As I am waiting outside my classroom, waiting for my class to start, I notice a girl who is sitting across from me. She has earphones in and is nodding her head up and down. I’m assuming she’s nodding her head to the rhythm of her music. Her attire is very interesting; She has bright clothes underneath her dark layers. I feel like internally, she is a very bright person, is outgoing and likes to be creative. But the darker colors on the outside represent that she wants people to know she is mellow and composed. It’s either that or she’s trying to keep herself warm from the extremely cold weather. But I also notice that she has paintings/drawings drawn all over the converses. I think she is a very creative and artistic person because the designs on her shoes were very detailed and intricate. Her hair was full of highlights and streaks which looked like she had some glowing personality shining out, just similar to her clothes.

Another person I see sitting next to me in class is a girl wearing a lot of cosmetics on her face. At first, I think she thought of herself as insecure which was why she wore so much make up, but it could just make herself feel better about herself. Then I examined the clothing she wore. It was mainly the clothes that you would see on Vogue magazine or some other fashion magazine. It looked like she dressed to impress people. She looked like she was 21 years of age by the way she dressed in such confidence. When she turned her head, I saw a tattoo on her neck with roman numerals. I think that date could be a very important day that she wants to remember forever, and I respect her for that. I believe her values are that she does not care what others think of her, she does what she feels is right to her, but at the same time, she knows her morals.

Last person I see as I walk home, is a young gentleman who looked like was in a hurry for class. I think he was an international student from Asia because he was speaking in Chinese to another friend beside him. He dressed in adidas clothing, nike shoes, but had a thick frame of glasses. By the way he dressed, I think his attire was to express that he was very comfortable in how he dressed and that he wanted to learn. Like, I feel he doesn’t care about what people think about what he was wearing, as long as he was learning. He was carrying an economics book with him as he walked and started opening it while he walked. I’m guessing he had a test for the class. But this shows that he was very focused in school and took things seriously for academics.

Food is an important part of our daily lives; it gives us energy, nutrients, and satisfaction. But can we value it beyond its role in our bodily mechanisms? Food has been gaining immense popularity as a serious art form. I mean, I can’t even scroll through my Instagram and Twitter feeds without craving some of the eye-catching dishes people post. In the article by Fabio Parasecoli, “Is Food Art? Chefs, Creativity, and the Restaurant Business”, supports food as an art form comparable to the musical performances and visual art. Parasecoli makes some persuasive points, but his two main points are the strongest. The first point being that “innovation and creativity are included among the traits that are most commonly attributed to a successful chef…they are expected to offer patrons dishes and menus that stimulate and surprise” (Parasecoli). Being a chef in a lot tougher than it seems. They constantly have to keep their guests wanting more, they manipulate ingredients, and use technology to stay modern. Customers are seeking food that is new and exciting, just as someone wouldn’t want to listen to the same song on repeat. His second point also explores how food requires vision. Some chefs “express their visions and their goals in a cookbook… they even organize meetings and conferences where ideas are exchanged” (Parasecoli). These statements show the passion that is involved with cooking, how much the chefs dedicate their lives to the kitchen. And just as a painter wants to see their paintings seen and how musicians want their music heard, chefs want their food to be tasted and explored. This article really signifies how the passion and business aspect of food make it art.

Although Parasecoli’s article demonstrates another side of art, it completely contrasts with Tefler’s arguments that were mainly based on the sensual reaction of the people eating the food. For Tefler, presentation was everything. When I go to a restaurant, food that is arranged artistically, are usual the most popular. That is because like many other kinds of art, food plays with your senses, maybe even more senses than any other kind of art. Tefler considers something to be art if “our reaction… is solely based on how the object appears to the senses” (Tefler 9).  Food is a unique art because it can play with all of your senses. Obviously, you taste the dish. You can feel the texture as you chew. You can hear the sizzling of oils on meat. You can see the careful plating done by the chef. You can smell the food as the waiter brings it in. Not many other things let you use all five senses when observing it… unless you insist on eating paint! Parasecoli had some similar ideas; he talked about how chefs have to manipulate ingredients to keep surprising the guests in order to maintain attention.

