This article raises the question on whether or not food itself is art. Author William Deresiewicz explains how the 21^st century appears to be an introduction to ‘foodism’ as a form of culture. He distinguishes how Americans are discovering their senses, specifically he states that they are “learning to value pleasure, distinguish subtle differences, and make fine judgments” (Deresiewicz, 2012). He established that these sensory responses are key in appreciating art, but indicates concern in the fact that Americans have become too absorbed in the foodism culture. According to the author, what started out as a similar passion among peers has spiraled into an obsession with food. Rather than just appreciating it, they immersed their lives in; he even shared a quote from a former student of his, stating, “food is everything!” (Deresiewicz, 2012). Because of this, the author argues that food is not becoming an art, but has replaced it. He compares America to Italy and France, explaining how both these other countries have a strong focus on food, but place a higher value on art. The author concluded his article by characterizing the fact that the food itself should not be considered art, but rather what goes into the finished product; the craft of cooking being the art.

Both Tefler and Deresiewicz distinguished that aesthetic reactions are a necessity in establishing something as art. Deresiewicz argued that these sensual reactions to food were new to the 21^st century, and believes that Americans have taken the foodism culture too far. He even introduced a sense of concern, stating specifically that “Here in America, we are in danger of confusing our palates with our souls” (Deresiewicz, 2012). Tefler (2002) argued that works of art must be intended for aesthetic consideration, and that in many cases food does not fall under that category (p. 14). A chef must intend for his food to be savored, which is a compelling argument against the fast food industry. The title itself, “Fast food”, exhibits both how the food is prepared and how it is to be consumed. Those who are purchasing fast food are not in the market for a savory meal that they can analyze and discuss. In Deresiewicz’s definition of food as art, fast food by no means falls under the category of art because he believes the art is in the preparation and cooking itself.

Tefler (2002) also debated whether cooking was an art, and she brought up a very interesting example that contradicted many conclusions that were made. She introduced the scenario where a chef at a restaurant chain creates a delicious, homemade pie, but is later turned by the thousands (p. 17). By her original definition, the pie would be considered a work of art, but the manufacturing of thousands of these pies strays from the art of cooking. Tefler argues that these would still be considered works of art. Deresiewicz would argue otherwise, specifically because he believes that in order to view food as an art, it is what goes into the food that allows to be become art. Mass-producing pies would not fall under Deresiewicz’s definition of cooking as artistry.

Tefler (2002) brought up another point towards the end of her debate, explaining that food itself can’t be viewed as a work of art because in order to produce an aesthetic reaction, it must physically touch parts of our body (p. 19). She follows this statement by explaining that such a requirement may be too crude to be art. I disagree with this point because there are many cases where food just has to be in front of you to generate a sensory reaction. For example, a place that serves handmade pasta would remind me of my trip to Italy with my mom, which would fill me with positive reactions. I would not necessarily have to eat the food, or even smell it. Just the fact that I could establish a relationship between the food and a memory is art to me.

Overall, I agree with Deresiewicz’s view on food as art. While I do not feel I have enough knowledge to determine whether American’s have become obsessed with the idea of food as art, I do agree with his opinion on establishing what food is art. The process that goes into making something is what is important, because that is where the intensions are established. Like Tefler (2002) stated, art needs to be created with the intention of invoking an aesthetic reaction. When a chef’s only concern is the customer’s happiness and satisfaction with their meal, the chef becomes an artist in the craft of cooking.

Deresiewicz, W. (2012, October 27). “A Matter of Taste?” Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html?_r=0

Tefler, E. (2002). Food as Art. In Neill, A. & Riley, A. (eds.) Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2nd ed., Chap. 2). New York, NY: Routledge.

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.