Deresiewicz, W. (2012, October 26). A Matter of Taste? The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion

Telfer, E. (2002). “Food As Art”. Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philophical Debates.

Taylor-Francis e-Library, 17-26.

The article “A matter of taste?” written by William Deresiewicz shows his concerns about the relationship between food and art. In his article, he uses a word “foodism”. He believes that food has taken the place of art and becomes the mainstream. Young men or even kids, they are introduced by people from the local/organic fare or campus farmlet into the ways of food. Many of them also look to the possibilities of careers in food. Just like the author says “ Food, for young people now, is creativity, commerce, politics, health, almost religion” (para 5). Around the turn of the 20th century, aestheticism took the place of Christianity among the progressive classes. Foodism then taken over aestheticism around the turn of the 21st. Deresiewicz states that people has connected food with the meaning of life. When he talks about this, he says “ Food now expresses the symbolic values and absorbs the spiritual energies of the educated class” (para 9). It seems that Deresiewicz feels unsatisfied about the situation of food, because after this, he shows that food can only be food, it cannot be a story or an idea; although food can evoke people’s emotions, just within a limited range. For Deresiewicz, food is not art and it cannot take the place of art. So in the end of the article, he points out “ Yes, food centers life in France and Italy, but not to the disadvantage of art, which still occupies the supreme place in both cultures. Here in America, we are in danger of confusing our palates with our souls” (para 12).

After reading Deresiewicz’s article, there is something about food he mentions is reasonable. People’s views about food indeed changed and food become more important than before.You can see some performances about food on TV.Some artists even open restaurants and displays some artistic food creations. However, I believe he exaggerates the issues. He believes food has inherited the position of art and American people are struggling their palates with their souls. He is obviously worried about the situation of food excessively. Also, he denies the possibilities that food can be art. In the article “Food as art” written by Elizabeth Telfer, she also feel confused whether we should treat food as art. In her article, she provides some examples and theories to prove this repeatedly. I think some are very useful and can help us to make a decision about this. If we want to associate something with art, we firstly must have a reaction. Telfer gives aesthetic reaction her own definition and it can be charactered as “non-neutral, non-instrumental, having a certain intensity and often accompanied by judgements for which the judgers claim a kind of objectivity”(p11). According to this, most people will agree that there is aesthetic reactions to tastes and smells. We also can distinguish the tastes and smells form approving of the food instrumentally that it is nourishing and fashionable. These can be combined with a judgment like we think this food is good and other people will like it. However, we cannot treat all objects which can give rise to aesthetic reaction as art. About the definition of work of art, there still exists one problem and it is “the phrase of work of art can be used in either a classifying way or an evaluative way” (p 12). It is necessary to decorate or arrange food in attractive ways if the cook intend to make people desire to taste it. So from the classifying way, food absolutely can be viewed as art. But in the evaluative way, some people believe food cannot be art. This view is similar with Deresiewicz’s, they don’t think tastes can sustain art. Tastes indeed are not nobler than hearing and sight because they are more physical.But it does not mean that it cannot be art. Telfer points out that although our senses of smells are less developed than some animals, we still can recognize a range of tastes and smells.Moreover,if we pay more attention on it, more people will cultivate a palate. Therefore, some people doubt the tastes of the food cannot be the reason that food is not art. We only can get a conclusion that art based on food is more simpler. In the article “A matter of taste?”, Deresiewicz also states that food cannot be used to express people’s symbolic values, the emotions which it can evoke is just within a limited range. Maybe this is true, but we cannot deny that food doesn’t constitute a work of art because of this. Like we explained before, food is a simpler art and it is not that complicated.

Actually, food can be viewed as art. Some people try to deny it because they think of food in a complicated way.Food is a simple and minor art, it cannot compare with music or painting. So we have no need to worry that its importance can threaten the position of art and even take the place of it.

For me, food is not just used to relieve people’s hunger, I also sometimes treat them as an art. However, I don’t view all food as art, because the only function for some food is feeding like fast food. From the presentations, all the fast food around the world have the same taste and they are wrapped by some cheap paper bag. They are definitely not aesthetic. But we cannot deny that food is not art because of this. For me, fast food is just an exception. There are also many other kinds of food can provide people aesthetic appreciation. According to the article “Food as art” written by Elizabeth Telfer, if you want to treat something as art, firstly it can give rise to aesthetic reaction. About aesthetic reaction, Elizabeth provides her own definition and she says “The account which I have given of aesthetic reaction will not suit all cases. But I hope I have succeeded in suggesting a range of sense-experiences which fall under the description of “aesthetic reaction”, and which may be characterized as non-neutral, non-instrumental, having a certain intensity and often accompanied by judgments for which the judgers claim a kind of objectivity”(p 11). About the tastes and smells, most people can get aesthetic reactions. When we enjoy its tastes and smell, we also can approve of it instrumentally that it is nourishing and fashionable. When these reactions combined, we can have a judgement like the taste is good and I believe people will like it. However, like Elizabeth says “Not all objects that can give rise to aesthetic reactions are works of art” and she also says “One problem is that the phase “ work of art” can be used in either a classifying or an evaluative way” (p 12). From the classifying way, food is indeed a work of art because a cook not only want their food can relieve hunger, they also hope it to be appraised. Therefore, they will use some approaches to provide a work of art. Eating food is a normal activity that we need to do every day. Elizabeth states “ With food, as with clothes, people have a chance to enhance an area of their everyday lives. So to that extent the aesthetic appreciation of food is not a separate, aliened activity, but an aspect of what is done every day” (p 21). I remembered when I read Ellen Dissanayake’s essay “What is art for”, she believes that art is a normal human behavior. Through this, we no doubt can treat food as an art because eating food is also a normal human behavior and you can get much pleasure from them. There are many forms of art and we have no need to set boundaries. Food is just a special one.