Food as art (Option 1) Academic Essay

At the beginning of the article “A matter of taste” William Deresiewicz says, “But what has happened is not that food has led to art, but that it has replaced it”. This excerpt sets the stage for his entire argument. He then goes on to describe foodism as being almost a movement in a way. That it has taken on a new meaning, involving a new lifestyle to accompany this meaning. What I mean is that food has created a created somewhat of a social structure, moreover food seems to have become its entirely own category that can’t be put as a subcategory of art. Furthermore Deresiewicz describes food as representing creativity, commerce, politics, health, and religion. Deresiewicz continues explains how art is too big of a category to be a subset of another. He explains that, “It has developed, of late, an elaborate cultural apparatus that parallels the one that exists for art, a whole literature of criticism, journalism, appreciation, memoir and theoretical debate.” At the end of the article Deresiewicz expressed the fact that despite all of the similarities, food is still not art. He explains that food is not representational nor does it express emotion. He says that food does not allow you to get insight into other people or allow you to see the world in a new way.

First I want to address the fact that Deresiewicz believes you are not able to gain insight on someone’s personality or creative outlook on life through food. In the article “Food As Art”, Tefler uses the comparison “The same applies if the creator of a recipe cooks his own dish; he is an interpreter as well as a creator, like a composer playing his own compositions”(Tefler, 16). This metaphor helps me understand that with anybody’s creativity you are able to understand he or she on a more intimate level. You are able to get insight on their talents and creativity, which is exactly what food does for you as well. By the style of food, the flavors and the designs you are able to gain insight on the creator. Deresiewicz seems to dismiss the entire possibility that food is considered an art, however I find this assertion to be far too extreme. Tefler explains the idea that this assertion is also false because many people do treat food as works of art. “People sometimes do treat them as works of art, and I have argued that we can compare the creator of a recipe to a composer, and the cook who follows one to a performer”(Tefler, 18).  Furthermore, Deresiewicz explains that “Meals can evoke emotions, but only very roughly and generally, and only within a very limited range”(Deresiewicz). This is an unfair assertion because food can be shown, represented and tasted in so many different ways and combinations. Therefore saying that food is limited is unrealistic. Tefler supports this argument when she says that “The distinction between limitations in us and limitations in taste is itself problematic, how can we be sure that a limitation is in the tastes and not in our perception of them”(Tefler, 20)?

Next, when Dersiewicz explains, “It is a vehicle of status aspiration and competition, an ever-present occasion for snobbery, one-upmanship and social aggression.” However, I want to know if art can have competition as well as social prestige and hierarchy. These are traits that I believe both art and food can acquire. Dersiewicz‘s argument that there is a major separation between art and food seems unpractical. Furthermore this distinction is far too abstract because social status and competition are interchangeable within both food and art.

Moreover, when food was described as creativity, commerce, politics, health and religion, I couldn’t help but think that these are all sub divisions of art as well. Why can it be considered commerce as well as creativity and politics, but not an aspect of art? Nonetheless, art is exactly what food is described as. Art is sold on a large scale, it is used in religion and personal spirituality as well as in politics e.g. propaganda, while also encompassing creativity in every way. As I continue to read this article I find that the author seems to be making distinctions that are actually things that highlight the similarities if anything. This is a similar argument that Tefler makes. She discusses the idea that food may not be able to be considered as art because of the foods usefulness. But then she continues on and corrects herself giving examples as to how art can be viewed as useful, followed by her next argument that food is a creative outlet as well. Creativity is one of the most important elements of art, and if food is considered a creative outlet for experimenting and taking risks then it has to be considered an art as well.

In the end I do agree with Dersiewicz that food is huge and can be looked at as a lifestyle, a culture, something that engulfs many parts of our society. However, there are far too many similarities between the creativity and diversity of food and the creativity and diversity of art for them both not to be apart of the same classification. I do not believe food is a completely separate entity from art, and I find the authors argument not convincing enough for my mindset to change. Teflers article gave such an in depth explanation for every single facet of food as art that I wasn’t able able to deny her argument for the most part.

