Is Food Art?

“I’ll have what they ordered.” I do not know how many times I say those words. As a customer at a restaurant I order my food based on some dish that has just crossed the dinning room. People order this way because the food they see is appealing and is presented in a way that makes you appreciate the chef and their abilities. The present the food or dish as a work of art. But many people wonder, is food art? I think that it is fair to say that food is a form of art. The main reason why food can be considered an art form is that it is a channel or outlet for someone to express their creativity. But for food to be appreciated and admired as artwork it needs to be appealing not only for the chef and the people preparing the food but also the customers that are about to eat the food. Elizabeth Telfer states “a work of art definition is a man-made thing, even if the human involvement need consist of no more than putting a natural object in a gallery and giving it a title” (Tefler pg. 12). One can consider the “man-made thing” as food or an entrée. As we have previously seen, Ellen Dissanayake’s viewpoint on art is very similar to Telfer’s viewpoint, in that both believe art possesses beauty and excellence. Dissanayake even goes to say; “We can see it in such simple things as when we cook special meals… (10, Dissanayake).” The most concrete example of food being a work of art are the many television shows that glorify its chefs/contestants as “America’s Top Chef” or “Iron Chef”. All these shows are based on which chef is the most creative with the ingredients. In other words, who created the best work of art. It seems that food could be considered art. But does that mean all food?



4 Responses to “Is Food Art?”

  1.   Kate Says:

    Hi Adam. I agree with your blog post where you wrote “people order this way because the food they see is appealing and is presented in a way that makes you appreciate the chef and their abilities. They present the food or dish as a work of art.” This is true, food at a restaurant can be displayed in a very attractive way on a plate for customers to be attracted to simply because of the looks, and the taste matters too of course. Therefore it is fair to say that food is a form of art. But I think there’s a difference when it comes to “slow food” and “fast food” as shown in the video presentations. I think fast food like fries, burgers, and soda from McDonald’s is not an art form.
    This is because for food to be an art, at least in my opinion, it has to be appealing to the sight and taste and have some time, effort, and authentic-ness to it. There is nothing authentic and effortful about fast food joints like McDonald’s, Burger, King, Taco Bell, etc. but nicer restaurants with fresher foods and home cooked meals like those shown in the “slow food” video presentation are genuine, healthy, and just look and sound better overall.
    That is why I believe “slow food” is more of an art form than “fast food.”

  2.   lumpkins@uoregon.edu Says:

    Kate, thank you for your thoughts and comments. After watching the video presentation on “Slow Food” and “Fast Food” I agree that their is a difference between the two. But why is “Fast Food” not considered art? Is it just because it comes in a wrapper and paper bag, or is it because it is prepared faster? For many people McDonalds or fast food restaurants are appealing and they might consider “Fast Food” as a work of art. The term “Fast Food” is also misleading and I do not think that it applies to all food, there are chain restaurants such as Chipotle that focus on gourmet healthy ingredients but the food is still prepared fast. Does this mean it should be considered “Fast Food”? I only bring up Chipotle as an example to show that there is a grey area with the term “Fast Food” and that some “Fast Food” should still be considered art.

  3.   kna Says:

    This is a very interesting point to think about if all food is art? In my opinion, I don’t think all food is art as it can be seen in the short video about Fast Food Presentation. As in this presentation the presenter differentiate between fast food and slow food. Though he did not associated the presentation of these food with artistic value but I think his point could be quite understood that not all food are artistic as even Telfer identifies similar thought “we can agree that much of food is not” an art (Telfer, 18). The reasoning behind this is associated with the primary importance of food that is curbing hunger and in this process restaurant such as McDonalds whose primary focus is to make the cheapest food by producing in large quantity loose their artistic touch. As it takes the special attention and time of a cook to make a artistic presentation in food which, is hard to achieve in fast food restaurants due to their large quantity production. However, slow food restaurants can be a little pricy but seem to still keep in touch with aesthetic values of food.

  4.   lumpkins@uoregon.edu Says:

    Kna,
    Thanks for your ideas and viewpoint. You bring up a lot of questions and thoughts that I did not give much consideration. I especially thought that the statement about McDonalds and their primary purpose to “make the cheapest food”. But again I’ll ask you “does food have to be expensive to be considered art?” You yourself hinted at this at the end of your comment. Slow food restaurant’s primary purpose at the end of the day is not to create food to be considered art but to make money and a profit. I think there is almost a stigma or negative connotation when it comes to the fast food chain restaurants and how they over produce and try and make money. As far as the fast food restaurants producing food that should be considered art I would have to agree with you and say that they are unable to or it is very difficult to.

Leave a Reply

Skip to toolbar