Moreover, Tefler continues to compare food and dining to another more recognized art form, music. He starts by comparing a “creator of a recipe to a composer, and the cook… to a performer” (Tefler 18).You can relate this thought back to the second point of Parasecoli. Art is about expression, and there is some pride in hearing other performers play the musical piece you composed, as well as when another chef cooks the recipe you created.

Parasecoli really talks mostly about how the food business is similar to how the art business works. Although it is coming from a different point of view than Tefler’s, his argument is convincing. The markets for art and food are very closely related. The both rely on consumers, but mostly investors who put money in to support potential. And just like art, food relies on the creativity of the chef to keep business going.

In conclusion, I found both readings to be very informative and gave two different, yet relatable perspectives on the subject of culinary art. Overall,  I do believe that food is a relevant art form. It not only has the sensory effects that are required for art, but that also have similar markets and followers. T

Here’s the link to Parasecoli’s article in the Huffington post by clicking here!

Parasecoli, Fabio. “Is Food Art? Chefs, Creativity, and the Restaurant Business?” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 29 Aug. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.

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

Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote addresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

First off, who wouldn’t think food is art? I mean, there exists culinary art which pertains to art that has to do with food. At restaurants, cooks master culinary art so that the presentation is superb and remarkably beautiful. This is just the same as a masterpiece of art at a museum because art should put people in awe. In Elizabeth Telfer’s article, she claims “An aesthetic reaction is a pleasant reaction to something. But it will not do as it stands. An aesthetic reaction need not be a flavourable one” (Telfer 10). The quote reveals that art has some sort of aesthetic reaction to it. Food not only is about flavor, but it is also about the presentation because food would less likely be eaten if the presentation was horrible. Dissanayake has a good point when she states, “a ‘disinterested’ attitude that is separate from one’s own personal interest” (Dissanayake 3). This can be related to food as art. Food is judged by an individual right there, when it’s presented. There should not be a judgement of any kind of art without experiencing its aesthetics. Food uses colors, designs, structures and textures just like art, hence food is art itself from its presentation. I claim that food is art because it is a creation/masterpiece just like an artist working with paint and canvases. Food is very similar because there is a chef who can create “a work of art” (Telfer 18) with edible arrangements, just like an artist. Art is a work of originality and uniqueness; food is considered art because no one can make the same dish more than once, there is always a slight alter. Every dish is an original creation, as is every art piece. As the author states, “all views and listeners approach works of art from their own points of view and their own preconceptions, and so in a sense each sees a different work of art” (Telfer 17). Every viewer of a painting or masterpiece has a different perspective and interpretation of what they see, and this is identical to a food dish at a restaurant.

Paleoanthropsychobiological is a term that Ellen Dissanayake coined which is built from a number of root words. Paleo meaning old; anthro which means human; psych as in mind; and biological which is the study of life. So all of these roots together would literally be defined as the study of the old human mind and life. But in Dissanayake’s definition, she explains that,“First, that the idea of art encompasses all of human history; second, that it include all human societies; and third, that it accounts for the fact that art is a psychological or emotional need and has psychological or emotional effects” (1). The author uses this term to describe the idea of art, as said in the quote.

Dissanayake goes by the phrase, “making special” when relating personal significance to specific activities or things. This relates to art because art itself is a creation made from personal creativity, which makes things special by its uniqueness. For example, art can come from a variety of different things like by baking and decorating a cake. It could just be an ordinary cake, but you can ‘make it special’ by using your own creativity to make it an original work of art. Her phrase also has to do with human survival because “looking at all humans as members of one species and then thinking of art as a “kind of behavior that developed as they evolved, to help them survive” (2). The uniqueness and specialty of human survival is based off of evolution, as art evolves, human survival does as well through innovation.

The author identifies many different periods of art throughout European history. Three different theories of art that Dissanayake mentions in her essay include the Renaissance, which was the art of the 14^th century, the Modernism which was in the 18^th century, and the Postmodernism of the 20^th century. First off, the Renaissance was an era where “replace God-centered with man-centered”. Basically, they just focused on aesthetics of man. Next was the Modernism period when art was referred as an ideology and “disinterested” art. This was when art became more abstract, “taste and beauty that govern all the arts and indeed make them not simply painting or status, but examples of fine art” (3). This allowed many views to see art individually. Lastly, there was the Postmodernism, and this is defined as broad art, where interpretation was based on perspectives and artists “interprets art according to their invididual and cultural sensibilities” (6). This era most importantly ceased “high” art standards of the modernists.

