In the article Yuriko Saito states that “Particularly with respect to aesthetic matters, pursuing and celebrating diversity is more rewarding and constructive than limiting what counts as worthy aesthetic objects” (Saito, 2014). This is one of the main points of the article that I find interesting and also give the reader the main sense of the author points of view. Saito in this article what is consider as art today and how this have limit the diversification towards other aesthetic object that are used in our everyday life. In this regard, Saito further states how western idea about arts have form a notion about other form of are that are centered with our everyday life as “secondary rate art” (Saito, 2014). This notion basically have set a form of hierarchy between what is actually consider art by western aesthetics theory and art that are actually part of ones everyday life. Furthermore, Saito states the limited idea about art this notion has created in the study of aesthetic and its consideration. Among these idea she explain the idea of how western art and its parochial view have limited art in western society to a certain “cultural and economic condition” and thus these limitation have made the analysis of western art worthwhile while totally limiting the aesthetics study of other aesthetic object that are involves in our everyday life. Finally, in addressing this limitation Saito points out that the limitation of aesthetic studies and consideration in the west have caused art to be only appreciated occasionally and because the lack of knowledge about the art world many in the people in the west are distanced from art. However in contrast, she claims that other cultures such as the Japanese, Balinese and Inuit culture do not follow the western notion of art and thus appreciate art by “aestheticizes everyday objects, phenomena, and activities” which, according to my understanding, she believes, is the right way to appreciate art (Saito, 2014).

In comparison to our discussion in class I think that Yuriko Saito raised similar issue in her article as Elizabeth Telfer in her article Food as Art, as they both explained why food should be consider art. Although, Saito did not argue on food in particular as Telfer she did state the importance food in aesthetic concerns and how western view of aesthetics deny its artistic value as she stated “most artists who “do not equate art with cooking . . . nor . . . hold cooking in such high theoretical esteem” with “chefs through the centuries who have seen themselves as artists” (Saito, 2014). Here she states a very important point that cooks consider themselves as artist but are not given the same value as other artist that are more involved in a art centered presentation of art. Though, Saito does not go in particular to state if cooks should be considered as artist, there was a broad understanding in her point that cooks deserve a artistic respect for value. Likewise, in Telfer case is explicitly states that “some cookery can still qualify as art” (Telfer, 2002). Furthermore, Saito point is also similar to Dissanayake universal view about art. As in Dissanayake “Paleoanthropsychbiological” she states that art is a human behavioral trait, which, means that aesthetics is not art centered and is thus practice in everyday human behavioral activity. Likewise, argued by Saito in her article Everyday Aesthetics, that aesthetic definition of art needs to change from “art-centered aesthetic” to a broader view of art that will include artistic view from people everyday life.

Although Telfer argues for the consideration of food as art, a major point of disagreement between Saito and Telfer comes in when Telfer limits her consideration of food as an “Minor art”. As Saito in her article explicitly states that although consideration of art have been given to everyday aesthetic values of art, the secondary nature of it limits aesthetics study by many aestheticians and thus, causing the diversity and analysis of art to be limited only to “art-centered aesthetic” (Saito, 2014). Moreover, other analysis done by Telfer also suggest food as a secondary art, as in the case of cooks, Telfer consider their work more as craftsmanship than artistic. Though, Saito did not speak much about the work of cooks and to what artistic level they may be considered, her thought about secondary view of such art thus seem to suggest that there is point of disagreement between both article thoughts about how much importance should one give to everyday aesthetics. Finally, in my view, I would merely agree with Saito, as I believe that art is behavioral trait as suggested by Dissanayake and being a behavioral trait, I think art that is practiced everyday is more realistic than art that are merely art because their critics say so.

Reference:

Saito, Yuriko. “Everyday Aesthetics.” Project MUSE – Everyday Aesthetics. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Oct. 2014. Web. 05 Feb. 2015. <http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/phl/summary/v025/25.1saito.html>.