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>.

Reflection:

According to Elizabeth Telfer she consider the “art as a complete product” and “craft to be following a convection or employing a technique” (Telfer, 15). In this definition and its connection towards food we can say that craft is mere the making of food by cooks who only carry out instruction. Like for example one would be consider a craftsman if he merely follow instruction from a head cook or a book for that matter. Thus, since craftsman are consider to be just followers of instructors an actual artist would be the one to actually provide the instruction and his product would be consider the art. Thus, to enjoy such pleasure one must have an aesthetic reaction that is a “species of pleasure” and must have “non-instrumental” view as suggested by Telfer or a “disinterested” view as suggested by Dissanayake. These view means that one must enjoy the pleasure of an art without having any benefit from such art.

Food as stated by Yuriko Saito is considered an everyday art that is not given the proper aesthetic consideration of art that its deserve. Saito arguement further claims that everyday aesthetic item such as food have not been given aesthetic values even when cooks over centuries consider themselves as artist thus, causing the subject of aesthetics to loose diversity and limiting art and aesthetic studies to only certain portion of the society and objects. I merely agree with Saito’s argument as most of the world population consider art to be expensive paintings and statue in exhibition or museum and that is not associate with their everyday life. Thus, considering food as art gives art and the subject of aesthetics more diversity however, many questions the consideration of food as art due to the usefulness of food. In this response, taste and smell also bring high aesthetic pleasure and in food case such pleasure can be repeated giving an unlimited pleasure of smell and taste which, makes food as art much as any other aesthetic object.

However, this said all food are not consider as art as food that is merely maid to serve only for its usefulness such as fast food cannot be consider an art. As Telfer suggest that food is merely considered art when one “is eating with attention and discernment” (Telfer, 24). Most cross-cultural food in the united states are seen in a more artistic manner than local American food. As for example the Japanese   cuisine of sushi and sashimi are always seen in a more artistic fro than the American cheese burger. This is because many cross-curtural group such as the Japanese give their food of high artistic value as noted by Saito and thus they normally given higher artistic value in foreign countries as well.

Future:

The topic of food aesthetics is a hard one as there are many aspects associated with the nature of food to be consider as art that includes but are not limited to its usefulness, fast food, are all food to be consider art and what about only craftsmanship. These segments do raise a lot of question of some which I have tried to answer with appropriate sourcing and others that I think if I ever have to study food aesthetics in more depth I would definitely consider addressing them in much more detail.

Bibliography:

Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

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>.

Tefler, E. (2002). Food as Art. In Neill, A. & Riley, A. (eds.) Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2nd ed., Chap. 2). New York, NY: Routledge.

 PREVIOUS <ARTIFACT 2> NEXT