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:

1.    Describe the term paleoanthropsychobiological. Who coined this term?

Paleoanthropsychobiological is a term that is a describing word for Ellen Dissanayake’s view of art. Ellen coined this term. It involves several factors to define it. That art is a part of human history even back to the beginning before language existed, also that art is a part of every human being. She states “There is no known society in the world that doesn’t practice a type of art.” (Dissanayake 21) And finally that art is a necessity for humans. It is wired in our brains, our nature. Art is a “trait of the human species (Dissanayake 15).

2.    What does Dissanayake mean by the phrase “making special?” How does it relate to art and to human survival?

When Dissanayake discusses humans want to “make special” she is talking about the natural instincts of a human being, such as making tools and to be social. To make special is where humans want to create something or do something that is not a typical everyday thing. Ellen states that most animals have the “special” instinct. Where the animal knows if something isn’t normal. This is something that can usually be dangerous so the animal recognizes it and survive. Humans have the special instinct like above for human survival. But also the “make special” instinct, where they make something that is out of the ordinary but in a good way, to please us. This is where art comes in. Art is something that humans can make that is special. It can be something that “one cares deeply about or… has strong personal significance…” (Dissanayake 22)

3.   Dissanayake identifies many different theories/movement/periods of art throughout western European history. Name three different theories of art that Dissanayake mentions in her essay. Identify the time period when it developed and was prominent. Provide a brief description of the philosophies and ideas that define each theory/movement/period of art. Support with quotes from reading.

One period of time was the Greek times. The theory of art was not what we now think of art. Back then art could be general activities or objects, nothing special Ellen say sit meant “having a correct understanding of the principles involved”. (Dissanayake 16)

Another time would be the medieval times. Art in this time period was strictly for the churches. Religious pieces were made like sculpture or interior design in the churches.

The third time period was the 19^th century. This was a crucial point for a change in art. It was no longer made just for churches and religion. “It became necessary to please the public” (Dissanayake 17). An art market was born where people could buy art based on their liking.

After reading “What is Art For?” by Ellen Dissanayake. You can see how art including the definition, has evolved through out the centuries. As she states on page 25; as human life evolved and became more complex, so did art.

She starts off from Aristotle and Plato times where art included any activity where somebody had a correct understanding of the principles to present time where there is defined good and bad art with critic that were considered “elite”.

Something I found interesting in this paper was how trough out the years more and more rules got added on to what was good art and what was bad art. There became schools where you would learn about fine art and there are even critics to judge the arts quality. Ellen made a comment that the more art became what it is now defined as, the less people there are to appreciate it. Based on how many rules there are and how there is only certain people that are dedicated and smart (the elite) that are judges of art. It seems to me that artists and critics kind of shut others out of the “group”. There may be less people here to appreciate the art because there are so many rules to who can “properly” judge the art. Which I do not agree with at all and I believe this was referring to the fine arts and not necessarily all art.

On Page 18, Ellen says “Disinterest implied that viewers could appreciate any art”.  The statement boggled me, making me read the paragraph before and after the sentence many times. I don’t understand how if you aren’t interested in the art then how does that make you appreciate any type of art? I feel that this is backwards from her later comment; “There is not appreciation of art without interpretation.” (pg.19) This statement makes more sense in that you need to look at the art, be interested and make your own judgments in order to appreciate the art.

Let me know what you think of these two statements!

reference:

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.

After completing the first stage of the life values assessment m top five values on the list turned out to be:

1. Family
2. Personal Development
3. Enjoyment
4. Independence
5. Security

Today I actually did not do many activities. I got up and went to work at Subway, came home a cleaned the house, talked with my boyfriend until he left for work, played with my dog and then worked on homework for the rest of the night. Working at Subway strongly represents my value of Security. I work to pay the bills to help support me, my boyfriend, and my dog. Cleaning my house can fall under the value of Personal accomplishment. Talking with my boyfriend before he left for work goes under my value of family as well as playing with my dog. And finally doing my homework falls under personal development as well as personal accomplishment.

One belief pattern that I can think of from my family is to learn to be independent. My mom raised me so that I knew how to take care of myself. I believe this is a good trait to teach people. This will be something that I will pass on to my children. I used to have the same religion as my parents and inherited that belief system. As I became older I carried my own thoughts and beliefs and no longer went based on my “authority’s” beliefs. This is a belief that is no longer valid for myself. One goal I have and yet to pursue is starting up ceramics again. I would like to create poetry and possibly sell them. I have yet to pursue this goal mostly because of money, and time. It can be expensive to pursue and also with school and work I don’t have time.

For this weeks reading of “A Question of Values: Six Ways We Make the Personal Choices That Shape Our Lives” by Lewis, H. I have come to challenge myself in understanding what my personal values are and how I got to have that value meaning what type of mode did I use to obtain that value. I had never heard of values being separated as Lewis did in his book. But they all made perfect sense. I even tried to come up with values that did not fall under one category but Lewis was correct. Every personal value was categorized in either: Sense experience, Deductive Logic, Emotion, Intuition, Authority, or Science. Personally I feel that many of my values are in the emotion mode and authority mode. For example one of my values is family. This is strictly under the emotion mode because mentally I just feel that it is true. It is not based on somebody else’s beliefs (authority mode) it’s not due to my 5 senses (sense experience mode), and I can’t scientifically prove it with observation and tests (science mode), etc.

In the second section of Lewis’s book, I found his comment about how somebody can be like another and share some values with them as well as a few other people but still be totally different type of person whether they have similarities or not. There can be people that share many personal values and still be completely different and I believe that goes down to what is later on mentioned about determining the importance of your values. Two people could have the same value of wealth but one person has the value of wealth at the top of their list and the other person could the have the value of wealth at the bottom of their list.

Something I am struggling to understand however is when Lewis states the following: “human beings cannot separate the way they arrive at values from the values themselves” and then follows by stating how we emphasize one value over another. I don’t really understand what he is trying to say here. I don’t understand how trying to separate how you got to your value and the value itself and emphasizing certain values over others connect to each other.

This reading has gotten me thinking about what exactly my value are in life and what values triumph over each other. I am eager to take the Life Values Assessment this week.

Reference:

Lewis, H. (1990). A Question of Values: Six Ways We Make the Personal Choices That Shape Our Lives. Axios Press.

I love my dog  and have a really special connection with him. Dogs are animals that will love you unconditionally no matter what your faults are. I found this blog about a woman and her relationship with her own dogs. She shared her faults and how her dogs help her.

This woman, Kimberly has 3 dogs that help her through out her life. She has suffered from depression. Her dogs do not judge her for the way she is and can cheer her up just by a lick or wag of the tail.

Click here to view the blog.

This is just one of many scenarios that can show the special connections between a pet and their owner. You can see how pets can really help people with issues  in their life. Service dogs can help with people that have anxiety, autism, and hearing loss. I think the most important thing in a relationship with your pet is security.