 

 

William Deresiewicz, (2012, Oct 26). New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

 

Elizabeth Telfer. (2002). Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates. Retrieved from http://blogs.uoregon.edu/aad250shuette/files/2010/09/3-tefler.pdf

Food as art

Initially in the article, “Food As Art”, Elizabeth Tefler describes the challenge of determining what is considered art. One main argument that she provides is that just because something has an aesthetic reaction, does not mean it is considered art. “I know perfectly well that the pile is a work of art in the first sense: that is, I know that the artist and the gallery owner intend us to gaze at it with intensity and that the public will probably oblige. But I am claiming that this object is not worth gazing at in this way, that it does not merit or repay aesthetic consideration”(Tefler, 13). This quote was interesting to me because it makes you wonder where the line is drawn on what art is in peoples mind. Or whether or not people can separate their emotions from the goal of the artist and the statement he or she was hoping to provoke. I for one can consider almost anything art IF it was the artists goal for their piece to be represented in this way, however I can choose whether or not I appreciate its artistic value. However others may not appreciate its artistic value and therefore they do not perceive it to be art in no way shape or form.

In terms of food, I believe that you cannot decipher whether or not cooking is a craft or an art because it all depends on the cook’s intentions. I believe a cook can be considered a craftsman as well as an artist if the overall goal was to create something that was just as much tastefully pleasing as aesthetically pleasing.

Something that is useful and has more value then just being examined is hard to be considered art, and that is what Tefler describes in the article. Art is something different than a useful object or display. So can something useful, e.g. food also be considered art? It’s hard to say who gets to set these limitations, and as Tefler says, “How can we be sure that a limitation is in the tastes and not in our perception of them? Does this distinction even make sense? But even if we accept this distinction for the sake of argument, what these considerations show is not that food cannot constitute works of art, but a much weaker thesis: that works of art based on food must be relatively simple”(Tefler, 20).

I definitely have a postmodern approach to classifying art. I am not one to create limitations for those who express themselves in a way that is artistic for them. Dissanayake says in her article “Art For Life’s Sake”, “What artists do, in their specialized and often driven way, is an exaggeration of what ordinary people also do, naturally and with enjoyment-transform the ordinary into the extra-ordinary”(Dissanayake, 25). This is a perfect way to describe my general perception of what art is about.

What is art for? (Essay Assignment)

The term “paleoantropsychobiological” is a term enriched with multiple meanings. Although this word may seem a little excessive I believe that was Ellen Dissankayake’s purpose; to show that art can not be sanctioned down to one simple definition, but instead it is an abundance of paradigms, and art happens to be a trait within ourselves that has been present all throughout history.

This trait can date all the way back to the Paleolithic time period where art was seen on cave paintings. Art can be seen through an anthropological lens as well because like Dissankayake says art is cross-cultural and can be seen in every culture in existence. Furthermore, art is a psychological reaction. Art comes from within, and it is made through emotions. And last but not least art is a biological mechanism, just the same as aggression, sex, language, etc.

When reading the phrase “making special” I originally didn’t really understand what Dissankayake meant by this. However, after understanding the circumstance at which she used the phrase, “making special” made complete sense once it was put into context. Since before we can remember the people inhabiting earth shared major commonalities and Dissankayake describes these similarities in her article saying that we have “tendencies to be sociable, to acquire and use language, to make and use tools, to impose conceptual order, to attempt to control or regularize the forces of nature, to join with our close associates in mutual endeavor”(Dissankayake, 22). Now with all of these human like characteristics comes the need to highlight our talents, more specifically the things that make us feel good about ourselves, the things that help elevate our abilities to another level, and like Dissankayake says, “things that one cares deeply about or activities whose outcome has strong personal significance”(Dissankayake, 22). All of these descriptions are exactly what art is and does for us. It is a release that every human needs in order to maintain equilibrium in such a stressful society.

A theory of art that was relevant in the past however still holds some significance today is the theory that art was solely used for religious purposes. During the medieval time period, art was used to pay respect to God and his services. Followed by the renaissance period where religion was still a main priority in art however aesthetics began to be recognized. Not only that but different themes began to show within art that gravitated away from God being the topic of interest, and mans interest showed great importance with art. During the 18th century art became much more unique focusing on individualism and transformation of the ‘ideal’ into the new and modern. Social movements began to shed light on altering viewpoints and people began questioning their place in society. “For example, while individualism became possible and people could be freed from tradition, custom and authority, they also became more alienated from their work and from other people”(Dissankayake, 17). All of these changes brought insecurities however from these insecurities came art that had never been seen before.

