is food art?
o b j e c t i v e
- examine methods for evaluating qualities of art, such as product versus process, the difference between craft and fine art, must art be archival, and what is an aesthetic reaction
- explore the notion of food as an art-form
a r t i f a c t
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 critique — 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.
r e f l e c t i o n + f u t u r e g o a l s
Honestly I’d never really devoted much thought to food as art — not because I don’t revere it as art or hadn’t elevated it to such a place, but simply because I never asked myself why it wouldn’t be considered art, or what encompassing concepts might define it in such a way. I really enjoyed this unit and could have elaborated extensively in numerous directions had I the time in my schedule. I found myself saying, “No, stay focused — get it done,” when I wanted to expand upon so many things.
I really disagreed with the reading from this particular week — almost every point Telfer made, I found myself opposing. I particularly took issue with her dismissal of food as high art because of its transient nature and inherent lack of contemplation time, (Telfer, p24). Intuitively I understood this to be flawed, and when it came time to complete the research portion of the unit I discovered written testament to those suspicions: critique. The very act of Telfer writing expansively about food as art dismisses the “limited contemplation” mumbo-jumbo. In dismissing temporality she also dismisses an entire stream of postmodern art based on this very concept. I wasn’t really sure where she was coming from, and I’m still not sure I understand.
I’ve always enjoyed cooking and when I graduate from the University of Oregon I plan to take time off from academia to teach English abroad before attending culinary school. I’ll definitely reflect more on all of this during that process and am curious to see if we’ll discuss theory in addition to baking/cooking techniques and dynamics. I hope so. Really, I found all of this unit very inspirational: I’d never considered working with food in a conceptual way — and I think it’s a really fascinating medium with lots of potential and ability to speak to very special things because of its temporal nature.