I, personally, think food is a form of art as I have a lot of interest in food. I love food. “ A work of art is by definition a man-made thing, even if the human involvement need consist of no more than putting a natural object in a gallery and giving it a title” (p 18). I would say that it would be the same as food. Instead of putting an object in a gallery, a chef would put food on a plate and serve it to a customer and give it a title. Would this be consider as art? I would say so. I would say the theory of “making special” from Dissanayake’s essay is best represent of view on food and art. As she stated in her article, What is Art For? “particularly things that one cares deeply about or activities whose outcome has strong personal significance” (p 22). I believe every chef deeply cares for their every dishes they cooked as if they were working on a piece of art work. For example; in a luxurious restaurant, each dish would have to mean something or represent something. The dish have to look perfect as where each component on the dish would have to have a meaning. It is a very delicate thing if you look for each component on the dish. Also, the decoration of that dish no matter is it just a leaf or a small rock, everything is placed so that it can represent something. Moreover, the taste for each course would have to be different so that the customers would not get bored. I would say sometimes food is more complicated than a piece of art work in term of art. Some art work may not require as much work than some dish.
I really enjoyed reading this, but while doing so it made me also think of the other end of the spectrum. I agree with the fact that food is an art, but at the same time if anything man made with a title could be considered art, I feel like it is to broad of a subject. There should be some sort of limits to what art is, and what constitutes art, or if not just different types of categories for art. In the quote you used, “ A work of art is by definition a man-made thing, even if the human involvement need consist of no more than putting a natural object in a gallery and giving it a title” (p 18), I feel like this can be true, but there should be some sorts of limits on this. Telfer brings up the point that, “we first need to consider what is meant by saying that something is a work of art”(pg 11). Once we can find a point to say something is art then we will better be able to categorize it and say more things are art. The reason I feel like this is important is because food like in the fast food video is so fake that it should not be considered art, while magnificent creations with food should be classified as art. Where do you think the line should be drawn for art and food?
I definitely agree with the fact that food is considered art, but in the videos it made a distinction between fast food and slow food. I think it was interesting how he described each of the kinds. Would you consider fast food to be art the same way slow food is? What is the greatest distinguishable factor that makes certain food art, but other not? I watch a lot of of shows on the food network and I feel like a lot of creativity goes into making each plate, especially when they’re competing against another chef. When I was writing my blog entry, I was having trouble figuring out weather food would then be considered art if people were competing in it. I don’t see any shows that show painters competing while given a certain amount of type, why do you think this is so?
I really like the question that you posed about if something is a competition is it still art. This makes me think a lot about different types of art and if competition would make it art. I feel like any kind of art that is on display, is somewhat in a competition, the fact that it made it into a gallery means that in a sense it won a competition to take the spot. Artists may not be physically painting something at the same time, but there are definite winners and losers similar to a cooking show. Because of this technically all food would be considered art, there is just some art that is better, (ie; slow and fast food). The slow food could be compared to great works of art, or masterpieces, and the fast food could be compared to unknown artists, or artists who are not appreciated, but continue to create art. Would you agree then that all types of food no matter what would be considered art?
It’s interesting that you brought up how there are technically winners and losers when it comes to spots in a gallery. I think this is subjective to who owns the gallery because what might seem like a “winning” painting to one person, could be the “losing” painting to another. I think this could also be carried over to food. What might taste good and seem amazing to me, might not be the same for you. As for fast food vs. slow food, I’m not sure I would necessarily consider fast food to be an art. In the article by Elizabeth Teller, she states that “a work of art is by definition a man-made thing, even if the human involvement need consist of no more than putting a natural object in a gallery and giving it a title” (18). Fast food is manufactured and then shipped to fast food restaurants, technically those machines are man-made, but I don’t think that’s carried over to the food. In the article, it also talks about how food is considered a minor art, but maybe this could be changed where slow food is an art and fast food can be thought of as a minor art. I’m having a hard time thinking of fast food as art, simply for the fact that I feel like it doesn’t evoke an emotion or take creativity to make. Most fast food joints is just re-frying the food and there isn’t the same type of process like slow food. Would you considered fast food to be an art in the same way as slow food?