 

What is art for?

In the article “Art for Life’s Sake,” Ellen Dissanayake dives into explaining the complexity behind what exactly art is and why it matters. Dissanayake goes through different stages of defining art that arose in distinct time periods. During the medieval times art was used for the sake of religion. Creativity and the accomplishments of the artists were not noted and artwork was not created as a canvas for man to express his conscious awareness but instead was made to encompass God himself. Then came the 18th century where modernity became relevant followed by the 19th century where new unique and creative styles started to emerge, private galleries began, shifting away from uniformity to a sort of new and unveiled individuality also known as aesthetics. I believe understanding and living in a time where art is very prevalent and is always changing requires an open mind when it comes to different techniques and styles. Because art has expanded to be almost anything you want it to be, it requires you to have a freeing and open mind that lets you accept and respect every kind of art imaginable. This is because it does not matter what the artist is presenting. What is important is how the artists experiences make them feel which is then portrayed in their artwork. Dissanayake describes this when she says “Still another was the idea of art for art’s sake (or even life for art’s sake), suggesting that art has no purpose but to “be” and to provide opportunities for enjoying an aesthetic experience that was its own reward, and that one could have no higher calling than to open oneself to these heightened moments”( Dissanayake ,18). I agree with Dissanayake when she says this and it directly relates to what I said about art being the artists subjective portrayal of their own emotions and experiences. The author also describes that when she says,“no matter how strange they looked or unskilled they seemed to be-were conduits of transcendent meaning, of truths from the unconscious, expressions or revelations of universal human concerns that the art was unique endowed to apprehend and transmit”( Dissanayake, 18). I really liked this phrase because of her truly realistic interpretation to describing how no matter, what art is art. Whether it is considered ‘good’ or ‘bad’ whether it makes sense to viewers or not, it is the artist who gets the opportunity to transmit the truths and universal human concerns in his or her own unique and distinct way. Lastly, the overarching theme to this article embodies the idea that art is EVERYTHING and comes from ANY source possible. Whether it be happiness, loneliness, relationships, confusion, love, sex, death, religion..anything can be an inspiration for art and art will always be a paradigm with varying forms.

Life Values

Family

Friendship

Health

Personal development

Enjoyment

Integrity

Security

Service

Loyalty

Personal accomplishment

Location

Community

Creativity

Expertness

Leadership

Wealth

Prestige

Power

I spent time with my boyfriend for a small portion of today. This is something that I find extremely important in order to live a low stress, happy and fulfilling life. Friendships and relationships are crucial especially while attending school and dealing with the everyday stresses of college. Something else that I focused on today as well as every other day is my health. Feeling and staying healthy is a major priority in my life. I am always considering how what I eat affects my body. When I eat well my body feels stronger and I also feel a lot better emotionally. Another aspect of health that is important to me is fitness. I have exercised my entire life, and have always relied on soccer to satisfy multiple aspects of my life. Soccer has not only been a stress release for me and provided an escape for me it has also made me healthy and much more productive in my life. This goes along with one of my top 5 values, enjoyment as well. Doing things that are fulfilling for myself making me mentally and physically happy is something that I always consider to be highly important.

I spent the majority of my day however doing schoolwork. Although I may not have any clue of what I want to do with my future as far as a career goes I know that attending college is what I need to do in order to have a fulfilling career that not only I enjoy but that also supplies me with the necessities in life in order to survive and live a stress free financial life. Working on my schoolwork directly applied to personal development because I attend college to help figure out my skills, help me gain useful knowledge in order to succeed in such a competitive society, as well as because it is just the ‘right’ thing to do. What I mean by it being the ‘right’ thing to do relates to how my parents raised me, and how their morals and values directly influence the choices I make on a daily basis. My entire life I have grown up with the idea that attending college is a natural course to take in life. Even though my parents never directly told me to go to college, knowing that college helped them succeed in life indirectly engrained the same goals into me. From a very young age before even realizing why going to school is as crucial as it is, I gained the same knowledge out of having trust and respect for my parents. Along with the importance of academics, I abide by many of the same morals that my parents have instilled in me from a very young age such as having respect and love for other people around me. They have taught me to be a loyal, loving, and trustworthy friend. To be driven and focused in life. To always believe in myself and those around me. As well as to try my hardest to make the most of any situation I am put in.

