Food as Art
3January 29, 2014 by Tom Ford
I was unsure whether or not food could be considered art. Usually, I see my food and it is gone before I can really analyze it. Not much to look at, just eager to eat. However, my views changed with the videos and readings. Elizabeth Telfer talks about how there is a general acceptance of aesthetic reactions to tastes and smells (11). She also tells of the distinguishing the liking of taste and smell of food by approving of it on the base that it is nourishing, fashionable or made by politically respectable regimes. Third, Telfer writes that the “non-neutral, vivid and non-instrumental reaction to tastes and smells can be combined with a judgment for which the judger claims objectivity” (11). I can appreciate the way a food tastes and smells or not. I would not consider fast food an art. There is preparation that goes into the making of fast food, but the lack of attention and respect for it doesn’t make it an art. If you were to go to a bakery and see the different cakes created, you can see the time and effort that went into making it. This brings out visual aesthetics. Telfer writes about a pile of metal pipes sitting in an art gallery. One may wonder whether or not this is part of the works of art. This thought alludes to “Urmon’s sense of the phrase. Whether the pile is intended to be looked at with intensity” (12). If there is a label on the pipes declaring them a piece of art, then they will be looked at with intensity. The same can be done with food. Any meal or dessert can be looked at with intensity. The texture or the way the food tastes or looks can be aesthetically pleasing. Dissanayake’s species-centered view, which claims that “there is valid and intrinsic association between what humans have always found to be important, and certain way-called the arts-that they have found to manifest, reinforce, and grasp this importance” (Dissanayake 11). This relates to my view of food as an art because humans value food and see it as important. As with the arts, humans grasp this importance and see value in both things and make them special. Even men notice the way the steak looks and whether or not it pleases them, it is looked at intensely. The steak can be just a steak or it could be like the metal pipes sitting in the gallery.
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.
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.
Category Unit 04 | Tags:
Dissanayake’s species-centered view, which claims that “there is valid and intrinsic association between what humans have always found to be important, and certain way-called the arts-that they have found to manifest, reinforce, and grasp this importance” (Dissanayake 11). This relates to my view of food as an art because humans value food and see it as important. As with the arts, humans grasp this importance and see value in both things and make them special. Even men notice the way the steak looks and whether or not it pleases them, it is looked at intensely. The steak can be just a steak or it could be like the metal pipes sitting in the gallery.
It is interesting to think about that if something is labeled as art then people will look more closely at it and allow themselves to find the beauty in it rather than just disregarding it, like the pile of metal pipes. I like when Telfer discusses how when people create something they want it to be noticed, specifically on page 14 she writes, “a cook who has cooked a work of art is not satisfied if the eaters do not notice what they eat.” This is similar to the metal pipes. The creator of the metal pipes intends people to look at the pipes as art, just as some chefs intend people to spend time eating their meals, really noticing each mouthful for what it is and all the flavors it may contain. It is easy to just rush through a nice meal just going through the motions of enjoying the food and filling your hunger. But to take the time to notice the elegance of the dishes that were prepared for you is something else and forces you to pay attention to all the detail somebody put into their work.
There is a show on the Food channel called “Chopped”. Personally, I think the chefs and the judges, who are also chefs, are all artists. These chefs are given certain ingredients and must make their best dish using whatever it is they have at hand. The dish is carefully created and then even more carefully analyzed. The chefs look at the texture and analyze the taste of the dish. You often hear them describe the different tastes of the dish. Each ingredient is appreciated and tasted and moves the taster to either like or dislike the dish. The time that they take to notice each ingredient in the food is like analyzing an actual work of art in a museum. However, this food is only enjoyed for a brief period of time and is not shared with many others like art in a museum. Does this still make food art? I think it is a minor form of art because it is temporary. You can only save the food for so long before it needs to be eaten to be appreciated.