The article I selected approaches the topic of whether food is or is not art in several ways, operating under a somewhat different set of definitions — though not entirely — than previously discussed in class. First the author gives consideration to the chef as an artisan and the skilled craftsmanship that goes into the actual production of the food. Next he discusses the debate through the framework of the avant-garde. Last, and possibly the most removed from what we’ve read/discussed over the past few weeks — though I think still equally relevant and  is the interaction between artist and investor and how the interaction of the two define something as art. Ultimately the author appears to be in favor of the opinion that food is, indeed, art as he doesn’t really offer any counter examples or opposing views.

Much the way Dissanayake defined art as the “propensity to ‘make special,’ particularly things that one cares deeply about or activities whose outcome has strong personal significance,” (Dissanayake, p22) Parassecoli asserts that “chefs are not just craftsmen, artisans, or business persons; they are expected to offer patrons (and critics) dishes and menus that stimulate and surprise them, find new methods to manipulate ingredients, and interact with technology and design in ways that keep them on the cutting edge and ensure coverage from press, TV, and the Internet” (Parassecoli, 2013).

At first interpretation this may not reveal itself to be synonymous with what Dissanayake presents so much as a business-centric model of art-defining, but further consideration reveals the level of expertise, passionate study, exploration and innovation that find themselves accompanying modern cuisine as a very real and discernible effort to “make special” — to elevate a mere act of consumption to an experience worthy of discourse and professional critique. That sort of scrutiny carries with it inherent value of special. It certainly holds up to the modernist ideal that “what is said (or written) about a work is not only necessary to its being art, but is indeed perhaps more important than the work itself.” The very act of attracting critical attention, would, under a modernist perspective give reason to believe that food is, indeed, art.

I think Telfer herself would have to appreciate this perspective despite her belief that the inherent transience of food “limits the contemplation that is possible — a work of food art will not be around very long to be contemplated” (Telfer, p24). In the act of critique, food is granted an extended shelf-life of contemplation — the discussion surrounding a particularly masterful technique or innovative fusion of flavors or cultures can last far longer than the individual item of food can be appreciated on the palette. But does that make it any less appreciated or contemplated? I think not.

Parassecoli goes on to refer to this “intelligentsia” surrounding food as avant-garde, defined by “Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary as an intelligentsia that develops new or experimental concepts esp. in the arts” (Parassecoli, 2013). Again, the act of lingering critic — contemplation — is what in turn informs the artists (chefs) and pushes them to strive to new and innovative developments.

Lastly Parassecoli discusses something not directly discussed in class, but could again be related to Dissanayake’s beliefs about art as the “making of special”: the inclusivity of artist and investor, “if creativity in the kitchen produces income, it is highly praised as a cultural achievement and valued as a commercial asset” (Parassecoli, 2013). As we increasingly live in a world dominated by capitalist ideologies, commercial assets are ever more indicators of cultural achievement — in other words, the socially valuable or special. Dollar amounts represent perceived value — how special or unique an object or experience is. It could again be argued the peripheral discussion (in this case assigned dollar value) surrounding the work defines it as art just as much as the work itself — and certainly doesn’t subtract from the idea that food is, indeed, art.

 

 

Dissanayake, E. (1991). What Is Art For? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote addresses 1991 (NAEA Convention). (pp. 12-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Parassecoli, Fabio. (2013, August). Is Food Art? Chefs, Creativity, and the Restaurant Business? Huffington Post [On-Line Newspaper]. Retrieved August 1, 2014 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fabio-parasecoli/food-art_b_3830791.html

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.