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.
hello, just been read you article about food and art. I believe you point is totally same as my.
the at start the writer give the example and summary the this week’s reading key word which aesthetic reactions, through your point view and example, I could go through this point again. I think aesthetic reactions could be happen in so many different ways, just like we are so hard to make a concept with art.
At second part, the writer said dose food made aesthetic reactions for him. The writer said yes, this is same as me. the most simple reason is we hungry we need food, moreover, a good dish looks just like art work at it is good for our body, thus it make aesthetic reactions with me.
You pointed something important out when defining food as art. As long as it is man made it can be considered art. I also agree that art can not be put into a tiny box, shutting out all other possibilities and interpretations of what defines art. However I do believe art does need to have aesthetic value to be considered a piece of art. Although I agree that you cant put a label on what art is I also don’t believe that someone can put a bucket in the middle of a room and call it art. How far do you think people can stretch what art is until it just doesn’t make sense anymore? In terms of food I agree with you that the taste as well as the presentation of food can be considered art. It takes concise, and emotion evoked energy to create a piece of art and it would be unfair to take away food as another facet of what defines art. Your argument becomes more concrete when you explain that because food is prepared to create a favorable reaction that it is intended for aesthetic consideration as well just as art is. The author, Telfer talks a lot about the difference between craft and art. Do you consider craft and art to be terms that intertwine with each other or are they separate entities. If you agree that cooking is a craft as well as an art, do you consider every mans craft to be considered art as well? How alike and different do you consider these terms to be?
I liked your statement that “art can not be put into a tiny box” – this is true because usually art derives from “thinking outside the box”; art is using your imagination and expressing your thoughts and feelings. I see what you are trying to say about to what extent do we stop labeling something as art… This is a very interesting topic and I guess I would draw the line at when an object does not evoke any aesthetic reactions for a multitude of people, then it is not art. It only makes sense that something that is “art” must evoke an aesthetic reaction from it’s viewers. You also have to keep in mind that everyone has their own point of view and reaction to different artworks but if an artwork doesn’t create a reaction from multiple viewers, I would assume that it is safe to say that it is not art. Do you agree? Moreover, when it comes to the terms craft and art – I do believe that they are somewhat intertwined with each other. Although craft and art are not the exact same things, they do somewhat go hand in hand because they both involve skill and creating things. I would consider that cooking is a craft and art, as well as other things like jewelry making, interior design, etc. I guess it really just boils down to what is being created, if the result of crafting is considered an art then the terms are one in the same.