Gopnik, B. (2009, September 29). The big debate: Can food be serious art. The Washington Post [On-Line Newspaper]. Retrieved January 30 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/09/22/AR2009092203137.html.
I found an article that discusses the issues brought up by ElizabethTelfer in The Washington post titled The Big Debate: Can Food Be Serious Art? This article brought up the common arguments about why food is not considered “serious art” along with the counterarguments about why food should be considered art. The article written by Blake Gopnik focuses on food created at an elBulli minibar and uses specific examples from this food venue to counter arguments against food being defined as a serious art form.
In Food as Art Telfer brought up the question “how can there be works of art which are destroyed by the very activity, eating, which is necessary for contemplating them” (17), which is also brought up in the article in the Washington post. Gopnik counters this question by mentioning that music too does not last and “each time a dish is prepared, it’s a performance of a recipe that will survive over time” (1), Telfer supports this idea in the reading by saying that the mistake people make when trying to decipher if something can be considered art is thinking that the object has to be a structure. Tefler continues to say that “the aspect of it (the food) is relevant to aesthetic appraisal is not the structure, which is destroyed as soon as the dish is started, but the combination of flavours, which runs right through the eating like letters through a stick of rock” (18), meaning that although the dish doesn’t last, the flavor of the dish carries on through the memory of the person eating the dish.
Another common issue brought up by Telfer and Gopnik is that food’s “goal is to feed people, so it’s too functional to count as serious art” (Gopnik). While the definition of art in the classifying sense brought up by Telfer was “ a thing intended or used wholly or largely for aesthetic consideration” (14), there are many chefs who create their food with the intention of their hard work and art to be recognized by the people eating the food, “a meal that claims to be a work of art is too complex and long-drawn-out to be understandable in terms simply of feeding” (Telfer 14). Gopnik counters this issue by bringing up that “paintings, photos and vidwos have their functional versions too” (1), meaning that he believes that the creator created their work of art with a function in mind, much like food being made to nourish. Telfer also mentions that “the aesthetic value of food depends not on its nourishing properties but on its taste and smell” (19), meaning that food can have a function (such as nourishing) and appeal to the people viewing the food aesthetically.
An issue addressed by Telfer but not Gopnik is whether taste and smell can discriminate as well as senses in the eye and ear. Telfer begins by questioning whether it is possible to determine if the true limitation in the senses is in the eater’s perception of the food or in the food itself. She concedes, “that our sense of smell, at any rate, is less highly developed than that of many animals. But we can still recognize a huge range of different smells and tastes” (Telfer 20), meaning that as humans we are able to retain memory of certain tastes and smells that allow us to appreciate food as an art form. The reading continues by saying that if this limitation did exist it would suggest “not that there cannot be an art of food, but that such an art must be simple” (Telfer 21), which would imply that through our limitations as consumers our lack of sensitivity of our palate hinders food from being categorized as art. An issue addressed along with the discernibility of the senses is whether food has inherent sequences that can be repeated, Telfer argues that “food does allow of systematic, repeatable, regular combinations: the cook creates the possibility for them, which the eater then realizes” (21). This argument is referring to the ability to repeat a dish due to the availability of the recipe, which would allow the eater the ability to discern the flavors on multiple occasions and determine whether they believe it to be a work of art.
In an earlier reading by Ellen Dissanayake she defines art being “an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species” (15), I would argue that it is an inherent trait of the human species to express oneself much like what chefs do through their cooking. Telfer’s statement that “ a cook who creates such a recipe is a creative artist” (20), supports the claim that food should be considered art because chefs are considered artists expressing themselves through their choice in ingredients and how they are prepared.
Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K.C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote addresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
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.