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.
Though it is fair to hold your own viewpoint regarding what is art, I am going to lay out some evidence that suggests that food can be considered art. You stated, “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.” The idea that things that are useful cannot be art is debatable. Though food is usually only useful for consumption, chefs still take the time to design a dish that can pair with a specific wine. They consider the pairing of certain foods with drink a part of the experience, and it is an art to pair the two together. Tefler also looked into the belief that the usefulness of something may mean it should be classified as a craft, and not an art. However, after reading a passage in the reading, it became clear that a craft like food can also be a work of art. Tefler said, “…something which is incidentally useful may be primarily intended for contemplation, and things not intended for contemplation by their makers are sometimes treated as works of art by others.” (Tefler, 15) The main point is that while the goal behind food may be for consumption, it can also create the need for contemplation, which leads it to being a work of art.
When you go out to a restaurant, do you consider how something looks before purchasing it? That requires looking beyond whether it fulfills a nutritional need, and implies that you are looking for a deeper meaning before consuming it. The chef wants you to believe their food looks delicious, and that sure sounds like art. An argument can be made that not all food is art, but it is certainly fair to believe that food can be art.
After reading your response to what I had written about food as art I would have to agree with what you had to say. I do believe that food should be considered art, especially after reading an article that discussed both sides to whether food is art or not. I do believe I was not digging deeper in the idea of how exactly food could be classified as art. Like you mentioned, “ Chefs still take the time to design a dish that can pair with a specific wine.” This idea that chefs take the time to think of a pairing can be thought of exploring the sensory pleasures. As Tefler mentions,“Food and drink can sometimes constitute works of art of a kind peculiar to themselves, appealing mostly to the senses of taste and smell. “ (Tefler 17) This idea of taste and smell can constitute of exploring different cultures, this could explore with the idea of food and the pairing of a wine. A wine from a different country can compliment food in different ways, which can produce a different meaning to an individual which would then produce some type of emotion to the individual.
You asked the question of whether when I’m at a restaurant I consider how something looks before purchasing it, and to answer this I guess I would say yes. I probably don’t consider what it looks like more than I think of the pairing of the ingredients. This does though remind me of my little brother, anytime we go to a restaurant he considers the food that are pictured on the menus, he looks at the aesthetics of how the food is presented and makes his decision based on that.
After I read your article, I feel you give some interesting idea. First, you think that slow food can be art but fast food is not because it is always the same. However, I disagree with it, I think even the food is same, it still can be art. For example, Egyptian pyramids, although all pyramids look similar, it is still a great art work in human history. Another interest idea is, “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) I also have similar idea with Tefler before, I usually think that art work is useless, like painting and sculpture. However, not art has not practical use, but just some art work has not practical use. Art can make people have satisfaction on sight and audio. Food can also did that, so it is absolutely art. Finally, I want to ask a question, Why are art works usually useless on people’s life? How can make art more close to our daily life?