CjB

Person #1

This person is a tall middle-aged man who appears to be of Indian decent.  He has short hair and a thick moustache.  He is wearing an old fleece jacket and has dress slacks on.  He is also wearing beat-up sneakers.  He is carrying a canvas book bag.  The thick moustache leads me to believe he was a young man during the 70’s when moustaches were more popular.  An assumption that can be drawn from this man’s clothing is that he is of lower-middle class.  His lack of professional dress also tells me he is likely a student rather than a professor.  His race leads me to believe that his religious orientation may be Hindu, but it is hard to tell because typically men of more eastern religions aren’t required to adorn themselves in a specific way.  These assumptions are based in the stock I put into clothing to be an implication of a person’s class and status.  Further, my assumption about this man’s religion comes from my lack of detailed understanding of eastern culture.

Person #2

The second person appears to be a young man of Asian descent.  He has short unkempt hair and is wearing glasses.  He is wearing an athletic jacket and dark jeans.  He has dark athletic shoes that have a few tears in them.  There is a long silver chain from his belt look to his wallet.  He is carrying a small black nylon satchel.  His unusual clothing and use of a bag instead of a backpack leads me to believe he is not American and maybe an international student.  The wallet chain is linked in my mind to criminal activity or counter culture of some sort, but there is no other part of his appearance that makes him look threatening.  Therefore, it could also indicate he feels unsafe and as though his belongings are at risk of being taken. One can assume he is of middle class because if he is an international student, studying here is difficult and expensive, but his shoes are falling apart.  His unkempt hair makes me believe he may not take good care of himself and may be unhealthy or sick.   Regardless, it is clear he doesn’t place high value on his appearance, but rather values practicality.

Person #3

The third person is a young white woman with blonde hair.  She is wearing a Northface down vest and backpack, a Lululemon zip-up jacket, yoga pants and clean Nike running shoes.  She is very thin and conventionally beautiful.  Her hair is in a bun and exposes pearl earrings on her ear lobes.  She also has a small nose ring with a little diamond.  While ear piercings are traditionally considered normal for a white woman of privilege, the nose ring deviates from this image indicating she might have counter-culture interests. Her clothes appear to be new and expensive, which makes it easy to assume she is of upper-middle class.  She appears to value her health because of her exercise clothes and her body shape.  I believe she also values her appearance as a female because her hair is tied up perfectly and she is wearing makeup.  Because her appearance is the prototype of popularity and coolness, I automatically assume she has an active social life and is well liked by her peers and classmates.  My own understanding of this woman’s class comes from my privileged knowledge of the brands she is wearing and the cost associated with dressing in the style she is wearing.

Interviewer: CjB

Interviewee: Brittany

Meal being discussed: Truffle oil broccoli with Himalayan salt and Teriyaki seared tofu

Do you believe food is an art or not?

“Yes, I would say it is art especially when you go to a fancy restaurant and they present it really nicely.  And, it’s a talent that not everyone has, to be able to cook, so I guess it is kind of an art in a way.”

Dissanayake (1991) discusses the idea of “making special” as when “one exerts control, takes pains, and uses care and contrivance to do one’s best, the result is generally what is called artistic or aesthetic?  How do people make food special?  Are there different ways?

“I think that not following a recipe and just using what you have or using ingredients that you love makes it more personal.  And, I would say not using instructions that makes it mores special because you just are left with your own creativity.”

The difference between art and craft as Tefler (2002) states is that, “art is an original creation, whereas craft is carrying out an instruction… or employing a technique”.  Is this meal an art form or a craft?

“Well, I would say this is an art, because there were no recipes, you just put together ingredients we already had, you didn’t use instructions.”

Follow up:

The initial response people often have to thinking of food as an art is to consider it as a visual art form.  Brittany did this in her response to my initial question by discussing the presentation of food in a visually interesting way.  However, after using the material presented by Dissanayake and Tefler to ask deeper questions, she shifted her responses to include creativity in cooking as an art form.

The meal I made was an idea originally put together by my parents with ingredients we wanted to use up.  However, I changed different aspects of how it is prepared and the ingredients used to alter it to my taste.  Tefler believes that the interpretation of a recipe can be art stating, “…interpretative artists have to make choices, have to be creative, and within an interpretative art we can distinguish between creativity and technique” (16). As you can see by the picture below, I did not present or cook the food in an aesthetically pleasing way, but Brittany appreciated the creativity of the mix of flavors and therefore considered the meal a form of art.

