Objectives:
1) Examine methods for evaluating qualities for art, such as product versus process, the difference between craft and fine art, must be archival, and what is an aesthetic reaction.
2) Explore the notion of food as an art-form.
Original post:
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.
Reflection:
As I love cooking and eating food, I never doubted that food might not be an art form. It was interesting to read about how different ideas were out there, conflicting with my theory about what can be art and what cannot. Learning about aesthetic reaction, called by Tefler, was very interesting as well. For example, I love taking pictures of food before eating when I go to nice restaurants. In the dish, I can see the effort and passion of the chef, trying to provoke aesthetic reactions from the eaters by looking and tasting the food. And I sometimes think about whether I had “aesthetic reaction” whenever I go to nice restaurants and look at their beautifully presented food. This artifact also allowed me to see the difference between making food and food product in terms of craft and art. I personally still think that they should not be two separate things as when I first had this artifact.
This artifact provided me the tools to compare and contrast my ideas with others. For example, Deresiewicz from The New York Times introduced an idea of “foodism”, food has not led to art, but that it has replaced it (Deresiewicz). He even mentioned that we (Americans) might be even confused with our palate with our souls. I remember when I just had read his article, I felt almost offended. However, later on this artifact allowed me to accept and respect others’ ideas and compare with mine.
Future Intention:
As food was brought up as a form of art, I would love to explore more about different art forms. It will be great if I could visit more different styles of restaurant and experience especially, “slow food”. I wonder if I will have different feelings and views on food when i visit the restaurant and look at their dishes.
Leave a comment