Initially in the article, “Food As Art”, Elizabeth Tefler describes the challenge of determining what is considered art. One main argument that she provides is that just because something has an aesthetic reaction, does not mean it is considered art. “I know perfectly well that the pile is a work of art in the first sense: that is, I know that the artist and the gallery owner intend us to gaze at it with intensity and that the public will probably oblige. But I am claiming that this object is not worth gazing at in this way, that it does not merit or repay aesthetic consideration”(Tefler, 13). This quote was interesting to me because it makes you wonder where the line is drawn on what art is in peoples mind. Or whether or not people can separate their emotions from the goal of the artist and the statement he or she was hoping to provoke. I for one can consider almost anything art IF it was the artists goal for their piece to be represented in this way, however I can choose whether or not I appreciate its artistic value. However others may not appreciate its artistic value and therefore they do not perceive it to be art in no way shape or form.
In terms of food, I believe that you cannot decipher whether or not cooking is a craft or an art because it all depends on the cook’s intentions. I believe a cook can be considered a craftsman as well as an artist if the overall goal was to create something that was just as much tastefully pleasing as aesthetically pleasing.
Something that is useful and has more value then just being examined is hard to be considered art, and that is what Tefler describes in the article. Art is something different than a useful object or display. So can something useful, e.g. food also be considered art? It’s hard to say who gets to set these limitations, and as Tefler says, “How can we be sure that a limitation is in the tastes and not in our perception of them? Does this distinction even make sense? But even if we accept this distinction for the sake of argument, what these considerations show is not that food cannot constitute works of art, but a much weaker thesis: that works of art based on food must be relatively simple”(Tefler, 20).
I definitely have a postmodern approach to classifying art. I am not one to create limitations for those who express themselves in a way that is artistic for them. Dissanayake says in her article “Art For Life’s Sake”, “What artists do, in their specialized and often driven way, is an exaggeration of what ordinary people also do, naturally and with enjoyment-transform the ordinary into the extra-ordinary”(Dissanayake, 25). This is a perfect way to describe my general perception of what art is about.
I am not sure then if you consider food art? It seems that you are skeptical of calling food art and that it is only situational art. “Something that is useful and has more value then just being examined is hard to be considered art” I think you are creating a false dichotomy here; just because something is useful does not prevent it from being considered art. Dissanayake states that art is transforming “the ordinary into the extra-ordinary” (25). Taking simple ingredients and transforming them into something else is exactly what cooking is. Clothing for example is something that is extremely useful, it keeps us warm, and it is considered art. Art is not confined to anyone one or any specific type of medium. That is the best part of freedom of expression, being able to do anything. What would happen if you took something that was already extra-ordinary and transformed it in something even more extra-ordinary?
I thought the distinction that was made between a craft and an art was really interesting. Both concepts seem so ambiguous. Where is the line drawn when considering whether a subject is an art or a craft? In terms of food as art, I think that in some contexts, food could concretely be considered a form of art. Is the line cook at the local Red Robin an artist (in regards to the food he/she cooks)? No. Fine dining, however, where the creator (the chef) has meticulously considered individual flavors, textures, temperatures, etc. while creating a dish with the ultimate goal of the eater experiencing the unique aesthetic value of the dish in mind. In that context, the modernist idea of interpretation by reputable critic being a fundamental part of the piece (the meal) being classified as art. Overall, I think this article does a great job of showing how complex of an idea art is, and how understanding of art develops over time.