We heard similar sentiments with the introduction of nouvelle cuisine, made popular by the likes of Paul Bocuse and Henri Gault back in the 70's.

However, molecular cuisine differs in many of the ways Pepin pointed out in the article. I agree with him in principle when he says that he wants to identify the food that he's consuming instead of trying to figure out what the hell he's eating. (sorry, paraphrasing)

I also completely agree with Pepin's analysis that "these cooks keep adding to a dish, a small amount of this or that herb, a shake or two of that sauce..." IMHO, this is the sign of too many newish chefs who truly don't appreciate or understand the base products that they're working with. They're too consumed with the visual presentation and many times overlook the combination of ingredients in the final product. I can't tell you how many times I've tried different plates and been disappointed because the chef couldn't stop adding needless ingredients that contributed nothing to the dish. If anything, the extras are part of the reason the dish failed.

I've said to my spouse on too many occasions after hearing a special "sounds like we have a young chef in the kitchen". This is no knock on the age of the chef, but the experience of their palate. To truly appreciate food, I think you must first learn the absolute basics of your center of the plate. What you to do enhance that center of the plate is up to you. But when you reach that tipping point, the dish goes to shit.

Of course, there are exceptions like u/Vesploogie pointed out. These are the restaurants that are at the top of their game when serving creative molecular cuisine. The pretenders who are trying to emulate this too often fall flat.

But what the hell do I know?