Food as an art
It has been very ambiguous to define whether food is an art or not. Art primarily possess a huge ranges that drawing a line to distinguish arts among numerous objects. Many objects bring people to feel aesthetic reactions. Obviously, aesthetic reactions are occurred by some objects which appears to our sense. The aesthetic reactions could be a feeling of pleasures or disinterests. By tasting or smelling foods, people might get aesthetic reactions such as wonderful, beautiful and looks good like they react through observing a masterpiece. As stated in the Tefler’s essay, however, some philosophers argue about the food whether it is involved in work of art or not. On page 18, he states that “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. […] One problem is that the phrase “work of art” can be used in either a classifying or an evaluative way.” I think food is included in the art. It does not only give an aesthetic reaction but also enables people to experience it with intensity. When I go to a restaurant, I used to hear some exclamations around the tables. By smelling the food, people expect what kinds of food will be served. Whether or not the food tastes good or bad, people react on the food. However, does bad tasty food give a rise of aesthetic reactions? As Tefler depicts in his essay, the definition of work of art seems to be a key factor to judge. In the perspective, food would be a work of art. Chefs cook ingredients or raw materials and put them on dishes with some decorations. Obviously, they deliver a valuable piece to customers. People understand what a chef intends to deliver and often take a picture and upload it to the social network sites. According to the essay, “However, Urmson’s use of the word “primarily” allows for the possibility that a work of art might be made for use as well as ornament” [Telfer, 18]. The food is served to customer to enjoy the tastes and eyes from watching beautiful plating. Those dishes are mainly made through transforming normal materials to beautiful piece of works. It apparently fits to the Dissanayake’s definition of arts, “What artists do, in their specialized and often driven way, is an exaggeration of what ordinary people also do, naturally and with enjoyment- transform the ordinary into the extra-ordinary”[Dissanayake, 25].
5 Responses to 'Food as an art'
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Food as an art'.
on July 31st, 2014 at 1:37 pm
You have made good point about how “dishes are mainly made through transforming normal materials to beautiful piece of works”. I agree with you about the recreating is an important aspect of considering food as art. This process is highly similar to the process of making art works. For example, sculpture. However, I am not quit sure if we should consider about the taste of food when when talk about food as art, it is more likely to ask if someone dislike oil paintings, this person could not have aesthetic reaction towards oil paintings, is this type of painting not art for him? For example, we saw the “fast presentation” the fast food could be tasting good for some people because they have the chemical seasoning, which may make the taste good for someones, but not many people would like to say fast food is art. I think food can be art, but we should see more meanings of food rather than what do we see, what do we smell and wheat do we taste.
on August 3rd, 2014 at 8:46 pm
Thanks for your comments. I agree with your opinion that food can be art depending on one’s interpretation. Food definitely creates an aesthetic reactions. People experience enjoyments by observing dishes, smelling and tasting the foods. Food is originally made by a chef who cook raw materials and put them into dishes. By cooking raw materials, a chef think many options in terms of harmony so that he/she put chemical seasonings and considers nutrition. In order to make healthy food, a chef creates an idea and implement the ideas on dishes. No matter whether fast or slow food, the food itself is served to customers with the ideas and evokes aesthetic reactions. In the points, I think the food can be art. People share information about good tasty foods as if they found a treasure. Like paintings, people can interpret the food in their way.
on July 31st, 2014 at 2:55 pm
How would you define an aesthetic reaction?
on August 3rd, 2014 at 8:48 pm
The aesthetic reaction gives a pleasure to people. However, the aesthetic reaction is non-neutral and I think it can be positive or negative reactions. The term ‘Aesthetic’ does not imply only beautiful and pretty but also sorrow and angry. In terms of food, people may interpret a dish using those reactions.
on August 1st, 2014 at 11:15 am
What an interesting perspective on the controversial topic of whether food can be considered a form of art. You asked the question, if food tastes bad does it still give a rise to aesthetic reactions and therefore is it considered art? I believe, if we’re speaking to the type of food discussed in your response, then yes even if the person eating the food doesn’t enjoy it’s taste it still can be considered art. You pointed out that art is defined by making something extraordinary from something ordinary and that it must also appeal to the viewer (or taster’s) senses. Even if the food doesn’t taste good, it still has a specific taste which is far from ordinary. It also still appeals to the senses of smell, touch/texture, and sight. The same goes for paintings in a museum, not everyone has to think they are good paintings for them to be considered art.