AAD250

Individual #1: I see a young white man that is most likely between the age of 18-22 in line at the Subway in the EMU. He is wearing athletic shorts, sandals with socks, and a Portland Trailblazers sweatshirt. The young man is also caring a duffle bag. The man’s cheeks are bright red and his hair seems to be damp or wet. Based on my observations, I think the young man just got finished working out at the student rec center, maybe he played basketball there. In my opinion and based off of his dress and body adornment this man values physical exercise and health as a priority in his life. I am also making the assumption that this young man is a Trailblazers fan and I am also assuming that he is originally from the Portland area. These assumptions that I have made about the young man show that I definitely associate people more with where they are from rather than whom they are. But I believe that where you come from shapes you into who you are.

Individual #2: I see a thin Asian female. Again I believe she is most likely between the ages 18-22 years old. The female was sitting at a nearby table doing some schoolwork or paper work. She was wearing almost all black or dark clothing. This included a black raincoat. The only non-dark piece of clothing that she had on was her beanie, which was bright red. I was unable to see if she had any piercing due to the bright red beanie covering her ears. She also had an umbrella by her side. I believe based on her dress and body adornment that she is a hard working individual. I think that the lack of expression in clothing color shows that she is all business. She was doing some sort of work early in the morning and I think based on her body language she was heavily fixated on it. I also think that the weather here in Eugene affects the way that she dresses. The assumptions that I made about the Asian girl are based on my values that people should work hard. That is what I was taught and what I instantly thought of when I saw he doing schoolwork.

Individual #3: I see an elderly man that I believe is between the ages of 60-65 years old. He was walking slowly around the EMU and was wearing a plaid collard shirt with a tan coat. He was wearing jeans as well as boots. The most noticeable thing that the man was wearing was a construction hard hat. I believe that he was working at the near by construction site on campus. I think that based on the elderly man’s dress and body adornment the man values patience. Since I believe that he is working on the nearby construction site, I think he knows how patient that someone has to be when it comes to construction. I am also assuming that the man is almost prepared by his attire. He is wearing boots that are meant for working outdoors or in messy environments as well as the hard hat. I think the man is always ready to go. The assumptions that I have made regarding the elderly man and his attire reflect and show my values of accomplishment. When I see the elderly man I see an accomplished life. He knows what it takes to finish a job and accomplish his goals.

In Fabio Parasecoli’s article, “Is Food Art? Chefs, Creativity, and the Restaurant Business?” he argues and analyzes whether food should be considered art. Many food critics and chefs agree that food has increasingly gained visibility and recognition as a field or outlet where social, political, and cultural ideas and themes can exist. For these reasons, Parasecoli and others believe that food is art and at the very least there needs to be discussion on the topic. Parasecoli draws attention to two different aspects of possible connection to food being art. The first is about innovation and creativity. The other aspect that connects food and art is notion or representation of chefs as avant-garde by contemporary society. Parasecoli and other food aficionados addressed these connections between food and art by creating a panel to discuss the question, “Is Food Art?” in September of 2013.

This article and Parasecoli’s viewpoints of food being an art form have many similarities with those of this week’s readings most notably Elizabeth Telfer’s article “Food As Art”. One of Parasecoli’s main arguments about the relationship with food and art is that, “innovation and creativity are included among the traits that are most commonly attributed to a successful chef in the highest spheres of haute cuisine.” This is somewhat similar to Telfer, “There is another possible distinction between art and craft: art is original creation, whereas craft is simply carrying out an instruction…” Both Telfer and Parasecoli raise many issues and interesting points on food as an art form. Telfer sees art as an “original creation” and goes further to associate this view on art with that of food. Parasecoli believes that chefs must possess characteristics of “innovation and creativity” if they want to gain success and an elite level, haute cuisine. Based on Parasecoli and Telfer’s similar viewpoints, it is fair to say that for food to be considered art there needs to be a certain level of originality, creativity, and innovation.

Another similar idea or issue that both Parasecoli and Telfer touch in their essays is the thought of a third party: either a customer or food critic having an effect on food being art. Parasecoli goes to write; “young gifted chefs are often not too worried whether “narrow-minded customers” appreciate their work.” When it comes to food as an art form the major point to realize is that the customers are judging the food and the dishes presented to them. Not every customer will have the same experience every time with the food. Some may like certain dishes while others will not. Some customers may appreciate the food as artwork while other will not at all. Telfer also brings up this point in her essay. Telfer writes, “Admittedly there may be problems where a dish is not homogeneous enough: one dinner’s experience of the strength and blend of flavors may not match another’s.” Telfer like Parasecoli believes that every dinner dish is unique and different. Every food critic or customer will look at the food differently and thus look at the food as art differently or not at all.

