Category: Unit 04

In an article written by Blake Gopnik in the Washington Post, debates weather food can be serious art or not. His article doesn’t exactly state what he believes food to be considered but it does makes many counter arguing points that help try an determine whether food is art.  These are only a few of the arguments that Gopnik touches in support of food as art.

[ “Can’t: There’s no object left over when a meal is finished.
Can So: Music doesn’t last, either. Each time a dish is prepared, it’s a “performance” of a recipe that will survive over time.

Can’t: Its goal is to feed people, so it’s too functional to count as serious art.
Can So: Paintings, photos and videos have their “functional” versions, too. The function is just the scaffold that food-art is built around. ElBulli’s “art” goes way beyond the calories it delivers.

Can’t: It can be experienced by only a tiny number of people.
Can So: You don’t measure an art form by the size of its audience. Way fewer than 8,000 of their contemporaries ever heard most of what Bach or Mozart wrote; almost no one looked at Vermeer in his own day.”   ]

Over the past few weeks, we have studies and discussed what art is and what is art for. To me, I came to the same conclusion with E. Dissanayake, that “Art is not universal”. I believe that this is absolutely true. Art is not universal because there is not just one specific style or concept. Art has and can be define in many different ways. I think that art is subjective because its interpretations are mostly based on the perspective of the viewer. When it comes question whether or not food is art, I believe that it is. Food can be crafted with artistry; convey meaning; be a vehicle or inspiration for some of humanity’s better qualities. Therefore, food is art.

Dissanayake offered a highly informative and critical take on defining art.  A significant piece from her work is the creation of the word “paleoanthropsychobiological” which she uses to define art. The best way of understanding the term is to break it down piece by piece. “paleo-anthro-psycho-biological” First, that the idea of art encompass all of human society all the way back to the Palaeolithic era; Second, that include all human societies which is anthropological ;And third, that it accounts for the fact that art is psychological or emotional need and has psychological or emotion effects.  In Gopnik’s article, he says regarding food can be art because ” It can talk about history, culture, ethnicity, politics, the body.”  To me, this is significant in the argument defining food as art because Gopniks statement matches  Dissanayake’s  description of the word “paleoanthropsychobiological” .

the body = anthro and biological

history = paleo and anthro

culture = anthro and psycho

ethnicity = biological, psycho, and anthro

politics = anthro.

In another reading by Elizabeth Telfer, she makes a point, when considering food as art, that “…tastes and smells can be combined with a judgment…” (18). Telfer is discussing how food is critiqued when it is tasted and due to this, food has a harder time gaining traction when being considered by others who aren’t eating in the present form.  I thought that this point is a good support for Gopnik’s statement within his article when he describes the act of eating at a specific restaurant: “At elBulli, the artistic experience is ultra-intense, concentrated into the few seconds it takes to taste, chew and swallow.” Gopnik believes eating to be an artistic experience, and too believe that Telfer believes then same thing.

If all three authors were to meet, I believe that based on their writings, they would all have the same stance that food is considered art.

 

Gopnik, Blake (2009, September 23). The Big Debate: Can Food Be Serious Art? The Washington Post [Online Article] Retrieved October 27, 2013 fromhttp://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-09-23/news/36862766_1_elbulli-adri-art-matters

Telfer, E. (2002). Food as art. In Neill, A. & Ridley, A (Eds.), Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2 ed., pp. 9-27). New York: Routledge.

Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Food is something that our world considers necessary for human existence, whereas art is often seen as a luxury. And yet those who work in either the sectors of food or the arts (whether it be artists and farmers, patrons and chefs, or arts enthusiasts and foodies) seem to be working along parallel lines to address issues that we face in our modern world. The arts, including painting, sculpture, installation, dance and music, are in part about creating a sensory experience—something for the audience to see, feel or hear. And perhaps more than any other discipline, food has the ability to appeal to all of our senses—a combination of colors, textures, crunches, smells and tastes goes into the making of a meal, and the selection and transformation of those elements is creative. When a creative, sensory form also has the capacity to express philosophies, inspire multiple interpretations, conjure narratives and/or allude to complex meanings, it is art. Food can be crafted with artistry; convey meaning; be a vehicle or inspiration for some of humanity’s better qualities. Therefore, food is art.

In last weeks reading, “What is Art For?”, Ellen Dissanayake says “Art is not universal…”(Dissanayake 19). This, to me, is the perfect quote to reiterate that food I indeed an art form. By are not being bound by specific guidelines, it can be identified as many different things to many different people; its meaning is not universal and food being an art form is subjective. In my mind, art is a form of expression, and what people make for food is a form of art, whether it is making a wedding cake, having a thanksgiving feast, or just making top-ramen for dinner. By not being universal, food has unlimited potential for expression and uniqueness.  Each food item produced is bound to be different from another.

Elizabeth Tefler in this weeks reading, “Food as Art” states, “a work of art by definition [is] 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” (Tefler 12) I completely agree and I think food is legitimate form of art because it is a manner of expression, it can be critiqued critically in more than one way, and also can be extremely unique.

This is Art! Yummmmm!