Deresiewicz, W. (2012, October 26). A Matter of Taste?. The New York Times: Sunday Review. Retrieved August 1, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html?_r=0

In this article, Deresiewicz talks about how in a sense, food has replaced art in modern culture. He starts off by saying that around 1994, people began to appreciate food in a different way and notice and experience more and more types of different foods. They were “discovering their senses — learning to value pleasure, distinguish subtle differences, and make fine judgments — and sensual responsiveness is the basis of artistic sensibility” (Deresiewicz). He then goes on to talk about how food became a huge part of culture. Food was even beginning to become more complex in dining halls of Universities. People began to take up entrepreneurship opportunities pertaining to food such as gourmet cupcake and cookie shops. The food culture has expanded so much that there are many culinary schools, there are professions for criticism and debate regarding dishes and restaurants which can also be seen with art. He then goes even as far as saying that “Aestheticism” has been overtaken by “Foodism.” He mentions the book Eat, Pray, Love. and how it has shown how people in modern culture that food can express spiritual energies and symbolic values to the educated class (Deresiewicz). With all that, he concludes with his own opinion that food is not actually art. He states that all food can do is stimulate the senses, but it cannot communicate any story, higher meaning, or insight for its audience or tasters you could say.

There are a few ways that Deresiewicz’s article is similar to the assigned reading, Tefler’s article. First, both articles state the obvious which is that food appeals to the senses just as art does. Tefler describes a work of art as “a thing intended or used wholly or largely for aesthetic consideration” (Tefler, 14). Though Deresiewicz doesn’t talk about aesthetic stimulation regarding to food, it is implied when he says that food “addresses the senses” and when he says, “Meals can evoke emotions, but only very roughly and generally, and only within a very limited range — comfort, delight, perhaps nostalgia, but not anger, say, or sorrow, or a thousand other things,” all of which are aesthetic reactions (Deresiewicz). Another similarity that both authors agree upon is that food cannot communicate any sense of higher meaning. Tefler states, “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” (Tefler, 24). Although Deresiewicz does not agree that food is art, he says something similar in that “food, for all that, is not art. They both talk about how different schools for passing along and teaching techniques and arts have become more and more frequent for both culinary and the arts.

There are many ways where the two articles are different. First off, as I said earlier, Tefler believes food is a minor form of art, while Deresiewicz does not believe food is art at all because he says, “Both begin by addressing the senses, but that is where food stops. It is not narrative or representational, does not organize and express emotion.” So I guess where there are differences in their beliefs is that Deresiewicz believes that in order for something to be considered art, it needs to narrate, represent, or express emotion itself, while Tefler believes art more in the lines of being able to cause aesthetic reactions, but food is still considered a minor form of art.

That being said, Deresiewicz seems to believe that Food has in some ways replaced art. He says, “Nobody cares if you know about Mozart or Leonardo anymore, but you had better be able to discuss the difference between ganache and couverture” (Deresiewicz). I don’t think this is necessarily true, but I do think that some people are not interested in, or do not connect well with art. However, everyone can connect with food because each and every single one of us experience food every day. As Deresiewicz said, people like to share food with friends. Food is also a very social part of our culture and I think it is more unifying than art is. So, I guess I can see where he thinks that food is in a sense replacing art although I don’t agree that is the case. I think that both authors agree that food has become a huge part of our modern culture, and that it has been started to have qualities recognizable similar to art such as aesthetic reactions, visual appeal, contrast whether it’s colors or flavors.

 

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.