The article Art on the Plate: Effect of balance and color on attractive of, willingness to try and liking for food talks about different aesthetic reactions to food. These aesthetic reactions include non-instrumental, non-neutral, and sense experience; these are all topics that Tefler talked about in her article Food as art (course reading). Zellner et. al explains that although we may think that our liking for food may be based on it’s taste, texture, or burn there are other aspects that we overlook majority of the time (2010).

One of the overlooked aspects includes the physical appearance of the food. Most people will consume food that they know taste good or satisfy their hunger and sometimes those foods aren’t necessarily mean that they are aesthetically pleasing. On the other hand, in a situation where the individual is at a restaurant that they have never eaten at before they will likely make a decision off of either physical appearance, non-instrumental, or non-neutral components; this is something that I do when eating at a new restaurant. For example, most restaurants will have pictures of their dishes within their menu – this definitely influences the individual’s decision because they will most likely pick something that they think looks the most appetizing. Also, some people will ask others for their opinion on what to order whether it’s someone they are dining with or one of the restaurant staff members; this is an example of non-neutral, they assume that if it’s recommended they would most likely enjoy it also. Lastly, for some people the contents of the food is really important to them and the benefits that the food provides for the consumer influences their decisions. When someone considers the benefits of the actual food rather than physical appearance, taste, or smell they are going by non-instrumental ideas. Moreover, the ideas of aesthetic reactions including non-neutral, non-instrumental, and judgment were discussed in the assigned reading Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates by Elizabeth Telfer. Although Zellner did not use these exact terms but her explanations and examples were similar to Tefler. Overall, both Tefler and Zellner had the same views and insight to aesthetic reactions – especially when it comes to food.

The article Food as Art: The problem of function talks about the difference between art and craft when it comes to food. In the article Quinet states, “The culinary arts, one might claim, are indeed arts, but only when we use the term ‘art’ in the sense of mere ‘craft’; and this is not the way in which the term is used in aesthetics” (1981). She goes on to explain that the difference between the terms is merely between productive activities and the products of those productive activities. Quinet also claims that some products of crafts are not works of art, so the two terms although they are similar and sometimes go hand in hand it’s not always like that.

In the article, craft is looked at as the productive process or activity whereas art is mainly the outcome or product of the activity. The definitions given by Quinet in the article are similar to those that were given and discussed in the assigned reading Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates by Tefler. We can assume that their ideas are similar because Tefler states, “Art is original creation, whereas craft is carrying out an instruction, following a convention or employing a technique” (2002). Quinet and Tefler’s insight to the terms craft and art differ when Tefler goes on to talk about technique and creativity. She explains the difference between craft and art is whether a technique or creativity was used to create the product. Crafting requires the application of technique or skill whereas art takes mere creativity and expression to create a product. Overall, Quinet and Tefler have similar thoughts and agree that food is art to an extent. Also, even though chefs create the food, which is art, they are not exactly artists. Chefs would be considered more as craftsmen because it takes a lot of skill and technique to cook and create food. With that said the culinary arts could be seen as both a craft and art depending on your point of view and how you define the terms craft and art.

Quinet, M. L. (1981). Food As Art: the Problem of Function. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 21, 159–171. doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/21.2.159

Tefler, E. (2002). Food as Art. In Neill, A. & Riley, A. (eds.) Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2nd ed., Chap. 2). New York, NY: Routledge.

Zellner, D. A., Lankford, M., Ambrose, L., & Locher, P. (2010). Art on the plate: Effect of balance and color on attractiveness of, willingness to try and liking for food. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 575–578. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.02.007

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.

Combination words                       Meanings

Paleo-                                                 Paleology

Anthro-                                               Anthropology

Psycho-                                               Psychology

Biolog-                                                Biology

Suffixes                                              Meanings

-ical                                                     Pertaining to

The person who coined this term was Ellen Dissanayake; she used this term in the article what is art for? which was our assigned excerpt for this week. Dissanayake uses this term in order to describe what art is to her.

2. It this week’s reading Dissanayake uses the phrase “making special” to explain that when you make something special, someone will care for it or it has some sort of significance in his or her life. Another way to look at the phrase “making special” is to transform a regular object or activity into something “special” or extraordinary. The ability to make something special is necessary to human survival, Dissanayake explains in the reading. The example she uses is animal survival; if a prey cannot distinguish between branches that are falling or branches that are moving because a predator is coming will put the prey in great danger and they probably won’t survive. One way that this phrase relates to art is when art works are put into galleries, they are then “made special”.

