This weeks reading, Food as Art by Elizabeth Telfer, discussed about whether or not we should view food as art. She discusses what it takes for something to be considered art. Many things seemed to be left up in the air. For example she said that art is art if the creator intended it to be but at the same time there is artwork that exists that wasn’t intended to be art. You can appreciate it like art but can’t express emotion with it. Art can typically be viewed or experienced in other generations but food cannot.
Telfer states that art must be aesthetically appealing. At first she seems to be on board with saying food can be art. She then becomes in between the two possibilities when discussing about how food may just be a craft rather than an art. Many people follow a recipe and follow instructions, which would make it a craft not an art. Telfer settles with the conclusion that food is an art minor. It is also simple. Since a cook can create the food like an art piece and discuss the piece, have a style, and reason for everything but it comes down to this: We eat food to nourish our bodies. We see it, taste it, etc. temporarily and it gets copied onto recipes, and you cant express emotions with food like are as well as be able to be “awe”ed by the food. You cannot be moved.
Now in my opinion, food can definitely be art. Not even necessarily only minor art either. Week 1 we began talking about what art is and almost everyone in this class concluded that it could honestly be anything! It just has to first come from your brain! Everything else is just a technicality. You might not like it but food can be art. ESPECIALLY if the cook says so. After reading those excerpts of food descriptions about dishes you can tell it is art. The way the cook describes it using words like contrast and compliment. What this writer also did not consider was how food can be art not in just how it tastes but how it looks as well. There are food sculptures, cakes, etc. that just visually is definitely art. Here is just one example of many below:
Jocelyn,
After reading your post I have some similar opinions, as well as a few questions to bring up to you in regards to classifying food as art. I definitely agree that food can be art. However, I think there needs to be some restrictions. After watching the fast food presentation, I definitely would not consider this an art form. However I do see the slow food as art. It comes down to the intention of the preparer and the individual to see it as an aesthetic experience. Do you feel that all food is considered art or do you think their needs to be restrictions as well? That is why I directly relate to Telfer’s point when she talks about food as a minor form of art since “not all food constitutes a work of art” (26). I also think it’s interesting how she brings up that if we consider food a major art form that would it then be taught in schools or given government funding. What are your thoughts on that statement?
ges@uoregon.edu,
Yes I have to agree tat there should be restrictions to what food is considered art. The fast food is not at all art as it is a way to make a profit and is not made to be aesthetically pleasing. I am also taking an Art and Gender class and something all of the classmates agreed on was that you could give as many rules as you want for art but it comes down to the fact that you cannot define it. If the creator intends for it to be art, then it is art. Do you agree? So the fast food was not meant to be art. In the slow food presentation the cook may not have intended it to be art but many of the viewers/eaters may see her process and appreciate it like art.
I just do not understand Telfer’s statement that food would be a minor art. To me, it can be art or not. It cannot be “kind of” art.
As for the school not teaching food as art I believe they just aren’t recognizing what to do to make it art. It could easily be taught. But this is like other arts. They are not always funded. Not every school has a ceramics class, embroidery class, welding class, painting class, etc.
I felt the same way after reading “Art as Food”, there were a lot of things left in the air but I believe Telfer did this to leave it up to our own interpretation whether art is considered food or not. I don’t think she wanted to be straightforward and say whether food is art because she wanted you to think why food could or could not be art. Either way though I one hundred percent agree with you that food can be art. However, I don’t think all food is art. For example, fine dining is most definitely art but a Big Mac is the farthest thing from it. To me it is a pretty gray line that separates food as art and just plain food. However, I believe that one of the biggest deciding factors whether food is art is how much passion goes into making the dish. For example, if the cook is methodically on how he cooks his protein and pairs it with his side dishes, as well as putting scrutinizing detail into presenting the dish, then food is considered art.What do you believe to be one of the more important factors that makes food art?
I share the same opinion with you that food can be viewed as an art and I want to dig a little bit deeper here. In Elizabeth’s essay, I believe she was stimulating people’s different ideas about whether food can be viewed as an art, rather than provide her own point of view. I think she agreed that food can sometime become an art, but with some registrations and limitations. She compared food with music in her essay “A cook can cook as an act of love, as we have seen, or out of the joy of living. But whereas in music the emotion is somehow expressed in the product itself – the music can be sad or joyful, angry or despairing – in food the emotion is only the motive behind the product.” (26) She explained some limitations of food when it is viewed as an art that when people view food as an art, most of them will think about the taste behind the product. Comparing with food, music can provide more prospective and emotions to listeners. Although, food cannot provide as many emotions as music, it still can be viewed as an art. I believe the main difference is the purpose of the food. If the purpose of making food is attracting more people and attentions such as some elegant food displayed near the front door of a restaurant to attract more customers, at this moment, food can be viewed as art.
Jocelyn,
Your comment about how “if the creator intends it be art, then it is art,” somehow reminds me of this scene in the movie American Beauty. In the scene, a boy films a brown paper bag blowing in the wind and he is in awe of its beauty. In awe of a brown paper bag blowing through the wind! Haha, I mean, it’s a brown paper bag! I bring this up because while I agree that art can be determined by its creator, I think that even mundane things can be considered art by the right person. I think that Telfer failed to include this point in her analysis. So, as you stated in your original post, just about anything can be art, including food!
Ziqi,
I am so glad you brought up Telfer’s point about how “major” art can itself be personified. Although Telfer indicates that music can be sad, joyful, etc. I am not sure why she makes the distinction that food cannot be personified in such ways. After all, what makes music sad? Whole notes? Low octaves? Slow tempo? These things make “sad” music because we have assigned this representation through our own feelings. The “music” isn’t sad…it’s not capable of this. It is only feeling vibrations closer or farther apart. If Telfer can say that emotion can be expressed through music, then I can certainly argue the same of food. Have we not come to coin the expression “comfort food?” Personally, I think steamed spinach looks pretty wilted and sad.,,,