Art has many interpretations and perceptions built into it, but in the article,  Art for Life’s Sake”, Ellen Dissanayake, the author described art as “paleoanthropsychobiological” which has many roots. This word that Ellen uses as an adjective can be broken down in pertaining to paleo meaning old or history, anthro-human, psych-mind and bio-life. But in the text, paleoanthropsychobiological is defined as “First, that the idea of art encompasses all of human hisotry; second, that it includes all human societies; and third, that it accounts for the fact that art is a psychological or emotional need and has psychological or emotional effects” (1). The author describes that over time, the interpretation of art has changed. I’m wondering, what the reason was for art to be innovated? Back in history, the Westerns, mainly focused on the Greeks and medieval period, art was recognized as the five unprecedented changes which were “a gradual secularization of society, the rise of science, the social or interpersonal changes, emphasis on reason and the great political revolutions between America and France” (2-3). During this time, Ellen claims that Western art in the past was not necessarily considered artsy, but was focused more generally on the beauty and excellence of the Renaissance era. But since art back then was only focused on the Greeks and the medievals, would this kind of art be universally accepted as art?

Dissanayake only talks about the Western side of the globe throughout her entire article, I want to know more about why she only discusses the Western region’s perspective on art and what the other regions’ perspectives are. For example, the art history in Asia. Or was there only the discovery of art and art interpretations in the West? She also discusses in the text, “Art had become if not a religion, an ideology whose principles were articulated by and for the few who had leisure and education enough to acquire them” (4). Does this mean only those with an education about art, knew how to interpret art?

1. Integrity
2. Family
3. Friendship
4. Health
5. Enjoyment
6. Wisdom
7. Loyalty
8. Personal Development
9. Security
10. Independence
11. Wealth
12. Creativity
13. Personal Accomplishment
14. Service
15. Community
16. Expertness
17. Prestige
18. Leadership
19. Location
20. Power

Personal values tend to play a huge role in each individual and is based on one’s underlying personality. I found an article by Lewis, H. A Question of Values: Six Ways we Make the Personal Choices that Shape Our Lives containing content of which I completely agree with. Before this reading, little did I know of the subcategories within personal values such as, the six “Most Basic Ways We Come to ‘Know’ Something” which were emphasized on sense experience, deductive logic, emotion, intuition, authority and “science”. Lewis, H claimed that “these four basic and two major synthesis mental modes not only describe how we approach things in general, they also describe how we develop and choose values” which was basically all I knew about how we made decisions by choosing values.

One life example of  when I used sense experience and emotion for decision making was this one time when my entire family made it my decision to come up with a place to eat for dinner, I choose this Thai restaurant and I ended up getting food poisoning. I had sense experience by experiencing the food and coming up with consequences afterward, knowing for sure that I would not want to eat there again. I could just remember the feeling (emotion) I had when I was food poisoned, especially because it was the first time I have ever been food poisoned, it was an unforgettable experience. Moreover, sense experience, deductive logic, emotion, intuition, authority and science all tie in together to developing values.

There was also a section of the article regarding values as genetically inherited. I would say I have to disagree with this because my parents/family members are completely different and at a very low chance would I inherit my parents’ values. Everyone is different and they develop their personal values differently through learning experience or by learning about it in general through articles of research. For example, my parents and I do not have the same religion belief. Theirs is based on what they think is correct to their tradition because they are deeply traditional, and mine is based on what I believe in by logical understanding and science.

Overall, this article has boggled my mind and i’m looking forward to reading more about human values later in this course!

To read this article, click here.

I remember learning about this concept in my human physiology class last year. My discussion class was having a debate on whether muscle weighed more than fat. In the article, it says that fat takes up about four times the the space of muscle tissue. No, muscle does not weigh more than fat because a pound is a pound, so they should weigh about the same. But in my class, I learned that muscle does contain more meat which should be heavier. This article was very interesting because it contradicts what I have learned previously.

If you want more information, click here for the original article.