I would like to say that I do think food is art, and I have always thought it was art but I never even tried to think about the reasons why I thought this until this assignment. The writer makes this elaborate case of arguments about why they think food is art, but I think my reasoning is a little more simple although I do agree with most of what the author has to say. I think most food is art because it is created by people for the sake of pleasure, each and every person and culture has their own style of cooking, and they can be appreciated with almost all the senses of the body. The first part of my reasoning about food having the purpose of pleasure actually goes along with when the author says, “It is generally agreed that there can be aesthetic reactions to tastes and smells. There can also, of course, be visual aesthetic experiences connected with foodstuffs, as when one admires a rosy apple” (Tefler, 11). So food causes aesthetic experiences that the chef or cook wants people to experience when they are creating the meal. The author also goes into talking about how chefs could be an artist or a craftsman who are following technique and instructions to cook, but as “technique is a mark of craft, but the creative artist requires technique” (Tefler, 15). Although when people cook most of the time they use recipes, there is always room for improvising or interpretation which will in the end give the meal the cook’s own flare or style. The one thing I did disagree with the author on was that “the art of food is minor because it is not only simple but also limited in three important ways: food is necessarily transient, it cannot have meaning and it cannot move us” (24). They may have thought art was minor for these reasons, but I think it should not be called simple by any means. If food is art, then it should be noticed for its remarkable ability to appeal to almost all bodily senses: taste, smell, texture, and visual. I think that my view of food and art are more like Post-modernism view of art from Dissanayake’s essay because it doesn’t fall under the modernism view. I don’t think you should have to experience food in a “disinterested” fashion, you actually need to be interested in it with your own personal likes and dislikes in order to appreciate it. It is post-modernism view because accepting food as art is the same as accepting “that any ‘truth’ or ‘reality’ is only a point of view” (Dissanayake, 5). Some people believe it as a reality that food isn’t art, but that is their point of view and others view food as art which is another point of view. I don’t think all food is necessarily art such as fast food which is described in the video as a sort of homogenized taste which is well illustrated in McDonald’s slogan of “One taste Worldwide” (“Fast Food”). Sadly, I can’t think of a good argument for my opinion, but I think a lot of people might agree with me.
August 1, 2014 at 10:41 pm
I totally agree with you. Your usage of quotes really solidifies your arguments. I really liked the quote you used in introducing your first argument. It was, “It is generally agreed that there can be aesthetic reactions to tastes and smells. There can also, of course, be visual aesthetic experiences connected with foodstuffs, as when one admires a rosy apple” (Tefler, 11). The second part of the quote that talks about visual really got me thinking. There are many reasons for why people might say food isn’t considered an art. But if they used the same guidelines they use to judge art on food they might find that food is art. Many people admire art on how it looks. If it looks good they are more likely to like it. And vice versa if it didn’t look good they would not like it. For food, most teenagers wont eat something because it looks nasty. But if it looks good like how they present it on commercials they most likely fall for it. I believe if people used the same judgments they use on art on food, they would also consider food as art as well.
August 3, 2014 at 1:17 pm
I completely agree with what you say about food as not being a simple or minor art — and the points you bring up about appealing to multiple senses go a long way towards defining it as otherwise. The argument that “it is not only simple but also limited in three important ways: food is necessarily transient, it cannot have meaning and it cannot move us (24)” is absurd and obviously an attempt at defining art through a modernist perspective.
As we learned in the first week’s readings, postmodern art served to subvert the “old ‘high art’ standards, often parodying or otherwise flouting them. For example, enduring ‘timeless’ works of art are replaced by intermittent or impermanent works” (Dissanayake, p20) . That sounds pretty transient to me.
Moving on to the author’s other points, food inherently has value and can move us: smell is one of the greatest senses tied to memory. What better to invoke a moving reaction from your audience than transporting them to another time in their life, something likely with significant emotional value.
I think Elizabeth Telfer’s a wee bit nuts…