Category Archives: Assignments

The first person works behind the counter at a pizza place. She is wearing a low-cut black t-shirt and her chest is tattooed with dark flowery patterns. Both of her ears are pierced and she wears black spiral earrings with scorpion-like stingers at the end of the spiral. Her hair is black but she wears it up in a bun at the back. She has on jeans and a thick, silver studded belt. There appears to be brass knuckles hanging off of her back belt loop. I think she is trying to draw attention to herself and I feel like her style is trying to be anti-establishment.  I believe she is trying to distance herself from what she deems as societal norms so that she can stand out as an individual. Mostly, I think her dress makes me stereotype her as angry. Not necessarily that she is hard to get along with but that she clashes with authority and is angry in a universal sense. Her adornment shows me that I am maybe too skeptical of people’s motives. Immediately, I was a bit judgmental because I see her dress as a fad that a lot of people use to stand out, but if it is common, then it really is not individualistic. However, her dress is not necessarily a statement, but could be what she likes to wear.

The next girl is eating a few tables from me. She has curly dirty-blonde hair that is browner in certain areas and actually looks tangled. She has a green hooded sweatshirt and wears horn-rimmed glasses with wide yellow earpieces and thick lenses. Her sweatshirt is tucked into her maroon jeans in the back but I don’t know if that is on purpose. I see her as kind of geeky. Her outfit could be ironic, which is popular with some people, but I don’t think it is. She is not necessarily pretty and her disheveled look seems natural more than forced. I think she is socially awkward but not self-conscious. I think she values close personal friendships more than the approval of the majority of her peers.  I think she prefers not standing out and I feel like she is introverted. Most of this is because she sits in the corner with one friend and they have not paid particular attention on looking “pretty” according to society. This tells me that I subscribe to some societal ideas on attractiveness. I have been influenced to deem outward appearance with self-confidence and happiness.

The first thing I notice about the last man is he is wearing a Portland Trail Blazers hat, and because I also like the Blazers, I realize I am already thinking of this man favorably. He has facial hair, but it isn’t wild and he wears a t-shirt and jeans. He has silver studs for earrings, and I think that they look okay. His hair is short, brown, and kind of fuzzy and curly. I think he is comfortable with his individuality and I am less skeptical of his individualism than I was with the first girl mostly because of the Blazers hat. I believe he is not just showing his individuality for the sake of standing out because he openly identifies with a mass of people in a mainstream activity. Now that I write this, I am not sure how that is different than the first girl identifying with a mass of people. I think I judge them differently because this man likes something that I like. That tells me that I hold my values and beliefs higher than I hold other people’s.

In an article for the Huffington Post, Fabio Parasecoli discusses the similarities between the culinary industry and the art industry to support an argument that food is now an emerging artistic mode. The high-end restaurant business has adopted a patron and investor system that is modeled after the art business. Inside this relationship, chefs are also expected to keep themselves on the cutting edge of the business, impressing patrons and critics with “dishes and menus that stimulate and surprise them” (Parasecoli, 2013). Because of this effort to keep their dishes novel, the chefs of this generation have begun an avant-garde movement for food, much like the avant-garde artistic movement that was coined in 1910. Behind the success of this avant-garde-like movement, food has transformed into an art, placing more emphasis on the aesthetic pleasure of the experience of eating rather than the usefulness of food.

In her essay, “What is art for?” Ellen Dissayunake shows how artistic movements, where new artists challenged previous conventions, helped define and evolve physical and performance art (1991, p.3-6). The avant-garde movement that Parasecoli identifies in the culinary industry seems to be akin to the rejection of usefulness that came with the beginning of the modernist movement in the 18th century. Just as these artists rejected the notion of art as a tool for religion and societal needs and instead, began to pursue an idea of “art for art’s sake” (Dissayunake, 1991, p.4), so too has this movement of chefs moved past regarding food as a tool for nourishment, and instead they pursued food for food’s sake. And, according to Elizabeth Telfer, art must be considered “in abstraction from its usefulness” (2002, p.19).  Because these chefs have rejected usefulness altogether, focusing more on creativity and style in their menus, then this type of analysis can be applied and the food can be considered a mode of art.

Still, Parasecoli’s classification of the current culinary industry suggests that food as art is a relatively new thing. These chefs, who are pushing their craft forward into a publically recognized art form, are developing an art business as much as they are exploring their craft. This is the part of the argument that Telfer does not touch on in her essay. Parasecoli makes sure to point out that chefs have an incentive to be experimental with their ingredients and menus, which can “keep them on the cutting edge and ensure coverage from the press, TV, and Internet” (2013). This sounds very similar to the art industry, and by how they compare in business, it is easier to compare food and other arts in terms of their quality. As Parasecoli points out, there is an entire field for food criticism. If the industry is so delicate and interpretive that it requires critics, then it must have the same qualities that define the art industry.