It is very hard for me to think of an example of a belief pattern my parents abide by that have influence on my thinking, however may not be valid. My parents and I share a common perception on many facets of life such as politics, religion and basic human rights therefore I do not disagree nor can acknowledge something that may not be valid within their values.

Something that I have yet to figure out is what exactly I should do with my future. I know that this is something that many figure out later down the line, however I would like to at least be able to have a better idea of what path to go down. Another goal that I have is to be able to help others in a significant way. I work at a daycare right now and work with infants and toddlers, this is extremely fulfilling, however my goal is to help others who are in much more need than I am. Fortunately nothing stands in my way from helping others who are less fortunate and it is something that I plan on pursuing. Sadly I let my work and school schedule dictate my decisions.

Values

Richard Cohen, a Washington Post columnist, argues that the initial decision not to appoint an acknowledged homosexual to the U.S. government’s AIDS commission (a decision later reversed) is “akin to denying Jews a place on the Holocaust commission. “Howard Phillips replies that it is “blasphemous” to suggest that the practice of homosexuality is analogous to adherence to Judaism.

I found this excerpt to be sad however not surprising. Although we live in a day and age where marriage equality has made great strides and the elimination of homophobia is progressing, there are still many people who are blinded by whatever barrier present, whether that be religion, family values or the location that one has grown up in. This excerpt is discussing the fact that a homosexual man would not be able to join the government’s AIDS commission because he is gay. However, Richard Cohen suggests that this decision is “akin to denying Jews a place on the Holocaust commission”(Cohen,4). I strongly agree with Cohen’s point when he creates a commonality between denying a homosexual man a spot on the AIDS commission and denying Jews a place on the Holocaust commission. No matter what the injustice is, both examples still serve the same purpose when describing discrimination towards and a way of being. No matter what values you have, or where you have come from it is absolutely wrong to deny somebody’s right to advocate for a cause that they themselves have dealt with themselves. It disturbs me when Howard Phillips replies that it is “blasphemous to suggest that the practice of homosexuality is analogous to adherence to Judaism”(Phillips,4). Fortunately I strongly disagree with the value that because you are gay you do not attain the same rights as others. Sadly many people believe that being homosexual is “ungodly,” while I find this assertion to be ignorant and close-minded. No matter what the prejudice is, morally it is unethical to decide someone’s fate because of how they choose to lead their life. As extreme as it may be I compare this situation to racism or sexism. As different as these issues may be they all share the same unethical basis.

A Voice for Elephants

Article Link

From the blog A Voice for Elephants

This topic is something that I am extremely passionate about. Over 35,000 elephants have been killed last year; an astonishing number that I can’t help but cringe when I hear. The trading of ivory has increased substantially and while I agree with the Clinton’s and find it crucial that the U.S. sanctions the commercial sale of African elephant ivory in the United States, many other countries such as Indonesia, China and Africa continue to illegally poach elephants for international trade too. With that said, my hope is that the U.S will ban ivory trade, and that this law will become active internationally as well. Although I agree putting forth laws will decrease the amount of elephants killed, I believe along with these laws must come stronger and more disciplined law enforcement who will work to trace the illegal trade within the U.S. as well as in other countries where poachers and illegal trading markets consistently and discreetly find loopholes to continue the trade of large amounts of ivory to neighboring countries. It is beyond important that we do everything in our power to realize the importance of these powerful, intelligent and endangered species. We need to fight for their survival instead of passively standing by and watching elephants disappear right in front of our eyes. I full heartedly agree with the Clinton’s when they voice that this is an issue that cannot go ignored. Elephants will go extinct if we don’t tend to this issue immediately.