The article that I chose to compare to article Food as Art is called The Significance of Food in Culture: Is Taste an Art form? by Crystal Neely. This article explores some of the same subjects and points mentioned in by Elizabeth Tefler. The article begins by introducing how people unappreciated food because its so common and people consume it every day. They go on to say “If you stop to think about it, the role that food plays in our lives is notably significant. What we eat is reflects our lifestyle, culture, preferences and beliefs.” (Crystal Neely pg 1). In the article Neely deciphers food as art by taking into considering 3 factors. These factors include the problem of defining art, the attitude toward food in different cultures, and variety that exists in personal taste.
In both articles the writers define art as being a aesthetic consideration. Telfer describes art as “a thing intended or used wholly or largely for aesthetic consideration” (Elizabeth Telfer pg 14). The same could be said by Neely but she elaborates by addressing aesthetic experiences. Emotional responses trigger an aesthetic reaction by an inexplicable affinity for something, or it could be an emotional response that is tied to memory. The definition that Neely finalizes goes “art is an object created with intent to give rise to an aesthetic experience and which in some case successfully achieves this objective”(Crystal Neely pg 2). Everyone has different feeling to food art because emotional responses.
The second necessary component other than human emotion is intent. Neely didn’t believe that food art had any intent. She believed that food is functional and therefore cannot be considered art. Aesthetic appreciation can be separate by functionality. Meaning be food is consumed and has nutritional value that it cannot be art. Another argument that is raised against food art was that because food is a physical a physical thing it cannot be consider art. “In order to appreciate art there needs to be some level of distance.(Crystal Neely pg 3). Because people appreciate food there cannot be a level of distance from one another. I agree with what she is saying because Food is something that everyone consumes and it will never sit in one area forever. Food art doesn’t have the necessity to last very long. Neely uses a good example by comparing food art to music. Hearing is suppose to be the most important sense followed by seeing. Music is something that can be played over and over again. Telfer believed that music was able to make a ceratin connection that food art could not. Music can express emotions in a way that food cannot. “it is important to use that music expresses emotion: it is the things that is meant by claim that music is a kind of communication”( Elizabeth Telfer pg 25).
In the end of the article Neely only truly believe that food would be art if it carried a certain criteria. This standard was that “feelings of nostalgia, security, closeness, and comfort brought about by a meal are sufficient to make food art so long as it meets the criteria of intent and human emotion”(Crystal Neely pg 4). Because food art needs to meet all of these it can only be determined that food art is a minor art form. Even though it is an art for it isn’t the same because it doesn’t give the right emotion that music would. Food art should not be seen as art. Not because it isn’t it, but because it has little importance as art.
Source
Hume, D. 1757. Of the Standard of Taste. Public domain essay. Kass L. R. 1994. The Hungry Soul: Eating and the Perfecting of Our Nature. Macmillan New York. 228-231pp. Korsemeyer, C. 1999. Making Sense of Taste: Food and Philosophy. Cornell University Press New York. Telfer, E. 1996. Food for Thought: Philosophy and Food. Routelede New York.