The article that I am going to use for this project is called “food for thought” and discusses whether there are boundaries between food and art, with different arguments than the in-class reading. One fact that the author brings up that I find interesting is that the French have found food to be art for a long time. They are also the ones who first started modern art. One culture looks at it this way, while another (in this case Dutch), mentions that food “can soothe, but it does not inspire” (Jones). The author also mentions that we should look at food similarly to art. He likes both, but neither comes close to what great art does. One really interesting thing he says is that food is swallowed, but art is never touched. Art is of the mind, and of the mind only. Food is examined for taste, texture, and appearance. He concludes his article by saying that food cannot be considered as art, and that art reaches parts of us that are deeper than the surface.
Although both the in-class reading and the article conclude that food (at least for the most part) should not be considered art, they come to that conclusion in different ways. The first difference is the main argument behind each point. The main argument behind Telfer’s piece is “the inability of food to express emotion” (26). The central argument behind Jones’ article is that art is not touched, while food and fashion are. It seems that the underlying ideas here are similar but they word them differently. What they are both trying to say is that art evokes emotion by itself. You do not need to taste, feel, smell, or hear art to be moved. Food on the other hand, is difficult to enjoy if you just look at it. Food brings out other emotions that art does not, and the central emotion that art pieces bring out are not brought out by food. It seems that this is what Telfer means when she says that food does not express emotion. It’s the emotion that you feel from art that makes it a powerful piece of art. A painting can follow all the right rules, and have each brush stroke perfect, but if it does not evoke emotion then it is not well received.
The next argument that I would like to compare and contrast is the different things that each author continuously compares food to. Jones compares food to fashion saying, “Fashion and food fail to be serious art because they are trapped in the physical world”. Contrast that to Telfer who constantly compares art to machinery and factories, including “I admire some factory chimneys because they make a marvelous pattern” (10). This is just one instance in many where she brings up equipment as a replacement to food to make a point. While I think that both comparisons are valid, the more appropriate one in my opinion is the link between food and fashion. I feel that fashion and food are both a type of modern art so to say. They have replaced 19th century art a hobby for high society individuals. Not many impoverished people are too interested in the newest fashion on the catwalks of London or the brand new 5 star restaurant opening in Paris. Instead they focus on food that is a good deal for its value, and clothing that is reasonable and practical. This is why I think the comparison between the two is more valid than comparing food to machinery. If you can argue that either food or fashion is not art, then chances are the other one will follow. As someone who does not look at food or fashion as art, I think the author of the article brings up a good point.
The topic of whether food is art is an interesting one that I never really put much thought to. I eat multiple meals every day and can often tell high quality from poor. I have lived in France for several years and have eaten at some gourmet restaurants that had bills that exceeded their reputations. However never once did I ever think that what I was looking at or eating was art. That is why I will continue to think that real food and the best chefs do not produce art, they produce high quality food making them the best among their peers. My final thought on this subject is that for food to be considered art, the person looking at it would have no urge to eat it. They would be pleased just with the aesthetic appeal of what the chef has prepared. And if a chef prepares something that is not eaten and only observed, then what he created was not food.
Jones, J. (2011, April). Food for thought…Why cuisine or couture can never equal great art [On-Line Article] Retrieved August 1st, 2014 from http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/apr/21/food-fashion-art-cuisine-couture