Urmson assumes that all aesthetic reactions are pleasant, but I do not agree with this take on aesthetic reactions however I do agree with Tefler when she states that, “an aesthetic reaction need not be a favorable one” (pg. 10). I believe that aesthetic reactions are results of how something interacts with your senses to create a feeling, thought, or reaction. These feelings, thoughts, or reactions can vary and not every time will they be favorable. For example, when you see an artwork that is not appealing to you, your thoughts are not favorable but it is still an aesthetic reaction. Moreover, Tefler explains that there is a range of sense-experiences that fall under the aesthetic reactions description, which includes non-neutral, non-instrumental, intensity, and judgment (pg. 11). These are very interesting ways to describe an aesthetic reaction. Non-neutral can be explained to be something that is thought to delight other people, would also delight me too. On the other hand, a non-instrumental reaction can be explained as something that you may appreciate because of its look or sound and not for any benefit that it may offer to yourself or others. Intensity and judgment are both topics that most people are familiar with but both deal with how you perceive the object when you view it.

Now think about it… Does food cause an aesthetic reaction for you? I don’t know about you but food does cause me to have an aesthetic reaction, most times. These aesthetic reactions can include if I think the food looks delicious, it could taste amazingly, I enjoy it because it’s good for me, etc. Overall, I definitely view food as art. On the other hand, if art is defined, as, “a man-made thing” then wouldn’t you think food should be considered as some type of art (pg. 12). Although the ingredients itself aren’t necessarily man-made, the ingredients are put together by a person in order to become food – which fits the above description.

I don’t agree with Urmson or whenever people define art as something that was intended or used only for aesthetic consideration. The main reason is because not all works of art were made with the intention of evoking an aesthetic reaction; some pieces of art came about purely out of accident. Even with that being said isn’t food made with the intention of evoking an aesthetic reaction from its consumer? I’m pretty sure all foods are made with intentions of evoking a favorable reaction from its consumer; no one wants a bad reaction to their food. If this is true, and foods are prepared to create a favorable reaction, then food fits into the description of art that assumes that all works of art are intended or used for aesthetic consideration.