In this article the author, William Deresiewicz, argues that food is not an art form. He believed that with the new wave of appreciation for food, a new wave of appreciation for art would also arise. He believed that Americans were now discovering their senses and would start to restore an “Old World” style of sophistication. However, what he learned was that food did not generate any new artistic appreciations, but rather it began to replace art all together. Food has now become culture. Food and creativity with food now has its own symbolic meanings. Being good with food has a sense of high society or esteem. Deresiewicz describes the uprising of foodism as, “a vehicle of status aspiration and competition, an ever-present occasion for snobbery, one-upmanship and social aggression.” meaning that people can compete with one another over who is better with food and therefore a higher person in social terms. Deresiewicz describes how young men who flourished into Ivy League schools to join powerful inner circles are now creating enterprises in the food business; they’re creating small restaurants, donut shops, or bakeries. Food has become close to a religion. Deresiewicz describes food as a passion, similar to art, comparing the Sunday painter to the weekend chef. Food has its masters and those who are on television, but what food does not have is any narration or interpretation. Deresiewicz says, “An apple is not a story. . . Curry is not an idea.” meaning that no matter the process, food cannot give us the same reactions as art can. Art generates sadness, anger, happiness, and while some of these can be brought up because of a sentimental plate of food, these symbols are crude. The responses generated by a work of art are genuine and new, the ones generated by food are tied to things other than the plate itself.
In her own writing, Teller argues in different ways. She explains arguments for both sides of the debate. Teller states that, “an original recipe and an actual dish are works of art if they are regarded aesthetically.” (17). This offers a different approach than the one that Deresiewicz goes on about. In his article, he never mentions the food that is created with a primary purpose of aesthetics. Many desserts or candies are made and used for an aesthetic reason. For example, a wedding cake, while it is eaten, it is made up to be a spectacle to look at while attending a wedding. Teller also mentions that maybe our senses are not as well-trained and therefore cannot appreciate a plate of food as much as possible. Our sense of smell is not as strong as other animals, and maybe this is why food does not play to as many senses to us. Teller uses the example of wine tasters, maybe if all of our sense of smells were as finely tuned as a wine taster’s sense of taste, then we could all begin to appreciate food in more depth.
For the most part however, the two author’s viewpoints are similar. Both find it difficult to find clear reasons to label food as an art form. Teller questions, ” how can there be works of art which are destroyed by the very activity, eating, which is necessary for contemplating them?” (17). Famous works of art have stood the test of time, but food doesn’t last more than a few minutes. Neither author finds that a something that lacks the ability of interpretation can be truly labeled as an art form. Some would argue that the experience that one can have while eating a certain plate of food is something that makes food a form of art. But both authors agree that, while this does create a nostalgic effect that can arise memories that create certain emotions, this is a very limited range emotions, far less than those created by a work of art. Works of art can conjure up thousands of different emotions, raw and true. Both Teller and Deresiewicz also agree that works of art should tell a story or have room for interpretation. Deresiewicz argues that an apple is not capable of telling someone a story. A work of art can lead to a thousand different stories, each one created by someone who looks at it. Each person has their own interpretation of what any given painting can be telling us, while a plate of food lacks that ability.
Deresiewicz, W. (2012, October 26). A Matter of Taste? Retrieved April 26, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html?_r=0