The article that I chosen is the “How Food Replaced Art as High Culture” that was written by Deresiewicz Deresiewicz in the New York Times. In this article, the author argue that food is replacing the art as a kind of high culture, meanwhile, he believe that food is not art. Firstly, Deresiewicz introduced that foodism is increasing rapidly in the America as the rising postwar middle class. Today, many young people pursue to the possibilities of career in food and food take up an extreme important position in their eyes. Just like art, food is also a genuine passion that people like to share with their friends and food also have the characteristics of aestheticism. However, the author argue that although there are some similarities between food and art but food is not art because food is not narrative or representational.
There are some similar and relative points between “How Food Replaced Art as High Culture” and Telfer’s article. First of all, Deresiewicz think chef is similar with artist because both of chef and artist have the genuine passion that people like to share with their friends. As he described, “many try their hands at it as amateurs — the weekend chef is what the Sunday painter used to be — while avowing their respect for the professionals and their veneration for the geniuses” (Deresiewicz, 2012). Telfer also mentioned that cook is artist with creativity, as she mentioned, “the cook who creates such a recipe is a creative artist. A cook can also create recipes by producing variations on someone else’s recipe or on a traditional one, like a jazz composer arranging a standard tune or a classical composer arranging a folk song; cooks who do this are also creative artists” (Telfer 16). Secondly, both of Deresiewicz and Telfer refer the aesthetic consideration of food. Deresiewicz think food take over the characteristic of aesthetics, as he introduced, “just as aestheticism, the religion of art, inherited the position of Christianity among the progressive classes around the turn of the 20th century, so has foodism taken over from aestheticism around the turn of the 21st” (Deresiewicz, 2012). In contrast, Telfer described that no matter cookers or eaters are pay attention to the aesthetic consideration into the food. As she written, “many meals are intended by their cooks to be considered largely in this way- to be savoured, appraised, thought about, discussed-and many eaters consider them in this way” (Telfer, 14).
Although Deresiewicz acknowledged that food have some similarities with art but he argued that food definitely is not art. As he argued, “But food, for all that, is not art. Both begin by addressing the senses, but that is where food stops. It is not narrative or representational, does not organize and express emotion”; he think food do not have the function of expressing emotion and then he give some examples, “An apple is not a story, even if we can tell a story about it. A curry is not an idea, even if its creation is the result of one”; but he also think dishes can evoke people’s emotion just in a very limited range, “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”; as a conclusion, he said “Food is highly developed as a system of sensations, extremely crude as a system of symbols. Proust on the madeleine is art; the madeleine itself is not art” (Deresiewicz, 2012). In other words, Deresiewicz suggested that food is not art but cooking could be art. This argument is very similar with Telfer’s thoughts. Telfer also think food lack the function of expressing emotion but cook can do it. As she argued, “the inability of food to express emotion does not mean that cooks cannot express themselves in their work…cooking can in one sense be an expression of emotion. A cook can cook as an act of love, as we have seen, or out of the joy of living” (Telfer, 26).
The most obvious different opinion between Deresiewicz and Telfer is that Deresiewicz thinks food is not art but Telfer thinks food is a kind of minor art. Telfer thinks food can be a work of art and type of art form, but it is minor rather than major art. She explained that food art is minor because it is transient and it cannot have meaning and move us.
Overall, there are some similarities and differences between Deresiewicz’s article and Telfer’s article. In my opinion, no one is right and no one is true because art is a kind of subject thing so everyone can have special opinion to it.
References:
Deresiewicz, W. (2012, October 27). How Food Replaced Art as High Culture-A Matter of Taste?. The New York Times. Retrieved August 3, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html?_r=0
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.