I found and read the article, Food as art: It looks almost too good to eat by Jane Brocket.

This article describes the progression of a movement of “food from art and food as art”. There is an idea that artists and designers are now moving into using their creative skills in original recipes and dishes. Brocket describes a blogger, Megan Fizell who uses her authentic dishes to not only being accurate and savoury, but also oto create a fabulous geometric, colourful, and “wowing” creation. Brocket explains how, “..sponge, icing, chocolate and food colouring are the kitchens creator’s media, just as clay, stone and paint are for the sculptor or painter. In fact, there is little in the artist’s studio that cannot be substituted in the kitchen”. An equally creative , contemporary, fashionably stark aesthetic is the series of Fictitious Dishes, by Dinah Fried. Fried is a graphic designer and photographer who takes famous literary meals and turn then into artfully arranged pictures for her website. Many of the pictures and designs are shot from angles, which make them look like artful paintings. Brocket explains food as art by, “Taking art and literature as inspiration means no rules, and the freedom to express your culinary creativity as you please, according to your vision and the contents of your cupboard”.

I found some similarities between what Brocket described and what Telfer described as food being seen as art. In Brocket’s article, her main points to be made are those that describe food as art in a visually pleasing sense. I agree with many of her points made, but I also think there should be more emphasis on other factors such as the aesthetically pleasing senses of taste and smell that Telfer touches on in the article we read this week. He gives the definition of a “work of art” by saying, “If something is a work of art, then its maker or exhibitor intended it to be looked at or listened to with intensity, for its own sake”. I think that Telfer and Brocket would agree on that definition. Brocket and her other references that she cited throughout her article, create their food in ways that resemble art and become appealing and appreciated by consumers.

Brocket focuses on the appealing nature of food and how it can look great through the colour, texture, and “wow” factor. Telfer explains this in an interesting sense. He explains, “..if I like the way cottage cheese contrasts in flavor and tecture with rye bread, my reaction is aesthetic, whereas if I am pleased with the combination because it is low-calorie and high-fibre, it is not”. He explains how we think aesthetic reactions have to do with intensity, but aesthetic reactions don’t always involve actively paying attention to or concentrating on something. Some aesthetic reactions involve being impressed by something unexpected or short-lived. Brocket creates these examples as many of the artists and creators make images with their food creations in order to catch our attention.

I think an interesting dilemma when considering food as art has to do with a difference between art and craft. Brocket has many artists who create their images through the presentation of their art. Telfer describes the difference between art and craft as, “A cook who creates a recipe is a creative artist. If a chef gives directions to an assistant or someone who prepares it, then they are technicians rather than artists”. When considering this idea and Brocket’s examples. I wonder if those creators are more of the technicians than the actual artist who made the recipe. While some examples Brocket gave did create their own recipes, others just made them appealing to the viewer and consumer.

This topic of food as art has me troubled in some areas. It is difficult to decide which “titles” are necessary in terms of who can qualify as an artist when using food as a tool to express art. I think there are many situations in which art can be shown through food (whether it be presentation or an aesthetic reaction we have to another sense brought on by food). I think Brocket describes food in an art sense with great openness. She illustrates how art should have no boundaries for creativity and we should have the opportunity to express our culinary creativity in whichever way we please.

Brocket, J. (2012, August 3). Food as art: It looks almost too good to eat [on-line newspaper]. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/aug/03/food-as-art-design-literature

The reading we had this week was, “Food as Art” by, E. Telfer.

Telfer says, “We naturally associate the word “aesthetic” with the arts, but we can also speak of an aesthetic reaction to natural things such as a beautiful landscape, or to man-made, non-art objects such as pieces of machinery”. I believe this to be true with food as you see this in many restaurants. If you went out for dinner and your plate was sloppy and thrown together without any form of presentation would that make you want to eat it? Some places may not take the time, and in those cases I would never consider those creations as “works of art”. The recipe may have been an artful skill, but the presentation would not be (in my opinion). If you walked into a restaurant that was filled with an unpleasing smell would you want to eat there? The taste of the food and drink as well as the look can give an aesthetic reaction.

There are considerable complexities when deciding if something constitutes as art. Telfer expands Urmson’s definition of “work of art” by saying, “If something is a work of art, then its maker or exhibitor intended it to be looked at or listened to with intensity, for its own sake”. So something may constitute as a work of art if it is meant to be looked at with intensity. One difficulty I have with this is that sometimes things may not be made for the purpose of art or intensity but then become viewed as such. One example was a church building that was not created as a work of art, but now is treated as one (Telfer, 12)

The struggle I have is determining where to “draw the line”. How should we determine which food deserves the title of “art”? One example is that I do not see fast food as art. I think as the food presentation explains, that “slow food” takes more time and dedication for its product. When thinking about which theory of art best describes how I feel, I find myself considering art in the Postmodernism: Art as Interpretation sort of way. Dissanayake explains this as, “…Interpreting it according to their individual and cultural sensibilities…hence taste and beauty and art for art’s sake are constructions that express class interests”. I can also see food as art in a species-centered type of way as we view aesthetic feelings as a behavior. Everyone feels differently about things, and it is how you feel and view certain things that can make them art in your own eyes. In this view it is the things that are viewed as “special” that we could consider a work of art (whether it be an activity, a landscape, or food).