Food preparation, like painting or writing, involves human creativity and thus, is an art form.  In its very definition, food is for human nourishment, human sustenance, or simply human enjoyment.  Therefore, the art of food falls under Dissanayake’s Renaissance theory.  In the description of this human-centered art theory she states “…there is no abstract concept of ‘art’, everyone may be an artist…arts are invariably and inseparably part of ritual ceremonies that articulate, express, and reinforce a group’s deepest beliefs and concerns” (21).  Food is a very human concern and need.  It is also one that is a constant in the daily life of every individual.

However, depending on income level and access to resources, different classes of individuals have different abilities to play with the aesthetics of food as an art form.  For example, lower income individuals who have limited food, or have no control over the types of food available to them are less able to incorporate aesthetics into their cooking styles.  Conversely, wealthier individuals have more freedom and creativity with food because they have more access to it and have the freedom to include less nourishing foods into their cooking styles for the sake of aesthetics.  However, Tefler (2002) argues against a direct link between aesthetics and art stating, “Not all objects that can give rise to aesthetic reactions are works of art.  A work of art is by definition a man-made thing, even if the human involvement need consist of no more than putting a natural object in a gallery and giving it a title” (12).  While individuals with less access to food may not have the resources to create aesthetically pleasing food, it remains closely knit into culture, an artistic aspect of human existence.  Different cultures have diverse ways of cultivating, preparing, displaying, and even eating food.  Therefore, all people interact with food in a way that is artistic, because individuals cannot deny their own culture in their food preferences and cooking styles.

1.Paleoanthropsychobiological was a term that was coined by Dissanayake to describe the idea behind western art.  The term encompasses several concepts.  The first is that art “encompasses all of human history”.  Second, the term “includes all human societies”.  Third, the term explains that art is a mental and emotional need.

2.  The phrase “make special” was also created by Dissanayake to explain the personalization of art.  To make special is to find the uniqueness or extraordinary in an otherwise typical event.  This, Dissanayake argues, was a survival technique for humans to decipher between events that posed a threat or an opportunity for food, and those that were mundane.  This adaptive trait was then mapped onto humans understanding and development of art.  Dissanayake explains that humans “would have been the ability not just to recognize that something was special, but deliberately to set out to make something special”.

3.  The three different theories or periods of art mentioned by Dissanayake are Fine Art or Renaissance, Modernism, and Postmodernism.  First, the Renaissance period was around the 14^th century and embraced a philosophy of the Middle Ages.  Dissanayake describes this as, “’having a correct understanding of the principles involved,’ rather as we understand the ‘art’ of salmon cookery or of motorcycle maintenance” (16).  Second, Modernism was an 18^th century movement characterized by aesthetics.  Dissanayake characterizes this theory as, “…a special frame of mind for appreciating works of art – a ‘disinterested’ attitude that is separate from one’s own personal interests in the object, its utility, or its social or religious ramifications” (17).  Lastly, Postmodernism is a movement that came to be during the middle to late 20^th century and was noted for its contrast with modernism.  This movement did so by “…challenging the aura of exclusiveness and religiosity of the museum, art is created on the street, in remote deserts, or found in humble or trivial objects or materials” (20).

One of the most interesting aspects of Dissanayake’s (1991) article is the parallel drawn between the movement towards modernism and the elitism of art.  Dissanayake states, “Because these values were not easily apparent to the untutored observer, appreciating art became more than ever an elite activity…”.  In an art history class taken earlier in my college career I learned that art, and original art, was once appreciated and purchased by most individuals in society regardless of class.  This does not hold today, as art now requires its own historical context and language, like that of fine wine tastings.

Further, Dissanayake states that the “artworld” is defined just as much by the art itself as it is by the critics of art.  This is reminiscent of independent and foreign film, another “high culture” interest.  Sundance Film Festival and many others across the nation support an industry of counter-culture films appreciated by an audience that considers the movies art rather than entertainment.  This world has created esteem for critics for whose movie choices would otherwise not be popularly supported.  Many individuals, in fact, are willing to go out of their way to see a movie they wouldn’t otherwise be interested in to stay relevant.

Postmodernism is attempting to move away from elitism to create a more accessible art world.  Dissanayake states “Artists, just like everybody else, do not see the world in any singularly privileged or objectively truthful way…” (1991).  Although I agree with the movement to take the intimidation out of art appreciation, I think the abstract nature of some postmodernist art is a deterrent for the general community.   General education on art in public schools from a young age could help familiarize individuals with different forms of art, and therefore give people the confidence to appreciate it.  Without inclusive education, art will continue to feel inaccessible.

