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>.

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.