Despite some of the noticeable similarities Parasecoli’s also raises many issues or ideas that are not similar to those of Telfer when it comes to food being considered art. Parasecoli believes that food should be considered art while Telfer believes that not all parts of food or the culinary process should be considered art. Telfer argues more about the certain processes during the food preparation that are not considered art. Parasecoli raises issues about the relationship between food and art and how it is embedded and represented in our society as avant-garde. Avant-garde as a term first appeared in 1910 and is defined as, “an intelligentsia that develops new or experimental concepts esp. in the arts.” Parasecoli expresses his thoughts and viewpoint on how the media and the public have created this representation of food as art through this avant-garde style. Telfer does not get into much detail or bring up the notion of the avant-garde and how this has shaped food as art. Telfer goes more into the areas of food and food preparation and what parts are considered art and what other parts are not considered art. This was one of the differences that were present between the two articles.

Parasecoli and Telfer both have similar viewpoints and raise issues regarding food as art. Both authors seem to raise the issue of how art and food need to have a certain level of originality and creativity. Additionally both authors raise the issue that food is looked at differently. The customer or food critic affects the food and how it is perceived as art. Along with the similarities of two articles there are many also differences. Parasecoli believes that food should be considered art and brings up the concept if the avant-garde and how it shapes the food and art relationship. Telfer however believes that not all parts of food or the culinary process should be considered art.

References:

Telfer, E. (2002). Food as art. In Neill, A. & Ridley, A (Eds.), Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2 ed., pp. 9-27). New York: Routledge.

Parasecoli, Fabio. “Is Food Art? Chefs, Creativity, and the Restaurant Business?” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Sept. 2013. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.

“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?

1. The term paleoanthropsychobiological was coined by Ellen Dissanayake. The term is used as a way to depict humankind’s history through both psychological and biological perspectives or viewpoints.

2. When Dissanayake mentioned the phrase “making special” she meant that over time as humans evolved mentally and physically they were able to institute a way to recognize the things, events or humans that were so-called “special”.

3. Western Europe was home to many different theories/movement/periods of art. Dissanayake mentions several different theories of art that exemplify Western Euopean art. Some of the time periods were the Renaissance, Post-Impressionist, and Postmodernism. The Renaissance time period was an era where instead of being a society centered on religion it was going to be centered on science and reason. The art during this time was realistic and tried to create “recognizable world”. During the early Twentieth Century the next dominate art theory was Post-Impressionist. According to Dissanayake, this era of art theory focused on possessing preexisting knowledge or ability to view art. The art during this time moved away from naturalist artwork that reflected the real world. The last art theory came, which occurred in late Twentieth Century, was Postmodernism. The theory and art associated with Postmodernism became an outlet or way to represent the view of the worldwide elite of Western European. There was a sense that art during this time period no longer were movements or be called “ism”.

As I started the week’s readings, I was trying to think of a thought-provoking question that applied to this unit topic and main ideas of the unit. However, every time I tried to justify a question I always came back and thought the most appropriate question had to be the title of the authors book, “What is art for?” What reason do people create art? Why do people study it? Is art created for enjoyment or is art created for the personal use of the artist as a way to reflect on life or culture? When I tried to answer this question I thought of all of these things. I was lead astray and confused when the author said, “art must be viewed as an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species.” Why must art be a universal trait of the human species? I know many people that are not interested in art what so ever. Does this mean that they do not possess this “inherent universal trait”? Or do they still have this trait but choose not to exercise it? Remember the main question that needs to be asked and answered is ”What is art for?”

For argument sake, say that everyone does possess the “inherent universal trait” and view art in this manner. If this were true then wouldn’t everyone view art in the same manner? It seems that there would be only one way to view the piece of art. I think that most people can agree that this is false and people view and see art differently. It all depends on the person. I think the only answer to the question “What is art for?” is that it depends. It depends on the person, it depends on the piece of art, and it depends on what style the piece of art was created in.

Welcome to your brand new blog at University of Oregon Sites.\n \n To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.\n \n For assistance, visit UO Blogs General Help or contact the Technology Service Desk (techdesk@uoregon.edu; 541-346-4357).\n \n