My initial thought as food as art was that food is art. After viewing the two videos and reading the article for the week my opinion of food as art changed. The idea of food is a fascinating one to me, as mentioned before I would have classified food as art but that was before thinking a little bit more deeply into the idea. Such as the Fast Food Presentation suggests to the idea that in this case that the food from McDonalds have different sorts of chemicals added to them, so that they all taste a certain way because of the specific calculations that were made. The idea from the Slow Food presentation suggest of the trend occurring of cooking things from starch such as things were made in the early years. With the idea of both videos, the idea of food as art can be put into question.
When thinking of art, my idea of it is a photograph, painting, or sculptures that is a representation of something to the onlooker. One point in the article, “Food does not represent anything else, as most literature and much visual art does.” (Tefler, 25) When you are sitting in front of a plate of food, most people will not be looking to see the representation of what the food means. To most food is there so one can enjoy the taste or to be social with the people around them. Most do not care to look into find a deeper meaning and appreciate the food that is presented before them. With literature and visual art there is appreciation that most people endure so to find some type of meaning or representation.
Another point, “Food and drink as works of art in the evaluative sense concerns the usefulness of food and drink, it might be claimed that nothing useful deserves to count as work of art.” (Tefler, 18) The way in which this point comes across is very intriguing to the sense of food and its usefulness. In this case it’s saying that nothing “useful” deserves to count as art. Thinking of food, as art as by its usefulness is something I personally haven’t given much thought to before. Once thinking about this idea more, I do agree. How can something that is so essential to surviving be considered as art? If you look at it, how can something that everyone looks, touches, smells, and tastes be considered art when not a day goes by that most people don’t stop and think about the meaning of the food that is right in front of them.
After reading the assignment, I wouldn’t consider food as minor art, as Tefler goes on to specify food and art. There is a way for people to find a representation in food, evoke some type of emotion. Whether it is by sight, smell, taste, or touch. Seeing food as art is realistically up to an individual. My personal view about art would fit into Dissanayake take into postmodernism: art as interpretation. The idea that sums up my reasoning to food being minor art is, “Artists, just like everybody else, do not see the world in any singularly privileged or objectively truthful way, but rather interpret it according to their individual and cultural sensibilities.” (Dissanayake 19) It is up to the individual in such way that they see the world and how they appreciate the different aspects of art.