It’s a postcard from 1912. This was written by the first
pastry chef of this hotel that we can see up on the screen,
which was inaugurated in 1912. And he wrote a postcard to his
friend who was working in a pastry shop, in a wonderful city
where the royal family spent their summers. That’s actually where
I’m from. And you’re all invited. So from 1912, in this 101 years
that have passed, how many things have changed in
this hotel, for example? Think about the following. The society has changed the
kind of stay we have at a hotel, how we use
certain objects. But in practical terms,
technology is the same. Before, we would open
doors with keys. Now we use cards. So there has been progress. But basically, the operation
that takes place is the same. In 1912, wardrobes were huge,
because women had very long dresses which needed
to be hung up. Nowadays, wardrobes are smaller,
because they’ve adapted to the way
that we dress. So in the case of our
pastry chef, what was his kitchen like? And have there been major
changes to the kitchens we have now. Well, obviously, yes. Kitchens are now cleaner. You want to work in them. Materials that we use
are different. But as [? Avediz ?] says– who’s one of the major culinary scientists in the world– objectivity, from the Middle
Ages, with the exception of the microwave, there haven’t
really been any major technological incorporations,
or tools, in the kitchen. Before, we would use ovens,
wood fire ovens. Now they’re electric. Now we use induction heat rather
than the direct flame, or an open flame. Before, perhaps, spoons
were made of wood. And now they’re made of
plastic or silicone. But we use them for the
same functions. And the third idea
is as follows. Cooking is a reflection
of society. This is perhaps the most
important idea of all. Just one quick question,
actually, just to highlight the previous idea– what technology, in the 15th
century, was so disruptive that it changed the
world of cooking? [AUDIENCE RESPONSES] There was already fire
at that point. No. Think hard. Think a little bit about this. The fork? [AUDIENCE RESPONSES] Come on, use your imagination. The fridge? What disruptive, pioneering
technology changed the world of cooking. Was it a strainer? I’ll tell you. I’ll put you out
of your misery. [AUDIENCE RESPONSES] I’ll tell you. It was printing– the printing press. The printing press made it
possible to spread all the colour in the culinary
knowledge we have. It has nothing to do with the
kitchen, obviously, which is interesting. Everyone was thinking, perhaps,
about knives, potatoes, fire, steam,
what can it be. But no, it was the
printing press. It’s a concept. Concepts are disrupting. They’re pioneering. So cooking is a reflection
of society. Polyaenus, who was a Greek
philosopher, wrote, in his work, that when Alexander the
Great entered a Persian palace, and saw such a sumptuous
and elegant setting, he thought to himself, I’m not
surprised that the Persians lost the war. The Persians were very
aware of gastronomy. And the Greeks, for a very
long time, would show off about the fact that they were
very austere, and very frugal. They thought of themselves
as a very strong people– not in the latter part of Greek
times, where they were more focused on the arts. But how was Rome? There wasn’t only one Rome. There were different
kinds of Romes. There was agriculture. And each of these peoples, or
these sectors, had their own cuisine, because it would
be the society. And their beliefs would
be reflected through their cooking. So what was cooking like,
in the Middle Ages? The Middle Ages started
in the 5th century, up until the 15th century. And it reflected society
at the time. Because progress only really
took place in monasteries. Because what kind of lives
do monks have? They make cheeses. They are very devout. And in the Middle Ages, there’s significant steps backward. So let’s move forward, now,
to the Renaissance. And in the Renaissance, the
Medicis were very prominent. Florence was an incredible
city, which was exploding with art. Art, in general, flourished. And gastronomy also
followed suit. The way we eat also
flourished. In the 17th century– what was the 17th century
like, for food? It was very sumptuous. It was very bold. And that’s how people ate. And since they were very
refined, mousse was actually invented at that time. Because it was a way of avoiding
that very ugly action of having to chew. So what was the 18th
century like? The 18th century was a century
that was marked by progress. And this is also true
in culinary terms. The cuisine at the time was
being revolutionised. And knowledge, at the time,
was being expanded. Nouvelle cuisine
began in 1972. And what occurred here, there
was a disruptive, a pioneering movement. For the first time in history,
chefs were no longer skilled craftsmen, but rather men who
translated their handiwork into something intellectual. There was a real revolution. Do you think that revolution
would have been possible if there hadn’t been a May 1968? Michel Guerard was almost killed
because he decided to add foie gras to a salad. Because it was understood, at
that time, that vinegar would attack the flavour
of foie gras. So they came from a world which
was very conservative. And they changed the
entire landscape. I have to insist that I’m making
this comparison with May 1968 because it was the
revolutionary time in the world of cooking. So just one quick question– if you were to ask me, what will
haute cuisine be like in the future, and if I’ve said
to you that cooking is a reflection of society, then, if
you tell me what the future society will be like,
then I will tell you what it will be eating. But since I don’t want to end on
that note, I’m going to try something different. What will society be
like in the future? 9 billion inhabitants on the
planet, 70% of the population will be living in big cities. In 2050, that there will be 400
cities, with more than 10 million inhabitants. People will be living longer. And this is the future that
is going to happen. Cities will be very complex. And I think that we will go
back to the Renaissance. Cities will become states
in themselves. They will be similar,
but different. If we look at this map, a
hypothesis for the future could be as follows. We have, on the one hand, the
world of ideas, of identity– an individual world. We have the world of markets,
which is also exerting a certain pressure. We have the world of technology,
which will also be very important as new
technologies emerge. And, concepts like this one. This is a social conquest. There will be social
responsibility, sustainability, clarity, when
it comes to companies presenting their intentions
and their ideas. And this is something
that we’ll definitely see in the future. There will also be a great
deal of pressure from emerging cultures. They no longer want to
be marginalised. They want to have a leading
role, and they want to be proud of what they stand for. And there will be a very
important concept, which is, here and now– here and now. These are people with a nomadic,
urban lifestyle who want to eat. They want to be socially
responsible. They don’t want to
give up anything. They want. the world to adapt to them. And technology will
be very important. Today, we know that
we’ve had– that we’ve made a distinction
between developing countries who have produced for developing
countries. And in the future, the emerging
countries will be developing for the new
emerging countries. So food will be an important
axis in this relationship. It always has been,
in the past. And it will be, in the future. When I started catering school,
I remember that people would say that a doctor’s work
is to look after people’s health, and the chef’s work is
to ruin people’s health. But this has obviously
changed. Because health is a very
important factor in what we do now. This is an important pillar,
because people don’t want to sacrifice the sensory
experience. But they don’t want
to sacrifice what they are either. So in the future, these
individual feelings, this connection as part of a group,
will also be very important. So that’s basically the future
as I envisage it. This is my hypothesis. But there’s just one idea– one key idea– that I’d like
to present to you. At the end of the day, we
mustn’t forget that the future will be however we
want it to be. And together, we will
build that future, starting from the present. Thank you.