Although Parasecoli does not spend much focus on the specifics in innovation seen within the culinary industry, he does compare the general creative qualities of chefs to that of other artists. He notes that new chefs are often inconsiderate of ‘narrow-minded customers’ who do not understand the innovative style of their menus (2013). I cannot help but see the similarities between the chefs Parasecoli describes and experimental artists in other modes. In this case, if he creates like an artist, acts like an artist, and works like an artist, it seems the only conclusion is that these chefs are artists.

Where Parasecoli observes the business of the food industry and Telfer spends most of her article attempting to disprove arguments that food is not art, the piece that does the best job of truly illustrating the artistry that goes into making food is the short video presentation, “Slow Food.” In it, the narrator lists the attention to detail required for a mother and son artisanal team to make crepes that are unable to be replicated. When the narrator describes the mixture of ingredients that can only be found in this one area and how they blend together to form a dish that is authentically creative and personal, it sounds like how artists can be identified by their color scheme and brush strokes (“Slow Food”).

Each of these articles uses a different element of the art process to link the culinary industry to other art forms. Still, put together, the reader can see how similar the creation of food is to the creation of any other work of art. Food is going through the infancy of its existence as art, but chefs are continuing to push the envelope and find new ways to express themselves through food, and as this continues, food will continue to evolve as an art form.

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.

Huette, S. (Producer). (2009). Slow Food [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szq5Lj6-hOM

Parasecoli, F. (2013, August 29). Is Food Art? Chefs, Creativity, and the Restaurant Business? Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fabio-parasecoli/food-art_b_3830791.html

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.

Elizabeth Telfer is absolutely correct in her classification of food as a simple and minor art. Of course, as Telfer points out, food is limited by its transience (24) and that it is considered differently because of “the usefulness of food and drink” (21), but I think she tries to work around this to prove that it does not matter, rather than differentiating food for nourishment and food for an aesthetic experience. She talks about the aesthetics of food (10), but she ignores that there is an element of eating that is purely based on the aesthetic pleasure.  People do not go to upscale restaurants for nourishment. They do it to experience the artistry of food, to enjoy tastes that are different than the tastes of fast food or store-bought food.

Food can easily fit into the paleoanthropsychobiological mode of interpretation coined by Ellen Dissayunake (1). This is why different cultures have different food, and that food is closely related to a person’s perspective of that culture. For example, I was fortunate enough to travel to Italy last summer, and along with the architecture and visible art that I saw, my most memorable experiences were the aesthetic pleasure of real Italian food. The way the narrator describes the food-making process in the second presentation, “Slow Food,” captures this idea. The crepes made by this family are dishes that can only be experienced in this area (the basil only grows around their town and the olives are freshly grown) and can be appreciated with a cultural, societal, and biological background. This perspective also accounts for why people have vastly different tastes. This touches on the psychological and biological part of the analysis.

Even when reading Telfer’s descriptions of food, a physical response was evoked in me. My mouth salivated and I had to stop to make something for myself to eat. The reason that food counts as art is because my home-cooked meal did not live up to the aesthetic pleasure I craved. Chefs are artists who can create something that is appreciated in a similar way to other modes of art.

Paleoanthropsychobiological is a term coined by Ellen Dissayunake to provide a way of analyzing art that is encompassing of all aspects of the human experience. Under this scope of analysis, Dissayunake asks people to consider history, societal norms, emotional and psychological impact, and human biology when considering art. Dissayunake uses this term to highlight the importance of a broad perspective in regards to art. If art is only viewed using a single basis for examination, then something is lost and the true meaning behind the art cannot be withdrawn. For example, a piece of art from another culture can depict a symbol that means something drastically different in another. Without a paleoanthropsychobiological analytical approach, mistakes can be made through ignorance.

According to Dissayunake, art is a product of the human need to “make special.” By this, she is referring back to the meaning that humans strive to explore and express in their art. There is a human need to give a greater meaning to ordinary things. We want to explain the things about ourselves that we have no other way to explain. In art, we can try to grab at elements of the human experience that resonate in a way that affects us in a visceral, rather than cognitive, way. A picture of a normal landscape or a portrait or just an expression of color can portray the religiousness of being alive and can show emotions that are impossible to articulate in any other way. This is the process of making special, turning what seems normal into something that can provoke our strongest emotions. Humans rely on this process to survive because the same urge that drives us to create meaning in art also drives us to improve ourselves as a society. We need to make ourselves special as well, and that need drives us to build new technologies and make cultural and scientific advancements.

What is now deemed the “Romantic Rebellion” was one of the primary artistic movements to counter the established ideas of art that came before it and to respond to contemporary cultural changes.  It occurred in the 18^th century and was a response to a newfound secularized, personal, and scientific-based culture. This caused artistic expression to be focused more on reason and logistics while fantastic mythologies were “devalued,” although they had practical purposes, sharing “traditional practices” and giving “great emotional satisfaction” (3).

Modernism is an art movement that evolved out of the “Romantic Rebellion” into the 19^th and early 20^th century. Modernism took hold of the idea of “aesthetics” and found an importance in objectivism, especially what Dissayunake calls “a disinterested attitude” (3). Modernists suggested that any kind of art could be appreciated if they detach themselves from their own perspective. This idea also stresses the importance of “art for art’s sake” (4). They believed that art’s purpose was only to be art and that the importance of the experience is in the experience itself. In result, art stopped being a recreation of the real world and often required “critics as mediators” to “explain what made an artwork good or bad” (4).

