The inspiration of this essay stems from a quote in Elizabeth Telfer’s piece. The quote is from Oscar Wilde and it reads, “All art is quite useless” (Wilde 1948: 17). Telfer mentions that this argument must be fallacious, but what it caused me to do is think. I pondered if art could really be considered useless and the obvious answer is no, but I found it interesting that Wilde would say that. I decided to look up “art is food” articles to see if I could find one that touched on the arguments against the notion that food is art, which is the main question in Telfer’s piece.
The article I found that discusses issues raised in the readings is “Can Food Be Art?” which is posted on philosophy.com. This article highlights three main reasons brought forth against food being art. The first argument is the caducity of food, which the article explains how food is fleeting; meaning it isn’t a lasting sculpture, painting, or temple. The article addresses the other side of the coin in the sense that installations are fleeting, not lasting, and still considered art. The second argument is that food experiences are more subjective than other forms of aesthetic experiences. This speaks to the individual affair we have with the food when we taste it, because the food appeals to our distinctive sense. The final argument is that food cannot vehicle meaning. This calls into the question the meaning of food and if the meaning is in the food or if it is more in the gesture or words exchanged over the food. These arguments bring up interesting points of discussion, but they don’t hold significant water. Each argument can be rebutted with a current form of expression that is greatly accepted as art, which is similar to food. For example, the food is fleeting but installations, an accepted form of art, are also fleeting example discussed above highlights the lack of strong arguments used in the article. There’s a possibility there could be better arguments as to why food is not art, but I don’t believe there are good arguments given there are many ways food can be considered art.
Although the article’s arguments may be average, there are issued raised that are similar to this week’s material. The article touches on aesthetic experiences, which reminded me of how well Telfer explained aesthetic reactions. Telfer starts with a discussion on what makes a reaction an aesthetic one, “We naturally associate the word “aesthetic” with the arts, but we can also speak of an aesthetic reaction to natural thing such as a beautiful landscape, or to man-made, non-art objects such as pieces of machinery (Telfer 9). This definition supports the notion that food is art for a few reasons. First, food can and often creates an aesthetic reaction, which is usually similar to aesthetic reactions from paintings, sculptures, music, or plays. Additionally, as Telfer states, aesthetics are often associated with the arts and if food can create aesthetic reactions then food can be connected to the arts. As for how closely connected the two are, I think that is a better debate.
Similarly to paintings, there is a vast range of what is considered food. Food can range from simple pieces of food to intricate gourmet dishes. An interesting point from this week’s material is the idea of “slow food.” The presentation videos were very informative and really hit home how disguising fast food can be. Even in the fast food industry there has a been a recent shift for healthier, better ingredient options. Slow food is an interesting concept in which it stands against everything a fast food meal stands for. The video discusses the movement of slow food, “Many tastes are better than one, this new movement says.” This movement seems to be very meaningful and beneficial for food as more than just a burger and fries. The movement will contribute to others’ aesthetic reactions of food, which is discussed in the article I found. Although I believe this is a good movement, there are critics, “Critics of slow food say it is just a trend and too expensive for ordinary people.” The narrator disagrees and says this movement is long overdue. The argument of this movement being too expensive for ordinary people may be true for top of the line New York City restaurants, but there’s no reason the movement couldn’t simply influence a person’s cooking at home. Overall, both the readings seem to come to the conclusion that the arguments for why food is not art are relatively weak, resulting in the conclusion that food can create aesthetic reactions and is art.
Sources:
Borghini, A. (n.d.). Can Food Be Art? Retrieved April 26, 2015, from http://philosophy.about.com/od/Philosophical-Theories-Ideas/a/Can-Food-Be-Art.htm