AAD 250: Art and Human Values, Fall 2013, Scott Huette

This discussion about whether food is art or not is actually quite ironic. If you were to ask me whether food is an art four years ago I would have told you no. But for the last for years I have had the pleasure of working with two cooks who specialize in fine dining. Both of these cooks (who are also friends) worked with me at separate times on a commercial fishing boat up in Alaska and both worked together at the best restaurant in the nation, Eleven Madison Park. If I never crossed paths with them then I would still regard fine dining as expensive restaurants with tiny portions. But both of them opened my eyes to the fact that food and the process of making the food is a form of art. I will explain why.

First lets remember the notion that art can take on many forms. For example, art can be a painting, art a sculpture, or even screen prints made from ink and the list doesn’t stop there. If you have ever been to an art museum you’ll notice that the entire museum is filled with a wide array of art, never just one form such as painting. Therefore we know art can take on many forms. Now lets discuss what classifies something as art. In the reading “What is Art For?”, Ellen Dissanayake states that art is “palaeoanthropsychobiological” (pg.1). The third term in this adjective, “psycho”, suggests that art provokes emotional and psychological responses when viewed. Well I have to say, the meals that were cooked for us on the boat were presented in such a way that you almost didn’t even want to eat it, the meal was put together so beautifully. According to what protein was being used for the dish (fish, poultry, or meat) they would compliment it with sides that went together with it perfectly in terms of taste and color. They would also intentionally place each side and protein in a certain manner that was aesthetically pleasing, tasty on the eyes. But a line has to be drawn to at which point food is art or whether it is just food. To me food is art when the cook has made the meal with passion and heart to not only have it taste great but portioned and put together in a way that makes it aesthetically pleasing. Therefore I consider fine dining art and your standard meal from a basic restaurant food. So therefore food can be art but is not always.

Article: “Art As Food”

Telfer, E. (2002). Food as art. In Neill, A. & Ridley, A (Eds.), Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2 ed., pp. 9-27). New York: Routledge.

Here is a picture of one of the many dishes we’ve eaten for dinner for the past four Summers:

One of the many meals that we’ve eaten for the past four summers, aka Art

Ellen Dissanayake is the one who coined the term “palaeoanthropsychobiological”. She created this term to essentially describe arts entire history all in one adjective. Palaeoanthropsychobiological suggests several notions if you break the word down. The first part of the term, “Palaeo”, suggests that art dates back as far as we know mankind to exist. The second part, “anthro”, suggests that art is used and found in every society around the world. The third part, “psycho”, suggests that art triggers some sort of feeling/emotion within us. The fourth part, “biological”, suggests that art is a part of who we are as humans, it is hardwired into our bodies.

Also in the reading Dissanayake goes on and describes art as “art as a behavior of making special”. What I think she means by this is that art helps us “transform the ordinary into the extra-ordinary”. Art helps bring significance to everyday objects or settings and can help make people feel a connection to that art by triggering an emotional stimulus within us. However, people don’t always share the same views about art, which leads me to my next point.

Throughout history, art has gone through different accepted ideologies. For example, in medieval times art was purely a tool for religion. Art at this time encompassed what was thought to be divine and holy, art at this time was not regarded as “aesthetically”. Art later took on a different ideology in the eighteenth century because this was a time that was considered a “focal point in which a number of social and intellectual trends came together, intertwined and influenced one another” (2). This era is known as the “modernism” era. This is when art started to break away from solely servicing the church, and artists started creating art about every day life and popular trends. At this time art was only appreciated by the rich and educated. It wasn’t until later that the ideology of art changed again during the era known as “postmodernism”. During this era art took was open for interpretation by the general public, now everybody has the chance to practice and appreciate art.

In the reading “What is Art For?”, Ellen Dissanayake gives a detailed insight on the history of Western art and its importance in today’s society. According to Dissanayake, art is hardwired into humans and is “normal and natural as language, sex, sociability, aggression, or any of the other characteristics of human nature.” (pg.1). She also states that art is “palaeoanthropsychobiological” (pg.1). She coined this adjective to encompass everything that is art. This term suggests several notions. The first word in this term is “palaeo”, suggesting that art dates as far back as the earliest of humans (cave paintings). The second term, “anthro”, suggests that art includes all human societies (anthropological or cross-cultural). The third term, “psycho”, suggests that art provokes emotional and psychological responses when viewed. The fourth term, “biological”, suggests that art is innate, that it is a part of humanity and everyone possesses an artistic mind of some sort.

Dissanayake explains that in its earliest years (medieval), arts were “in the service of religion” (pg. 2) and were not regarded as “aesthetically” pleasing. In other words art was only created for religious purposes. Eventually Renaissance artists started to create art that evolved around mankind and its relevant concerns. At this point in time however, art still portrayed a real life or ideal world. It wasn’t until the eighteenth century, when art finally started to break free of conformity and religious constraints. The eighteenth century was considered a focal point in history when man became more independent and in which “a number of social and intellectual trends came together, intertwined and influenced on another, an eventually became in combination and intensity what is now called modernity.” (pg. 2).  During the “modernity” era, art was a practice instead of a duty. As the nineteenth century progressed the primary benefactor of artists were the public, instead of the church and court. Art was considered a luxury of the high class and educated, art schools emerged and different art techniques were studied and observed. During this point in time art was considered a privilege. It wasn’t until recently that a new ideology came along regarding art, which is that art doesn’t only have to be for the educated, art can be for everyone because art can be anything. this would be considered today’s era, also known as “postmodernism”, and art was just not how the artist viewed his work but how others did too. Now art can be viewed as abstract, real, or virtual. Art can be a sculpture, painting, collage, or ceramics. Basically in today’s world art is in the eye of the beholder.

