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.