3. Medieval times – During these times Dissanayake explains, “arts were in the service of religion… but were not regarded ‘aesthetically’” (pg. 16). Art had an extremely different meaning than it does today. Artists from the Renaissance era were said to “gradually replaced God-center with man-centered concerns” (pg. 16). People of this time believed in different ideas and with this, in time the focus of religion shifted to freedom. For example Dissanayake states that, “Plate did not discuss ‘art’, but rather beauty, poetry, and image making. Aristotle dealt with poetry and tragedy” (pg. 16).

Modernism – This is probably when art started to be truly appreciated. In the 18^th century, many people started to be more concerned with aesthetics. Dissanayake explains that, “ a concern with elucidating principles such as taste and beauty that govern all the arts and indeed make them not simply paintings or statues but examples of (fine) ‘art’” (pg. 17). During this era, the ideology and inspiration of the artwork came into focus but not everyone could understand these ideas and needed experts to explain it to them.

Postmodernism – Dissanayake states that postmodernism is a “point of view that calls into question two centuries of assumptions about the elite and special nature of art” (pg. 19). In this era, the assumption that art reflects a unique and privileged kind of knowledge is thrown out and art is looked at through the artists’ “individual and cultural sensibilities” (pg. 19). Nowadays art is for everyone and anyone can interpret an artwork, however everyone may have different interpretation of an artwork based on his or her point of view.

In this weeks reading What is art for?, the author introduced that to her, art is “palaeoantropsychobiological” (Dissanayake, 15). To me this was very interesting because the word he used when broken down means pertaining (-ical) to the ideas of paleoecology (palaeo-), anthropology (anthro-), psychology (psycho-), and biology (biolog-). He then goes on to explain that is suggest that the idea of art includes all of human history whether it’s Paleolithic or earlier, that it includes all human societies meaning anthropological, and that it needs and has a emotional and psychological effect on it’s viewers (Dissanayake, 15). During Fall 2013, I took an AAD 252: Art and Gender course which really broadened my view on art because it taught me that art can be anything made by any human. Something doesn’t have to be made with the intension of being art, some forms of art were accidentally made but as long as it evokes some type of emotion from its view; it’s considered art. I would agree that my view on art, is the same as Dissanayake which is what she foreseen, “Most people would probably agree that their personal “idea of art” includes all these things…” (15). Everyone has their own take on art and there is no correct definition because it depends on the eye of the beholder. However, these are present day definitions or art whereas back in the Paleolithic or pre-modern times the definition of art was extremely different.

Moreover Dissanayake explains that during the medieval times “arts were in the service of religion, as they have always been, but were not regarded ‘aesthetically’ (16). Although I obviously was not there during this time I know that society as a whole had completely different values from the society we live in today. Everyone was so much more conservative and religion was a big part of everyone’s lives. No one really cared about aesthetics, like today’s society.

There’s a drastic change in how people describe art over the years but overall, I don’t think any definition of art is wrong whether it’s what people in the medieval times thought or today’s people. I believe that there is no exact definition of art because everyone has different point of views. Anything can be considered “art” as long as it evokes some type of thought or emotion.

Before reading this weeks unit readings, I thought of values as just personal guidelines and even though I am not wrong, there is so much more to the topic. The excerpt that we were required to read this week explained values to be “synonymous with personal evaluations and related beliefs” (Lewis 1990). I believe that this is a good way to think about what values are, since simply values are based on what an individual believes and follows which influence how a person behaves or how they see themselves. An individual will set their values as they grow up; this is also when they are influenced by factors in the person’s surroundings. Some of these factors may include parental upbringing, religion, school, family, and culture. On the other hand, the excerpt introduces and talks about six different mental modes; there are four basic mental modes and two synthetic mental modes. In the excerpt, Lewis explains that the four basic mental modes include sense experience, deductive logic, emotion, and intuition whereas the two synthetic mental modes are authority and ‘science’ (1990). The way I see it, the four mental modes are all internal modes and are how we think, sense, and feel whereas the two synthetic modes are things we learn and encounter as we grow up.

It is believed that the factors within a person’s surroundings will morph an individual’s value(s) by influencing the person’s mental modes. I would agree with the previous statement because a person will develop their values based on how they grow up. For example, someone who grew up with one parent, has one sibling, and is religious will most likely have different values compared to someone who grew up with two parents, five siblings, doesn’t follow a particular religion, and was home-schooled; all because of how they grew up. In conclusion, this is why everyone has their own values because no one grows up the same or has the same childhood.

The author of the excerpt claims that all six modes must be somewhat co-dominant to one another to avoid bias or one sided-values. This is true since all six mental modes together create us, metaphorically speaking. When one mental mode is made dominant over the others, the persons values will be one sided and although it isn’t technically wrong, since there is no such thing as a bad value, their value is will not be “well rounded”. Someone who balances all six mental modes will most likely have values that are well rounded because they take all parts into account when developing or choosing their values.

In the end, everyone has/chooses their own values and is entitled to those values.