The author of an article ‘A Matter of Taste’ on The New York Times magazine explains that food is like art, for “the genuine passion that people like to share with their friends”. But after all, food is not art. He thinks that food is not narrative and does not express emotion, although it can evoke emotions. And when it does, it does so roughly and within a very limited range. Furthermore, he says Americans are “confused with their palate with souls” (Deresieqicz).
Both articles raised a question to whether food can be art. This is the question that has been debated over the time in aesthetics as it was seen in the article written by Telfer. As Telfer required aesthetic response to experiencing art, William Deresieqicz required that art should give “insight into other people, allow you to see the world in a new way, or force you to take an inventory of your soul”. In other words, food could give you comfort and provoke nostalgia but It would not make you feel anger or sorrow, leading to the idea that “food is crude as a system of symbols”. Furthermore, Dassanyake described as was essential for “quite literally, for life’s sake” (Dssanayake 7). It draws parallel to Deresieqicz’s idea that food is “the path to salvation, for the self and humanity both”. Both authors explained how food is symbol of the value of energy, and almost meaning of life (Deresieqicz).
It makes me wonder whether food satisfies those “requirements” that Telfer has, in order to be called as art. Telfer defines the second definition of “work of art” that it is art if treated by the society “as primarily an object of aesthetic consideration” (Telfer 13). As it was pointed out by Dreseqiequicz, food has become “a cultural apparatus” that it has its awards and televised performances. We have a whole literature of journals, critiques, and appreciations for food, which is well-respected in our society.
However, food does not seem to quite satisfy Dresequiequicz’s point of view on art. Although food is representative and expresses emotions, food does not bring you any further than that. Food should be able to “allow you to see the world in a new way, or force you to take an inventory of your soul”. Furthermore, he stated that “not that food has led to art, but that it has replaced it”(Dresequiequicz). Foodism, a term coined by him, represents how food is deceiving humans and misleading how food and art are two different things. Tefler also mentions a difficulty about treating food as work of art by raising a question on how food can be a work of art when it Is essential to be destroyed by eating “for contemplating them”(Telfer 10).
Dresequiequicz said food requires “knowledge and connoisseurship, which are costly to develop”. Thus it requires you to have a higher education and social class to discuss about food. It reminds of Dessanayake’s explanation of modernism that was placed in 18th century. She stated that art in that time period was “appreciated by only few who were educated and could afford luxury leisure” (Dassanayake4), being called as high art by post modernists.
References:
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.
Deresiewicz W. (2010, October 26). A Matter of Taste? Sunday Review The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html?_r=0
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.