This online article tackles the significance of food in culture and argues that taste, like food, is a form of art. The article basically talks about how to define art, and how food can be considered art once one has a clear definition of art. The article defines art as man-made and as an object treated by society as primarily an object of aesthetic consideration even if that was the original intent. It goes on to clearly state its position on defining food as an art once it has a clear definition of art itself. The article states that the functionality of food is not necessary to the appreciation. Basically, the article mentions several arguments stating that food is not art and refutes them based on literature and the author’s own personal opinion. Human emotion is an essential part of art. The article basically says that food ties closely onto art because of the close cultural connections that people make with what they eat.
To argue my case that food is in fact art, I will start by using Ellen Dissanayake’s definition of the arts.
“Included in the many new approaches and subjects that the 18th century thinkers turned their attention to was a subject that came to be called ‘aesthetics’ – a concern with elucidating principles such as taste and beauty that govern all the arts and indeed make them not simply paintings or statues but examples of (fine) art” (“What is Art for?” 17).
It is definitely possible for one to eat a meal and have associations with that food that cause aesthetic experiences, according to the definition of Crystal Neely, author of “The Significance of Food in Culture: Is Taste an Art Form?” For example, whenever I eat turkey, I always think of Thanksgiving. Whenever I think of Thanksgiving, I think of being home in California with my mom, dad, brother, aunts, uncles and grandparents. When I think of being with my family, I feel happy. In a way, one could say that I have an emotional attachment to turkey because I think of my family when I eat it. Neely also goes on to say that our beliefs are also a major factor is deciphering what is art. Furthermore, defining food as art is completely relative. “Our beliefs are shaped from a young age and depend greatly on what we are exposed to. Religion, or lack thereof, racial background, and family traditions all play a large role in shaping our social, political and moral views” (Neely, 1). In other words, turkey for me reminds me of Thanksgiving, which then reminds me of being with my family. However, many cultures do not celebrate Thanksgiving, so when a person from a different culture indulges in turkey, it may just be a piece of meat. Art is defined by human emotion. In my opinion, art makes a person feel, and it definitely makes a person think beyond the concrete version of whatever they are looking at.
Neely brings a second argument into the picture. She quotes another individual who says that in order to appreciate art there needs to be some level of distance. “The physicality of the act of appreciating food violates this distance and therefore food cannot be considered art.” Yet, this statement is wrong in my opinion and Neely’s. “In my opinion, the physicality of the act only brings the emotional appreciation nearer and enhances the experience” (Neely, 3). Tefler also argues for food as an art form because a person cannot appreciate an art form unless it means something to him or her (Tefler, “Food as Art?”). In other words, a painting may seem like the most typical form of art, right? However, to one person that painting may not mean anything. It may just be a few strokes of a paintbrush on a canvas. The same goes for something as simple as a plate of pasta. It could be a reminder of home for an Italian foreigner and create an emotional tie to one’s own homeland whereas it could just be carbohydrates for an athlete. Art is different for every person and to lessen any one thing by saying it is not worthy of being art because it is not as complex as some things is absolutely wrong, in my opinion.
The last argument that Neely brings up is what part of food do people consider an art? Is it the chef? Is it the plate? Is it the restaurant? Is it the equipment? “Again the discrepancies of individual taste come into play. So although the questions regarding the ontological status of food as art may be valid, they are not unique to food and therefore not sufficient to dismiss it as an art form” (Neely, 4). I completely agree with this statement. Tefler says, “As before, the answer to the difficulty is that even where a dish is a structure such as a pie, the aspect of it which is relevant to aesthetic appraisal is not the structure, which is destroyed as soon as the dish is started, but the combination of flavours, which runs right through the eating like letters through a stick of rock” (Tefler, 17-18). The food is the art and should not be lessened by the structure on which it is served.
All in all, there are two necessary components to art, which Neely defines as human emotion and culture. “The feelings of nostalgia, security, closeness, and comfort brought about by a meal are sufficient to make food art so long as it meets the second criterion which is intent” (Neely, 4).
REFERENCES
Dissanayake, E. What is Art For? [On-line Article]. Retrieved October 21, 2012 from http://aaablogs.uoregon.edu/aad250-shuette/files/2010/09/2-dissanayake.pdf
Neely, C. (2007). The Significance of Food in Culture: Is Taste an Art Form? [On-line Journal]. Retrieved October 21, 2012 from http://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2007/neely.pdf
Tefler, E. (2002). Food as Art. [On-line Article]. Retrieved October 21, 2012 from http://aaablogs.uoregon.edu/aad250-shuette/files/2010/09/3-tefler.pdf
Great writing Amanda. I am very pleased with your synthesis of Dissanayake’s essay with your other sources. This is exactly the type of thought and consideration that shows a high level of meta-cognition, the ability to synthesis multiple sources to present and support your perspective on what makes art, art, and foods place in your view of art.