In my thought food is to somewhat an art. However, as Elizabeth Telfer suggest I will also consider food as a minor art. My reason for this consideration is due to the short lasting aesthetic pleasure from food and its inability to exert emotions that are basically exerted by other form of arts such as a painting, music or landscape. As according to Telfer who identifies music ability to carry emotion as he states “music, although it is not in general representation it seems to be able to carry another kind of meaning, one of which food is not capable: music can express emotion” (Telfer, 25). Likewise Telfer Identification of making food as a craft Ellen Dissanayake also identifies with cooking as an art of “making special”.

However, there is another aspect that is highly questionable in the Telfer’s argument and in the consideration of food as minor art. This has to do with food being one of the major contributors of aesthetics pleasure by the method of smell and taste as if not food what can give a better aesthetic pleasure by taste then food? With this question we must also consider the point of how much importance do we give to aesthetic pleasure by taste. Though, Telfer try to make a good attempt to answer this question, I think we still have many unaccounted issue about the importance of taste in aesthetic pleasure.

Though, I think that there is not anything better in taste than food I cant say the same about smell. As perfume have also a very pleasant scent associated with it which, in comparison to food could be given a higher aesthetic pleasure rate. As with perfume the scent is long lasting and thus can provide aesthetic pleasure for a longer term. As explained by Kurt Anderson and Chandler Burr how Luca Turin belief that there is more to pleasant scent and how it could be capture for aesthetic pleasure in his show on Studio 360. In their conversation about Luca Turin research on pleasant scent they discussed how these scent could be capture and be made into perfume for a longer-term aesthetic pleasure. Thus, I think that aesthetic pleasure need to be categorize as long term and short term or even associated them with their primary method of pleasure and only thus we can identify perfectly what can be consider art and to what extend can we enjoy its aesthetic pleasure.

Ellen Dissanayake coined the term Paleoanthropsychbiological in her article “Art for Life’s Sake”. Ellen uses this term to describe her idea about art for life sake. She basically derives this term to explain a specific view about art and it is defined as an idea about art that “encompasses all of human history”, “include all human societies”, and “ that is accounts for the fact that art is a psychological or emotional need and has psychological or emotional effects” (Dissanayake, 15).

Basically Dissanayake states everything that made the Homo erectus that caused them to move a step forward to civilization was special. This include from the very beginning the instinct or the alertness to a possible danger and the special behavior to plan ahead for such danger. Other example provided of “Make Special” that were provided by Dissanayake included the coloring of utensils and bodies, the decoration of tooth and the participating in rictual. Thus, she claims that though this process of “make special” weren’t artistic the end result was always artistic as it took some amount of dedication and hard effort by the person involved in the process as she states ”although “behavior made special” need not to be aesthetic or artistic, when one exerts control, takes pains, and uses care and contrivance to do one’s best, the result is generally what is called artistic or aesthetic” (Dissanayake, 15).

The three different theories of art that were discussed by Dissanayake are the modern theory: art as ideology, postmodern theory: Art as interpretation and the Paleoanthrophychbiological theory: art for life’s sake. The modern theory of art was developed in the early 18^th century and lasted till the early 20^th century, this theory basically considered that art is universal and stated that viewers of such art need an “disinterested” view to appreciate any art. Art in this era had become an ideology were only “few had the leisure and the education to acquire them” (Dissanayake, 15). The second era of art is the postmodern era, which basically gained its roots in the late 20^th century. This theory of art states that art is not universal as every one interpret art according to their own standards and thoughts and thus do not take in to account the standard or thoughts of the maker as the author states that “ one can appreciate work from alien cultures is an imperialistic act of appropriation – modeling them to one owns standards while blatantly dismissing or ignoring the standards of their makers and users” (Dissanayake, 15). Finally, Dissanayake defines art in her terms as art for life’s sake in which she states art is a universal need and thus have a species centered view. In this view of art Dissanayake states that “art combines modernism’ s proclamation that art is of supreme value and source for heightened personal experience with postmodernism’ s insistence that it belongs to everyone and is potentially all around us. It does this by thinking of art making and experiencing as a human behavior” (Dissanayake, 15). Furthermore, she claims that this behavior is practiced in a propensity of “making special” of human behavior; whose end result is always artistic.