In the article “A Matter of Taste,” William Deresiewicz talks about how food and its power in society have greatly grown in the past few decades. He claims, “what has happened is not that food has led to art, but that it has replaced it. Foodism has taken on the sociological characteristics of what used be to known… as culture” (Tefler). But this, he believes has come at a costly price. Since food has grown in importance other than simply fulfilling hunger, elitists have risen and created their own class, based on “required knowledge and connoisseurship” that acts as a badge of membership for this high social class (Tefler). Throughout the article, he talks about how food has become a vehicle of status and prestige. It has worked its way into all aspects of society: socially, economically and commercially. Because of this, Deresiewicz argues that more and more people are having a genuine passion of sharing food with friends and family. Similar to the Sunday painter, there is now a weekend chef, where amateurs take their turn at trying to recreate elaborate and fancy recipes. Literature and talk shows have even come out addressing how creativity in food is affecting cultures. This seems to mirror the boom of aestheticism in the 20th century, but now in the 21st century it is a boom of foodism. However, Deresiewicz is clear to claim that despite all of this hype and media and participation regarding food creation, food is not an art.
“A Matter of Taste” explicitly states that food is not an art. The author argues that it is “not narrative or representational [and] does not organize and express emotion” (Tefler). For example, an apple, although a popular symbol in literature and history such as in Adam and Eve, Sir Isaac Newton, and Snow White, it is just that: a symbol. It is not a story in itself, and therefore it cannot express emotion. Although food may evoke an emotion, such as comfort, delight or nostalgia, it cannot convey other emotions. According to Deresiewicz, art must be able touch upon a wide variety of emotions, from happiness to anger, joy to sorrow, and thousands more. It cannot be limited to just a few emotions, which is why he claims food is not an art. He also argues that, although both art and food begin by addressing the senses, this “is where food stops” and art continues (Tefler). Finally, he argues that although a food may be satisfying or pleasurable, which could mean it has an aesthetic feel about it which Tefler believes embodies the description of what art is to an extent, it does not give an insight into other people. Deresiewicz argues that you cannot “see the world in a new way, or force you[rself] to take an inventory of your soul” by eating a fine tasting food like risotto, which means it does not constitute as art (Tefler). He seems to be saying that art must give you an insight into that person’s culture, and he believes food does not accomplish this.
Both Tefler and Deresiewicz acknowledge that the elitists “regard [food] as part of being civilized” (Tefler). These people also say “food now expresses the symbolic values and absorbs the spiritual energies of the educated class… a path to salvation” (Deresiewicz). Since both writers address the importance and presence of food in our present day community, I feel that it is a safe claim that food is a major part of our culture. However, both make arguments saying that food is not an art form. Deresiewicz believes this because it is “not [a] narrative or representational, des not organize [or] express emotion” (Deresiewicz). Even though they both believe that art does not speak or tell a story about society, it still is important. Another similarity between these two writers’ arguments whether food is an art is that they both claim that art does not allow the consumer to rethink their perspective on life. Deresiewicz says that although a good risotto is a fine thing, it “isn’t going to give you insight into other people, allow you to see the world in a new way, or force you to take an inventory of your soul” (Deresiewicz). Tefler seems to think along the same lines because he claims that food is not art because art is something that is “intended for contemplation” which makes it an art piece (Tefler). Since food does not make you take a minute and pause your life to look and reflect on what you are experiencing, it should not be considered a work of art.
In conclusion, I feel that Tefler and Deresiewicz are in agreement that food should not be considered a work of art because it does not evoke a variety of emotions, it does not convey a story, and it is not meant to be contemplated in order to give the consumer a new view of the world.
Deresiewicz, William. “A Matter of Taste?” The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 Oct. 2012. Web. 19 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html?_r=0>.
Tefler, E. (2002). Food as Art. In Neill, A. & Riley, A. (eds.) Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2nd ed., Chap. 2). New York, NY: Routledge.