After reading this debate, I came to the conclusion that food can be art, however it is not art because it is food. In other words, I would not consider all food art. Whether food is considered art is dependent on its construction, as well as its intention. In many points of this debate, art is referred to as tangible objects, and to many, food does not fall under that category because it is only tangible until it is eaten. I disagree with the fact that works of art are tangible objects, with music being a huge example. Like Telfer stated, the tangible aspect of music would be the paper that contains the sheet music. In reality, the artistic element of music is listening to it and hearing the sounds as they react with one another. Music is composed to appeal to our sense of hearing. According to J.O. Urmson, things are not considered works of art unless they were made in respect to aesthetics, which he defined as things that appeal to our senses. By this definition, both music and food fall under the category of art because they both are created with the intention of pleasing our senses. Food appeals to both our sense of smell and taste, and often sight; chefs want their food to look good, smell good, and most importantly, taste good. On the Food Network show, Chopped, taste is obviously an important element, but the participants are also scored on the way their food looks.

One issue I had with this reading was the debate regarding cooking as a craft or an art form. I found this argument to be completely irrelevant because there are so many examples of things that qualify for the same argument. Whether cooking is an art form or a craft depends on the finished product. Her example of pottery was a strong one; while pottery is categorized as a craft, there is a huge difference between a generic plant pot and a handmade pot. A generic pot is likely to be industrially made and is not necessarily aesthetically appealing, where as a handmade pot with intricate designs surrounding the rim was created to attract the attention of potential buyers. This comparison is similar to the slow food and fast food debate. I would not consider fast food art for the same reason I would not consider industrial-made pots art: it is mechanically prepared in bulk. Slow food is carefully prepared and executed using the finest ingredients to ensure overall quality. Fast food, however, is chemically engineered to taste and look like quality without actually being quality. To me, this is equivalent to taking a photo, using a filter to make the lines appear as paint strokes, and calling the finished product a painting.

1. The term, paleoanthropsychobiological, was coined by author Ellen Dissanayake in an attempt to describe what art is. When broken up, the word self describes itself. Paleo-, meaning that art incorporates all of human history with no limit to its focus. Anthro-, which means that art embodies all human societies and cultures. Psycho- refers to what is put into art and what comes out of it; the emotional need for art and its effects on the mind. Bio- suggests that art is a natural part of life, or as the author puts it “a universal trait of the human species” (Dissanayake, 15).
2. The phrase “making special” refers to the individual intentions behind works of art. For art to be special, it impacts people in a significant and unique manner. In relation to human survival, humans are drawn to what they view as special because they like the feelings it gives them. This refers to both the artists and the viewers, because artists do what makes them feel special for a living, while viewers gaze on the artists work.
3. Three periods that Dissanayake refered to in this reading included the renaissance, abstract expressionism period, and post modernism period. The renaissance period took place during the 18^th century and is looked on today as the focal point of modernity. Artists reflected the world surrounding them in their art. In the abstract expressionism period, or the mid-twentieth century, it seems as though more complex art came about. Dissanayake stated that due to the complex nature of the works of art, the value behind them became less apparent. She explained that as a result, “appreciating art became more than ever an elite activity…” (Dissanayake, 18). The post modernism period was where interpretation was more accepted in understanding and appreciating art. The author stated that “any ‘truth’ or ‘reality’ is only a point of view” (Dissanayake, 19), meaning that there was no right answer when appreciating art. While the artist put their emotions into the work, it was not expect for the same emotions to convey in the viewer.

In Dissanayake’s discussion “What is art for?”, the idea of art embodies many meanings. Prior to reading this, I believed that artists were given a gift where they could see things that weren’t actually there; they could paint a meadow that symbolized some deeper meaning where as my meadow would simply be a painting of a meadow. Dissanayake stated that artists don’t view the world in a special way, but rather “…interpret it according to their individual and cultural sensibilities” (p19). The identification of culture in art is key in the author’s point that art is a behavior. She explains that while most art is identified as objects, those works of art are a result of artistic behavior. In one of my classes, Anthropology of Papua New Guinea, we went into detail about the different tribes that lived on the land, and their different forms of ritual. One common thing was that they all used art in ceremonies, which I believe is a good example of art as a behavior. Dissanayake describes ceremonial art in different cultures that she has studied, and how often these ceremonies are like rights of passage. In Papua New Guinea, one of the main ceremonies is that of a boy maturing to a man, during which they all dress up and paint their bodies. This is an art form that we don’t see in the United States because it is a result of their culture and behavior, but just because we don’t see it here doesn’t mean we don’t identify it as art. The author makes a compelling point that “There is no appreciation of art without interpretation” (p19). I agree with the author on this point on two levels. The first level brings me back to my example of painting a meadow; some may view it as simply a meadow while others will be able to interpret deeper meaning to it. The other reason I agree with the author’s statement is because art doesn’t necessarily have to have one meaning. Regardless of what the artist meant to convey in their work, most of the time they won’t be there when people critique their work, which gives viewers the freedom of interpretation. With this freedom, art can be viewed in countless ways.

The activities I engaged in today included working from 9am-1pm as a front desk receptionist at a salon, followed by lunch with friends and watching football games. Of these activities, two of my top five values related to my day. Friendship, because I enjoy the company of my coworkers and I believe they enjoy my company as well. I would argue that security is a value that was involved in my day because my job provides for myself, which is my basic need at this point in my life.

In relation to my family, I would say my values are closely related to my moms. I grew up an only child raised by a single mother, so her beliefs and values were all I really had to go on. She was always supportive of me to make my own decisions, but I don’t doubt that she had a strong influence on them. As far as my goals that I’ve yet to pursue, that would be continuing onto graduate school for psychology, and the only thing holding me back at this point is my bachelors degree. Another goal would be to obtain a job more closely related to my field of interest, but what’s holding me back on that is my fear of quitting my current job and ending up without one, as well as disappointing my coworkers.

On page 14 of the article, the author discusses the fact that humans do not rely on one single mental mode, but rather many mental modes with one as the focus. My question regarding this would be, is it common for a person to consistently make decisions based on the same mental mode as the focus? I agree with the author’s point that humans use more than one mental mode when making decisions. I have noticed differences in the responses of some of my peers; some make decisions very fast and just accept things, and others take more time to think them through, especially regarding more emotional decisions. Personally, I try not to let my emotions affect my decisions, and while I am not always successful, I feel as though I generally come to the same conclusion when I think this way. I also feel as though my emotional mental mode is similar to my instinctual mental mode sometimes, possibly interacting with one another in decision making. When the author brought up the Star Wars quote on page 13 directed at Luke Skywalker “Trust your feelings”, the author was referring to an emotional mental mode. To me, that relates to “trust your instincts”, and while emotions were at play, instinctual responses would over power those emotions, or go hand in hand. So my second question would be are emotions or instincts more powerful in decision making? For example, if you were an animal lover and you saw an injured wild animal on the side of the road, your emotions would want you to help it, but your instincts would tell you not to because it could be sick and hurt you. In a situation such as this, one would use many forms of mental modes to come to a conclusion, just as the author pointed out, with emphasis on a specific mental mode (emotional or instinctual).

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