Postmodernism emerged in the 20^th century as a rejection of modernism. Claiming to be “the end of all isms and movements,” postmodernists began to stress more subjectivity in the analysis of art. They claim that “reality is only a point of view,” arguing that truth means something different for each individual (5). They reject class implications of art, ignoring any concept of “high” art. Postmodernists experienced with parody in art and art that was disposable and ended as soon as it was performed (6). Postmodern art rejected the traditional forms of canvasses and museums and critics, and tried to better capture the experiences of life in action.

In Ellen Dissanayake’s essay, “Art for Life’s Sake,” she centers on the theme the title suggests, analyzing how life has progressed through the expression of art. She is right on point with her assertion that art is a pivotal part of the experience of life and “an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species” (1). This is why, it seems, each generation of artists tries to push against the forms of the previous. It is in human nature to want to “transform the ordinary into the extra-ordinary” (10).  Humans, unlike any other species, have a desire to find meaning, and then to create meaning out of their experiences.  Dissanayake cites the anthropological foundation of art in addition to the biological and psychological (1). Still, the examples she refers to are centered on the human need to find meaning and to create something extraordinary. Even religious art is, at its base, honoring a system of explaining the unexplainable and giving ordinary things extraordinary meaning.

Behind every “isms’” definition of art, lies Dissanayake’s thesis, that art is a fundamental component of life. Art has existed and developed alongside the existence and development of human beings. Because life is so versatile, art has become a better representation of the human experience as artistic creation has developed into a universal product. The modernists referred to this process of appreciating the entirety of art as “disinterested” (3). However, I feel that people are actually finding importance in the new art because of a greater interest in the wide variations of life. People are not accepting the same answers for the meaning of life that they did even fifty years ago, so understanding new forms of art from different culture is always going to allow for a greater understanding of life. We make art to express feelings and thoughts that cannot be expressed in any other way and so art is for life’s sake.

Family
Enjoyment
Service
Creativity
Wisdom
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Integrity
Expertness
Prestige
Security
Independence
Loyalty
Personal Development
Personal Accomplishment
Health
Friendship
Power
Leadership
Wealth
Location
Community

Most of my day today was devoted to homework, but on a small scale, I think I stuck to my top 5 values very well. I spent time with my sister, who thankfully goes to school at the University of Oregon with me. We ate breakfast together and enjoyed our time together. I also scheduled time for my own enjoyment: reading and watching football so that my day was not solely work. I helped my sister and my girlfriend with some of their chores and their work, and though this is not the large scale service I ultimately want to devote myself too, in the parameters of the day, it fits the mold. Finally, I think in doing my work, I was able to grow creatively and in terms of wisdom. Just forcing myself to work and to perform helps me hone in on these values.

I doubt whether any of my values rose completely separate from the lessons I learned from my family, and I have a hard time arguing that any value is not valid. Even in this list of twenty beliefs, all are important to me.  I love my community, and I would love to be able to help it and continue connecting to it. But I think the belief system that I hold in highest regard is the pursuit of knowledge. Wisdom is fifth on my list, mostly because I think that ultimately knowledge is what can help others on a grand scale. I also want to be happy, which is a belief that my parents had a large part in developing. I want to enjoy my life and enjoy the people I spend it with, and to me, my family are the people I get along best with. I still have a lot of goals that I have not accomplished. I am happy for the most part, but I have not even begun the stage of my life where I have the independence and means to express myself the way I want to. When this comes, I will better be able to pursue my major goals.

After getting the article started Lewis asks about where our values come from (6). The answer is everywhere. Right? Even in Lewis’s example of Obi-Wan Kenobi’s value judgment, I debate whether or not he is calling for emotion and not a mixture of emotion and intuition (13). And even deeper, where did those emotions come from? Most likely, they come from an accumulation of all the subjective experiences of a lifetime. Perhaps I feel similar to the friend he cites toward the end of his paper:  “Anybody who tries to count the ways we choose values does not know what values are” (17).  And I think Lewis answers this objection flippantly and not thoroughly enough to convince me.

The most important thing about values is the values themselves, not necessarily how we get to them. Lewis argues that “human beings cannot separate the way they arrive at values from the values themselves” (13), but the evidence he gives is two Jedi warriors from a science fiction movie. I do not know where or when I came to believe in the value of treating people with respect. For me that process has dissolved into the value itself. The counter argument will be that my belief in that value would not be strong without the process in which I obtained it and strengthened it. This is true, but it does not make the categorization of the value relevant or even possible. Over 21 years, the process has become an incalculable amalgamation of everything I know. Is it emotional? Sure. Is it intuitive? Yes. Is it everything? Absolutely.

The point is Lewis showed me nothing to convince me that a value can have a different property depending on its categorization. As long as the intensity of the experience is the same, it does not matter whether I was told by an authority figure about the destructive power of hatred or whether I oppose it based purely on emotion.