I found a very interesting opinion piece written for the New York Times about how food has come to be viewed as high art in the United States. This particular writer, William Deresiewicz, discussed the ways in which viewing food as art has changed the culture of our country. He states that, “Just as aestheticism, the religion of art, inherited the position of Christianity among progressive classes around the turn of the 20th century, so has foodism taken over from aestheticism around the turn of the 21st,” (Deresiewicz). Deresiewicz says that students used to seek an Ivy League education to gain cultural expertise and social power, but instead they now learn about sustainable farming, food absorption, etc. These people will go on to pursue careers in the food industry such as a cupcake shop or high-end cookie business. This writer also discussed that our society has shifted from one of “Sunday painters” to “weekend chefs” who passionately enjoy cooking, but also appreciate the expertise of professionals. This article provided an interesting viewpoint and touched on many points that we have learned about in our reading, such as the involvement of aestheticism and sensual experience in art. I found the author’s main point to be surprising, because he strongly believes that food is not art. Deresiewicz explains that, “Both (food and art) begin by addressing the senses, but that is where food stops. It is not narrative or representational, does not organize and express emotion. An apple is not a story, even if we can tell a story about it…Food is highly developed as a system of sensations, extremely crude as a system of symbols,” (Deresiewicz).

I think that Deresiewicz brought up some interesting points, however, I do not agree with his main point of view and conclusion. I believe that art is still extremely relevant in our society and that food fits into a niche of the art world, instead of replacing high art as a class. In addition, Deresiewicz believes that food may tantalize our senses, but that is where it ends. In his conclusion, he states that, “A good risotto is a fine thing, but it isn’t going to give you insight into other people, allow you to see the world in a new way, or force you to take an inventory of your soul,” (Deresiewicz). I find this point of view to be somewhat narrow, because I strongly believe that food has a definite place in every culture around the world. Eating a novel meal in a foreign country could give you insight into the way they make their food with only their hands, or only use certain spices, allow you to try new flavors and textures that have never been experienced. These are certainly all sensory experiences, however, they do allow you to learn about new people and cultures, allow you to see the differences between your home and this new place, and will teach you things about yourself that you had never thought of before through the value of these experiences. I strongly disagree with Deresiewicz’s statement that food ceases to be an enlightening experience beyond the palate.

In addition, I believe that in this opinion piece, Deresiewicz viewed food and art from only the modernist point of view. He states that “Food now expresses the symbolic values and absorbs the spiritual energies of the educated class.,” (Deresiewicz) which coincides with Ellen Dissanayake’s description of the modernist era of art. She states that modernism has “a concern with elucidating principles such as taste and beauty that govern all the arts and indeed make them not simply paintings or statues but examples of (fine) ‘art…Because these values were not easily apparent to the untutored observer, appreciating art became more than ever an elite activity,’” (Dissanayake, 17-18). Deresiewicz’s point of view is understandable through the principles of modernism; however, I think that food as an art form is better understood through the postmodernist view.

“Rather than assuming that art reflects a unique and privileged kind of knowledge, postmodernists point out that any ‘truth’ or ‘reality’ is only a point of view – a ‘representation’ that comes to us mediated and conditioned by our language, our social institutions, the assumptions that characterize individuals as members of a nation, a race, a gender, a class, a profession, a religious body, a particular historical period,” (Dissanayake, 19).

I believe that this is a better description of the kind of art that is made up of food because it allows everyone’s personal points of view to be taken into consideration and accessed by all, not just the elite. Every person in the world must eat, and whether or not they eat the food of the elite does not matter because each culture has customs and practices that contribute to the artistry of their food.

Deresiewicz, W. (2012, October). A Matter of Taste? How Food Replaced Art as High Culture. New York Times. Retrieved October 27, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html?_r=0

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.

I believe all food can be art. Food is an aesthetic experience, no matter the type, slow of fast food. It appeals to the senses and creates a pleasurable experience for the person engaged in eating the food. I think that fast food, although not healthy, is art because it requires the dedication of a person or group of people, to pick our certain additives, chemicals, or spices that enhance the flavor and scent of the food. This process delivers a man-made creation that provides an aesthetic experience, art. Finally, although fast food is reproduced in its same form millions of times, Telfer describes that duplication does not reduce the artistic quality of a piece:

“I said that both an original recipe and an actual dish are works of art if they are regarded aesthetically…Suppose a chef…creates a superb pie, which is then turned out by the thousand. Are all the pies works of art, or is the abstract recipe the only work of art? The nearest analogy in the standard fine arts is probably with engraving and other forms of print-making, where the essence of the process is that it enables an artist to produce many copies of one work. Since we can call each engraving a work of art, we can call each pie a work of art, at least in the classifying sense,” (Telfer, 17).

Just because a work of art is duplicated, does not mean that it loses any of its original qualities. It now just becomes more easily enjoyed by the masses. Finally, I believe that food requires the postmodernist theory of art. There is no type of food that will be pleasing to every person. It is important to not that postmodernist ideals are:

“Rather than assuming that art reflects a unique and privileged kind of knowledge, postmodernists point out that any ‘truth’ or ‘reality’ is only a point of view – a ‘representation’ that comes to us mediated and conditioned by our language, our social institutions, the assumptions that characterize individuals as members of a nation, a race, a gender, a class, a profession, a religious body, a particular historical period,” (Dissanayake, 19).

Food is interpreted differently in various cultures and also between people of the same culture. One person might find an expensive, elaborate meal at a five-star restaurant to be a very pleasurable, artistic experience. However, another person might find the experience to be aesthetically undesirable. Food, just like art, provides for different points of view for various people.