Today I slept in, spent time on the phone with my mom and watched the Seahawks with a group of friends.  I also did a little bit of homework and ate a healthy lunch.  I check in with my parents at least once daily on the phone because of my top value “family”, and I usually text my sister throughout the week.  Although I didn’t exercise today I got plenty of sleep and ate healthy because of my regard for good health.  I am dedicated to my schoolwork and accomplished a few necessary assignments today.  Although doing so could be linked to my 5^th top value “wisdom” I think my insistence on finishing my homework is more related to my diligence and work ethic.  The rest of my day was filled up with social activities.  I did not include friendship as a top value even though I am a very social person.  I did so because I think the term “community” is a more inclusive term.

I inherited many of my values from my mother and father.  My family is very close and we communicate with each other about nearly everything.  This open relationship with my parents and my sister has put them at the center of my value system because they are my closest friends and my foundation.  I also have come to value community and service because of my mother.  She has always been involved through volunteering at my schools, hosting work-related parties and events and her continued desire to serve those around her.  My father is an eccentric academic and has always placed significant value on knowledge and wisdom; because of this, I have acquired his taste for curiosity.  Lastly, although my family is relatively healthy, I place a higher value on it because I have encountered many health issues in my past.  After having a hip replacement surgery and an ongoing heart issue, I have come to value my health significantly and I take steps daily to take ensure my overall wellbeing.

“Confronted with the unpredictability, complexity, and quarrelsomeness of human values, with the apparent lack of any real agreement or uniformity in our personal evaluations and beliefs, the evaluations and beliefs that guide our everyday speech and conduct, how should we respond?” (Lewis, 1999).

This statement is a complex summation of the intricacies of values.  While I agree that there is a vast array of different value systems that govern behavior, I disagree with the way Lewis approaches the discussion.  It is presented in a way that frames variations in definitions of the term “values” and even diversity among beliefs as a problem that needs to be solved.  I agree with the author in quarrelsomeness without agreement or uniformity makes social systems complex and difficult to code or break down.  However, these complexities are what separates individuals from one another and what defines a human mind.

I appreciated the epistemological standpoint taken by Lewis.  However, I disagree on some of the premises of the argument.  By delving into the specifics about what it means to know something, Lewis is operating under the presumption that a value must be known.  Values are spoken of as firm and stringent long-lasting truths.  They are approached as the core of human behavior and decisions.  However, many people hold contradicting values or their values may change from one day to the next depending on what issues they are dealing with or even what is convenient for the time and place.  However, society has a pattern of rejecting people and losing trust in people who change their values.  Politics exemplifies this idea.  There are few terms worse for a politician than a “flip-flopper”.  The public is very stringent on policing the values of others in a way that too narrowly confines a “value”.  While it can be a bad thing to neglect governing morals for more convenient or safe actions, a lot of good can come from allowing oneself some plasticity in values.  Without allowing new information and experiences to shape and mold perspective, there is no progress.  Values, while unarguably central to the human experience, are in their practice “unpredictable”, “complex”, and often even “quarrelsome”.

With classes back in session for winter term, the UO health center has reached a high point in student traffic all thanks to this year’s hard hitting flu.  I would know, I tried to make an appointment last week and was barely squeezed in between the H1’s and the N1’s.  The Oregonian recently published an article* about the apparent strength of this year’s flu, which has reportedly packed more punch than in previous years.

However, there is still some hesitation regarding getting a flu shot.  Tara Haelle of redwineandapplesauce.com** has debunked many of the myths that justify some peoples’ resistance to the vaccination.  What is most shocking about her post is not the truth behind the myths, but the fantasy that some people believe about the shot.  These outrageous cries include the vaccine being linked to cardiovascular disease and even Alzheimer’s.  One of the most common myths that I’ve heard echoed by people who have chosen no to be vaccinated is that the shot actually causes the flu.  In the past I didn’t have a counter argument because my knowledge of the vaccine went insofar as to understand that the shot was a very small does of the virus itself.  It seems sensible enough that it might get out of hand in some people and turn into a full blown flu, right?  Wrong.  Blogger Haelle eloquently squashes this myth too.  Turns out, an individual is infected with the flu 2-5 days before feeling symptoms and the vaccine itself doesn’t protect a person until a few days after he or she receives it.  Therefore, the many cases of people getting the flu immediately following the vaccination are just a coincidence.  In fact, this coincidence is more of a testament to the prevalence of the flu and therefore the importance of getting protected than anything else.

*http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2014/01/this_flu_seasons_a_nasty_one_n.html

**http://www.redwineandapplesauce.com/2013/10/28/setting-the-record-straight-dubunking-all-the-flu-vaccine-myths/