Throughout the reading, I had a difficulty to follow the author’s position on whether food is art or not. I did not quite agree with how some philosophers have reasons why they concluded that food is not a work of art, although you may have “aesthetic reaction”. However, Elizabeth Telfer mentions that food “as a simple and minor art” (45), and I agree with the statement. Then she mentions that “it is difficult to treat food as an art form, ” (19) . Also She also explains that there is a difference between art and craft. The distinction is the difference between the aspect of their work, not between the different people. In my opinion, I see both creative food and its process as work of art. Simple as that, if there was any kind of intended creativity involved from a maker, the food should be an art form, at least to the maker’s mind. Elizabeth mentions that people gain aesthetic value from some food, even if they do consume it right afterwards. Also later in the article she says how some philosophers believe that the aesthetic value from taste is too “crude” to be art. I believe taste would be just like other sense that the philosophers would use to talk about aesthetic value from other art froms. Furthermore, without the taste of the food, food should still be viewed as art for how it appears. My idea supports when Elizabeth noted that, “If something is a work of art, then its maker or exhibitor intended it to be looked and listened to it with intensity, for its own sake”(12). Elizabeth also stated that great pieces of art yield aesthetic value from generation to generation. It ties back to the previous article “What Is Art For” by Dassanyake. The term ‘paleoanthropsychobiological’ characteristic of art described how food and human evolved together throughout the history. And food works as a means of comforting and soothing mechanisms for humans to ease their stress and maybe even to survive.
Jane, I agree with you as with having some difficulty following the author’s position throughout the article. As I was reading through the article the author was so wish-washy with their argument of whether food can be considered an art form. When she mentioned how philosophers have reasons why they concluded that food is not a work of art, in my opinion is incorrect. I understand that the thing about art is that it is ultimately up to the viewer to decided if they view it as art or not. Not everyone is going to have the same views and beliefs when it comes to art. However, to make such a comment and totally denounce the whole food industry as art is a bit farfetched for me. I think people are doing some really cool and creative things with food and it is becoming a much bigger deal than it was ten years ago. I really like how you said, ” food works as a means of comforting and soothing mechanism for humans to ease their stress and maybe even survive. This is a great way to think about it. I myself love to cook and at times fine it very soothing to eat a nice meal at the end of the day.
After reading some of my group members’ reflection on the article, I concluded that there is no one right answer to ‘if food is an art form or not’. Even when looking into the slow food and fast food, I believe the fast food chain’s mundane factory-produced foods can be a kind of an art form. It is true only if it gives you the moment of ‘aesthetic response’ , however. Personally, I do not see any aesthetic values in the fast food industry, but as long as the food product stimulates someone’s senses and the person sees it as an art, then that is all it needs. Slow food, on the other hand, is full of passion and effort of the maker (s). The beautiful harmony of the ingredients and love for the food completes and evokes aesthetic response. Thus I believe it should be considered as an art form to anybody, but who knows, there might be somebody who does not agree.