The connection to food and art is an interesting subject that I think should stay as simple as possible. Urmson described a work of art as “an artifact intended primarily for aesthetic consideration”(18). I would put cakes and desserts in this category only because they are intended to look at for longer than a few seconds. The fact that in most cases we eat food that is in front of us as quickly as we can seems to disprove my desires to stare at the food and appreciate it. Pictures of art on the other hand is an entirely new category that works. I also think that the argument about how “it is inappropriate to look at food aesthetically because this is treating a means as an end, and assuming food to be positively good when it is merely necessary”(19). I think that this matter humbles food enthusiasts to a nice level. As a cook in a gourmet cake shop I can say there are few foods that actually should be considered an art piece. The rest of the food should be considered as simply meals to live off of. That is not to say that there aren’t certain plates of food that are far more aesthetically profound. I think that art is a very hard to put a boundary on without sounding disrespectful to people’s interests. However in the essay, “What is Art for?” Dissanayake’s finishes it up by stating that “art-like activities exist in all societies and all walks of life.” This is important because describing something as art-like has a less aggressive meaning. I think “art-like is a good description when comparing food as an art. It gives credit to artistic capabilities of food plates, but keeps it in a category that also excepts how food will always be a necessary functional of human survival. Food can look very artistic but it appeals much stronger to other human senses (taste, smell, hunger) to have art as it’s description.
I do agree with you that “art-like is a good description when comparing food as an art.” It is true that sometimes food is just the necessity for people to stay away hunger. Your last sentence is interesting since separate the five human senses. Food really relates to taste, smell, and hunger more than other form of arts. However, from my point of view, food may be not just a kind of “art-like”. Food could have the same position with other forms of artwork. Dissanayake mentioned postmodernism’s idea in her article, “Rather than assuming that art reflects a unique and privileged kind of knowledge, any ‘truth’ or ‘reality’ is only a point of view- a ‘representation’ that comes to us mediated and conditioned by our language, our social institutions, the assumptions that characterize individuals as members of a nation, a race, a gender, a class, a profession, a religious body, a particular historical period” (Dissanayake, 5). Based on my understanding, food is also an interpretation of no matter people’s personalities or the culture of different countries all over the world. Food shows people’s manner and culture in the way they cook and eat. Therefore, I thought food could be art.
I appreciate your view on the argument of food being a “necessary” non-art as one that “humbles food enthusiasts to a nice level.” Because ultimately, whether you agree or disagree that food is in fact an art form, it is still wise to look at food as distinctly different from other art due to its nature as a “function of human survival”. I agree that this argument is valid due to the fundamental purpose of eating food as a manner of survival. However I do question your statement that only cakes and desserts are works of art. What about other meals that do not simply serve the purpose to abate our hunger? There are definitely dishes at gourmet restaurants that are served beautifully but in very small portions, clearly not intended to satisfy our considerable appetites. I would argue that these types of meals are meant to be appreciated, and savored, like works of art in their own respect, rather than devoured in a fit of hunger. The emphasis on the aesthetic components versus the need to satisfy one’s desire for food makes these dishes much more than a meal. The real question is does this emphasis qualify certain types of foods or dishes as art? Personally, I think it does.
Hi there,
I enjoyed reading your post. I think you have some good points that support your belief that most food should not be considered art, with fine cakes and desserts being some exceptions. Especially your Urmson quote that described art as “an artifact intended primarily for aesthetic consideration”(18). However, I think that just because an object has utility and usefulness does not prevent it from being artistic. Consider custom cars, beautiful homes and landscaped gardens. All of those examples have utility but I would argue that they all should be considered art. Also, aesthetic reactions can manifest through more senses than just sight. Fine food has been prepared to illicit a response from all the senses creating, in my opinion, a more profound aesthetic reaction. Although food typically doesn’t last past the meal, to me that makes it even more artistic because it makes the stimulation something to be savored rather than something one can look upon whenever they please.
-Sam