In the intro to the article, “Food as Art”, the author tells us that philosophers believe that food is in no shape an art; “…it cannot be an art form or produce works of art” (Tefler 1). The author focuses her argument to clarify their argument and defends her belief that food can be viewed as an art. Let alone people have a passion for the culinary arts focus so much of their time to perfect an ordinary food item or their food creation. Wouldn’t that fall into what Dennayaske defined as an art? “…an artifact that was man-made or has human involvement ” (Dennayaske 2). The author of this article, Tefler, defines art in the same way in page 2 in her article. My argument or question to her readers would be, other than food, what would you argue that isn’t art? It can be an object or process of something happening, what don’t we consider as an art?
I believe that food is definitely an aspect of art that has many artistic features, whether it be display or taste. In the radio show by Kurt Anderson along with writer Chandler Burr, “Is Smell a Sense of Noble as a Vision or Hearing”, he interviews a physicist that tells how our minds interpret smells and how we register it. I think it’s fair to say that without the scientific reasoning, once we smell something we instantly process of:
- Does it smell good?
- What does it remind us of?
- If we can distinct it, what is it?
Burr believes that we should build museums of noses, because of how important they are, which is true. I believe that the artistic feature of food has a strong reliance on the nose. It should smell good, remind us of some comfort food, and to taste the meal through smelling it. My view of food as an art, is a modernism approach. Food is a slow growing feature in art, but the appearance is shifting to modern aspects. Wouldn’t you agree? Food is very cultured along with ingredients, but the presentation is shifting towards a modern look.