Category: Unit 04

After reading more articles about food is art or not, I realized I need consider deeply about whether food should be as a major form of art. One of articles “How Can Food Be Art?” written by Glenn Kuehn provides a new aspect of food as art, he believe the Telfer’s methods of describing the artistic status of food is outdated and neglects to acknowledge a philosophy of food，also, he explained Telfer ignore to “offer a context through which food can be seen as part of a profound and significant aesthetic experience. If food is going to be seen as art, it needs a context in which significant experiences of the aesthetic can come from everyday life” (Kuehn, 194). Then he stated that the meaning of food as art is based on the organic interaction between its “production, presentation, and manner of appreciation.”(Kuehn, 195).  Moreover, He used his experience of food-related memories that the food make him have a depth of feeling of harmony, arrangement, articulation, skill, and when food as a medium (Kuehn, 205)

At the beginning, I agree with Kuehn’s point that people’s experience in the daily life can form an aesthetic experience to consider food as an inherently art. However, Elizabeth Telfer in her article”Food As Art “explained that there can be aesthetic reaction to tastes and smell and that these reactions are distinct from the natural appreciation of food as merely a source of survival (Telfer, 11). This argument is against the Kuehn’s experience that food makes him have a feeling of harmony, and articulation etc. because this kind of feeling is just the aesthetic reaction to tastes and smell, and it cannot simply illustrated as art. This is your memory feeling of this kind of food, and your personal feel of food not stands for the food itself. Perhaps food deserves to be treated as simple art or minor art because it is necessarily transient, cannot have meaning and cannot move us. For instance, a cup of delicious coffee espresso, experts suggest that people should consumed it during two minutes when it is done, and some delicious food should be eaten before it become cold etc, these kind of examples all prove that the food art can be shared and preserved by people is very limit and contemporary. Also, food cannot vehicle meaning; this is not to say food means nothing to you. For example, a wife spend much time to do a delicious dinner with much of her love for her family, this kind of food may be have a good looking, smell good and have a harmony feeling for her family, which may means the wife loves her family very much, but the point is that the meaning is not in the food, the meaning maybe in the gestures, and in the words. The food can stands for all sorts of meaning, but it cannot carry any specific statement per se. Furthermore, food cannot move us in way music and other major arts can. Good food can elate us, invigorate us, startle us, and cheer us with a kind of warmth and joy, yet food cannot shake us fundamentally as shown by tears or fear. Perhaps many people would say according to personal cultivated experience can appreciate the art of food because they treat each special taste and smell of food is special feeling for them. However, these aesthetic experiences mean the food, not the food itself.

Furthermore, sometimes we can experience foods that display skills that are borrowed from other forms of art. For instance, many fruit carvings, decorated eggs and cake with sophisticated decoration, which are all display the artistic skill applied into food not the food itself. Likely, the artistic skill can be applied into stone or wood etc. Art is original creation, these artistic skills can be called art but it was not solely inspired by the food. Also, some cookery can qualify as art if degree of creativity is criterion because they use their creativity to make their food look special and good taste, and the process of making food can be called an art form not the food itself. Food are created just for eating not appreciating because it’s good looking just for attracting people to consume and last for very short time, and its main purpose is for people to eat or survival no matter how beautiful they are be cooked. That is, food as an minor art form because it can vehicle many kinds of meaning and last for a short time, but not similar to live performances of theater and music, which have long been considered some of the most aesthetically important forms of art. So I believe food should be consider as minor art which have limited and fleeting art life but cannot carry meaning and move people by itself.

References:

Telfer, Elizabeth. “Food As Art.” Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates. 2nd ed. Routledge, 2002. 9-27.

Kuehn, Glenn. “How Can Food Be Art?” The Aesthetics of Everyday Life. Ed. Andrew Light and Jonathan M. Smith. New York: Columbia UP, 2005. 194-212.

After reading this article, I believe food can be viewed as a minor art because it is necessarily transient, cannot have meaning and cannot move us (Elizabeth, 24). According to the Ellen Dissanayake’s point of view, “there is no appreciation of art without interpretation” (Dissanayake, 5), and art is for art’s sake not for other’s sake. Also, from the Elizabeth Telfer’s article, he states that “(he) appreciates the thing’s look or sound for its own sake, not for any benefit it brings to him or others” (Elizabeth, 10). These two authors have the same interpretation of the art that art is created for its own meaning, and it should be interpreted and appreciated objectively not for benefitting others. Telfer makes many comparisons between art and food mainly from these two questions: How the object is regarded? (Classifying) and does the object merit the label work of art? (Evaluative).then she get the result that art just can be as simple form of art.

From my perspective, food and drink is too physical, bodily and lacks sufficiently complex, first, as we all know the aim of creating food and drink is against hungry and they are also needed to survive for humans, and they are do not have its own special meaning like music, food can be appraised as good but it can never shake us fundamentally as shown by tears or fear, instead, music can do it. Also, there are various designing kinds of food by cookers, but it is just for attracting people to buy and eat it not just for appreciation. Next, maybe you can say food has its own meaning, for instance, it can stands for a symbol of a nation’s way of life and traditions. Yes, I agree with this. Yet, food does not have many kinds of meaning as major art of forms, for example, a representational painting can present the history, culture and even some emotion like to inspiring people to do something. Furthermore, human’s aesthetic reaction on food may not truly for appreciation of its beauty, and they are just being influenced by its taste and willing to consume it. The individuals would consider eating as the most important point not its look or smell. For instance, some people go to restaurant is not for see the food, and they want to eat it. On the contrast, if people go to museum or watching movies, they are for the sake of doing these activities, rather than for the sake of surviving. So I personally believe food cannot be seen as major forms of art, and it just can be seen as a minor art or even not can be appreciated as a form of art. But I have a question that can we say increase the quality of food will raise the level of art, if food as a minor art? Why?