Dissanayake did an excellent job explaining the history of Western art, however I still have a hard time wrapping my head around a certain concept. If what she explained is Western art, then what other type of art is there? Or maybe more specifically, how is the history of Western art different than other art around the world?

List of my values from in order of importance:

1.Friendship

2.Enjoyment

3.Family

4.Health

5.Security

6.Loyalty

7.Personal Accomplishment

8.Prestige

9.Creativity

10.Power

11.Leadership

12.Location

13.Wisdom

14.Personal Development

15.Expertness

16.Service

17.Wealth

18.Integrity

19.Independence

20.Community

I have to be totally honest, today is Sunday which means I wasn’t the most productive me today. I slept in, ate a bowl of cereal and then spent the next 4 hours watching football with my friends and roommates. I spent the remainder of my day playing/walking my puppy. Since I really didn’t do that many activities today I didn’t have to use my top five values to help make decisions. However, I did manage to use 3 of the five from what I can recall

Like I mentioned earlier, I watched football all day with my friends today, so the value “friendship” was most definitely involved in my decision making today. I could have just as easy watched the games on my TV in my room but I like to surround myself with good company. To me, friendships are among the most important things in life. Friends help keep me sane by sharing both good and bad experiences with me, without friends I would either go crazy or become depressed. Since I spent the remainder of my day playing with my puppy, Jax, I can also include “family” as one of the values I used today. I know it’s technically not family and he’s just a dog, but he’s also the closest thing I have to a child and honestly feels like my little boy. I think this is because I’m responsible for his well being, how I raise and train him will determine how he will act and behave when he’s full grown, just like raising a child. And I care for him, which is why I played with him for the rest of the day, it wouldn’t be fair to him if I kept him cooped up in the house all day. I guess I can also throw the value “health” as one of the values I used today. Health is what shaped my decision making on where to eat today. During halftime of the Niner game I originally wanted to go get a pizza from Safeway but then I decided that it was better for me to go and eat at this organic restaurant called Laughing Planet, which is much healthier than pizza

The article that we were assigned to read, “A Question of Values: Six Ways We Make the Personal Choices That Shape Our Lives” offered a lot of good insight on what values are, how to come to make our own values, and how they help guide our lives. I have to be honest, before reading this article I never put too much thought on my own values. That is how I came to create these values or if they were instead instinctive. However, after reading the article I put much more thought on how I came to my own values and I would have to agree with Lewis. That values are based off our own personal believes. This is of course obvious and goes without saying, but I thought it was pretty interesting how Lewis explains that what we believe in are based of 6 mental modes: Sense experience, deductive logic, emotion, intuition, authority, and science. Again I would have to agree with these mental modes because I know from experience that I have values in which at least every one of these mental modes helped shape. However, I have to disagree with what Lewis later claims. He states that although all of these mental modes help shape our values, there are certain mental modes that we hold to a higher standard than the rest. For example, one person might shape the majority of their values from emotion rather than the rest of the mental modes. To me this hard to distinguish and a pretty subject claim. As this might be true for some people, I doubt that it is true for everybody. Me personally, I believe that all of these mental modes do shape my core values but I don’t think I hold one higher than the other. To me they are all important on shaping personal values.

Lewis, H. (1990). A Question of Values: Six Ways We Make the Personal Choices That Shape Our Lives. Axios Press.

I found this article the other night which blew my mind! I thought many of you might find it interesting as well. Its about a criminal mastermind by the name of Ross Ulbricht who was just recently arrested by the FBI on October 2, 2013. Ulbricht ran a huge black market website called Silkroad.com that sold illegal drugs online around the world. He went by the alias “Dread Pirates Roberts” and allegedly grossed around $80 million dollars. He was able to do this without getting caught by having users purchase the drugs using virtual money called bitcoins. Right before Ulbricht was arrested one bitcoin was roughly worth $130. So if a user wanted to purchase $200 worth of drugs he would have to buy 2 bitcoins. But the user couldn’t make this transaction by using paypal, instead he or she would use a routing service called Tor. Tor was created by the Navy to mask top secret messages. Tor encrypts the users IP address several times and then routes it all over the world to multiple locations. this would make it virtually impossible to track the buyer. This article goes into much more depth about Ulbricht’s illegal operation, including how he was also involved in multiple hits on suppliers. This is a must read, i attached the URL below. Check it out!

Article

Welcome to your brand new blog at University of Oregon Sites.

To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

For assistance, visit our general support guide or check out theEdublogs User Guide guide.

For additional assistance, contact the Technology Service Desk at 541-346-HELP or techdesk@uoregon.edu.