The article “A Matter of Taste” by William Deresiewicz is a post from the NY Times that explains the reasons why people may come to consider food as art and then gives an opinionated but thoughtful reasoning to why it should not after all be considered art. Deresiewicz goies on to say that food hasn’t become implemented with art, “but that it has replaced it.” He also goes on to say that food as art is costly in the senses of time, knowledge and money. He makes a point that food has grown extremely far away from the simple diners and grocery stores. There has become organic food booths exquisite cuisine restaurants and campus food festivals. Now days Deresiewicz points out that Food to the growing population in America has become an expressive art, a way to communicate, and live healthily. This to me is showing how food in todays society has developed into many different aspects of our lives that go beyond the simple fact that we eat when we are hungry. Deresiewcz explains how art has always been a passion that Friends can share between each other. This phenomenon according the Deresiewcz has been integrated into the realm of food also. Friends get together friends talk about food, and are passionate about food in ways beyond satisfying hunger. Deresiwicz then goes on to say that a shared passion and stimulation of human senses isn’t enough for food to be considered art. There are many fields that art has and food simply doesnt cover them. Some of these as Deresiwicz explains are the lack of ability of food to tell stories, are to express an idea. There is also a point about the lack of ability for food to encourage a number of emotions that art can pick at. Some these including sadness, anger and sorrow. I am going to add Lust, into this list because this to me sets them apart completely.
Another connection that food has tied with art is that “It has developed, of late, an elaborate cultural apparatus that parallels the one that exists for art, a whole literature of criticism, journalism, appreciation, memoir and theoretical debate.” This is a good point that shows how food as art is going through similar cultural respect as art often does and has gone through. With our societies high regard for food in art Deresewicz mentions that it is becoming its own religion in many respects. This point has also been brought in one of our readings “What is Art For?” by Ellen Dissanayake. She basically backs affirms Deresewicz’ point that “Art has become if not a religion, an ideology whose principles were articulated by and for the few who had leisure and education enough to acquire them.” This is the connection to how our schools are now teaching students to become experts in this area and are beginning to implement these skills into as many aspects of our life as possible. There was a funny excerpt however that talked about France Italy. Both of these countries I would assume hold much respect for the gourmet quality of food. But in both of these countries eresiewicz points out that art as a movement still holds a higher respect and cultural need. Contrasting this to American culture might seem silly that America could possibly have a higher respect for food as art then these countries but this argument is not fully negotiable. Thomas Cole, Norman Rockwell, and Gilbert Stuart which are all famous American painters may argue that American culture is seen as an underdog to other art enthusiast countries.
““Eat, Pray, Love,” the title goes, but a lot of people never make it past the first. Nor do they have to. Food now expresses the symbolic values and absorbs the spiritual energies of the educated class. It has become invested with the meaning of life. It is seen as the path to salvation, for the self and humanity both(Deresiewicz)”
This quote to me also expresses how food doesn’t have the ability to last more than the amount of time we have to look at it and savor it. After that there is only a remembrance of how the food provoked our emotions. Plus no plate is the same so the ability to relive an emotion elicited by art is impossible compared to a painting or sculpture that can be revisited. Thus making food into this symbolic value that can only be revisited by our memories. This quote also establishes that food has gone through the steps necessary to become a religion excepted by Americans. It is absorbed it is tough and it is invested in many aspects of life and humanity. Although there is this acceptance of food and art as a religious practice Deresiewicz still makes points that with the lack emotional variety food can not be established as an art. From one of the readings called “Food As Art,” Telfer states “that good food can elate us, invigorate us, startle us, excite us, cheer us with a kind of warmth and joy, but cannot shake us fundamentally in that way of which the symptoms are tears or a sensation almost of fear” (26). This is a quote in compliance with Deresiewicz’s ending paragraph. It gives food as art credit for eliciting emotions but sets a drawback that it is incapable of eliciting certain emotions such as fear that true art has an ability to do. Meals can evoke emotions, but only very roughly and generally, and only within a very limited range .Food can bring fourth emotions such as “comfort, delight, perhaps nostalgia, but not anger, say, or sorrow, or a thousand other things. Food is highly developed as a system of sensation”(Deresiewicz). This basically sums up and supports the writings of Telfer in “Food As Art.” I think it is safe to say that art as food provides simple sensations where as fine art releases thoughts and feelings sometimes beyond what we know is possible.
Deresiewicz, William (October, 2012). A Matter of Taste [On-Line Newspaper]. Retrieved 27 Oct 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html?_r=0>.