In Food as Art, Tefler believes that food can be viewed as an aesthetically pleasing art. She first defines a work of art and applies that definition as support for her argument. “The classifying sense of the term ‘work of art’, in the way Ursom uses it, takes the maker’s or exhibitor’s intentions as the criterion for deciding whether something is a work of art or not” (Tefler 12). So Tefler is stipulating that not all food may be considered pieces of art because not all food is intended to be art. The average burger at a fast food restaurant is made primarily for sustenance and retail purposes. However, there are some places that value food as art. For instance a meal at a five star restaurant a lot of the enjoyment from the meal is derived from the experience and presentation of the food; that can be considered art. I agree with Tefler. A fancy restaurant may have fine cuisine but your bill isn’t just paying for your meal it’s paying for the atmosphere and the artistry of the food itself.
Tefler gives examples of a cook who is making food into art, this cook: “desires to design dishes, courses and whole meals which present patterns of harmonious or contrasting flavours and textures. This is the approach of the cook who is designing a work of art” (Tefler 15). Tefler’s argument makes it simple in my eyes whether food can be art or not. I agree with Tefler that food should be considered art in its own right if that is the intention of the cook. Her whole piece makes me think of the term gastronomy. According to Webster: gastronomy is defined as “the art or activity of cooking and eating fine food” (Merriam-Webster). I believe this is the type of food that Tefler is talking about. If you take a look at Alinea a molecular gastronomy restaurant in Chicago you can see right away that food is being turned into an art form. The food is still meant for consumption but it also is portrayed in the aesthetically pleasing artform that Telfer talks about in her article. Here is a gallery of the types of cuisine that Alinea serves. You can also watch this quick video on the creation of one of their dishes.
This video showcases the preparation for one of Alinea’s dishes, called Lamb 86, that incorporates 86 distinct flavors/ingredients to pair with the lamb. If you continue watching the playlist they show further proof of food as art. After looking further into gastronomy I hope you feel as much as I do that food can be art just as Tefler argues. I do not believe it is simply gastronomy that is applicable to this but it is definitely a fine example as food created to be esthetically pleasing art.
After reading “Art As Food” by Tefler, I am in total compliance with you. I one hundred percent agree that art can be considered food, if that food was made with the intentions to not only be aesthetically pleasing but pleasing to the other senses as well, such as taste. I have to be honest though, I have felt this way about food before reading “Art As Food” because I had the privilege to work on a boat with two cooks who both were former employees at one of the best restaurants in the world, Eleven Madison Park, and who specialize in fine cuisine. Both of them opened my eyes to how food can be an art. They showed me how much passion goes into cooking dishes that are meant to be aesthetically pleasing. To me the amount of passion that goes into making the dish is one of the main deciding factors whether food is considered an art or not. They also showed me that cooking a dish is not necessarily all about being aesthetically pleasing to the eater, but the dish must also taste exquisite to the eater. If the dish looks amazing but taste crappy, then the dish is a fail to the cook. This is what also makes me believe food can be considered art, because there is room for interpretation and disinterest just as in art. Would you agree that the eater plays a huge role in art being considered food?
I agree with you that the ability for interpretation and disinterest helps to make food into an art form. I somewhat agree with you that the eater plays a huge role in whether food is considered art or not. However, art is still art even if people disagree on it. When Andy Warhol took pictures of soup cans and called it art some people disagreed and some agreed but to Mr. Warhol it was definitely art. So we have to decide whether it is the creator or the consumer that defines whether the subject, food in this case, is art or not. A chef might put all of his emotions into a dish to create a spectacular look and taste. To the chef his dish is his art and it will be art but if the consumer is simply looking at the dish as a meal the art is consumed instead of appreciated. If you go on the other end where the chef creates something equally as tasty and beautiful but is creating it because that is his job and he wants to get a paycheck the art is lost to the creator. However, if the dish comes out and the consumer marvels in the beauty, hears music in every bite, and sheds a tear when the last bite is gone than the meal was art to the consumer. In this way I feel like food is special. It can be art on one end and not the other. A painting is painted for the reason of being art and any viewer can hate it or love it but they will agree its art. Whereas food can be art to the creator, the consumer, both, or neither.