Before reading the article or watching the videos, I found myself wondering, if food is considered art, by which standard does one judge it. What I mean by this is that food can be both visually pleasing as well as tasting and smelling just as good. Does a food’s taste have any impact on whether it is art or not? For instance, if a certain dish were to be presented well and looked good but was inedible or tasted awful, this could be considered art but not food. The main purpose of food is to fuel the body via consumption. I believe that for food to be art it still must maintain its core purpose, which is to be eaten. In the Tefler article there is talk about how “many philosophers argue that although food and drink can give rise to aesthetic reactions, they cannot constitute works of art” which to me is a bit confusing but perhaps this is because I do not know understand the true definition of art (12). Tefler provides two definitions for the phrase “work of art”. The first being that “the maker…intended it to be looked at or listened to with intensity, for its own sake” which I believe is possible to do with food (12). Food today is not just about taste but also presentation; to not only inspire your taste buds but all of your other senses as well. The second definition Tefler provides is that “a thing is a work of art for a society if it is treated by that society as primarily an object of aesthetic consideration” which I believe also applies to food. As a society, our daily schedules revolve around when we eat, whom we eat with and where we eat. We make these decisions on what we think will provide us with the best aesthetic reaction (12). Tefler says that a reaction is aesthetic “if it is based solely on how the object appears to senses” and therefore I believe food always elicits an aesthetic reaction (9). Food is a necessity that we have vamped up into not just a task but also an experience for all our senses.
under: Unit 04
By: Steven on April 25, 2014 at 4:15 pm
Mary, I respectfully disagree with your statement that “I believe for food to be art it still must maintain its core purpose, which is to be eaten.” Telfer states “some commentators draw the distinction on the basis of the purpose to which the aretfact is to be put: if it is intended for contemplation it is a work of art, if for use it is a work of craftsmanship” (Telfar, 15). According to this definition, if food is intended to be eaten, it is then not considered to be art. However, like you mentioned in your blog post, if food is not intended to be eaten, but rather to be put on display to invoke aesthetic emotions, then it is in fact art. This is a hard, and at times confusing argument to make. Nowadays food is made with such detail and is presented to the customer in a presentation like appeal. It is the job of a chief to not only make delicious food, but make it appealing as well. However, based on this week’s reading, food is not actually art.
By: katrinaa@uoregon.edu on April 27, 2014 at 8:08 pm
Actually, if you’re basing your opinion about whether food is art or not on Telfer’s chapter, that is not a valid support for your argument. Telfer argues and refutes many, many points as to why food is NOT art, and then at the end, concludes that food should be considered a minor art.
So, yes, food is art. At least according to Telfer. Whether it is a minor art or not may be questionable. I have reached the conclusion, via the unfolding of this unit, that food IS art, and not just a “minor” art, as Telfer decides, but a very important art, and an intriguing one indeed. It is an art that cannot last, which in some perspectives is quite profound.
Or perhaps it isn’t profound at all. I’d love to hear counter-arguments.
That all said, I think your initial counter-argument with Mary made a lot of sense. Mary said “I believe that for food to be art it still must maintain its core purpose, which is to be eaten,” and I think you logically brought up that distinctions between food that is art and also meant to be consumed and food that is art that is meant only to be display are important. They are indeed; some confectionery, for example, may not ever be meant to be eaten, and thus it is a visual art.
The connundrum is that food meant to be eaten but may also be considered art is complex, as we’ve all come to realize. But I think that even though it’s not lasting, it is art.
By: rreid on April 27, 2014 at 4:49 pm
Hi Mary,
You gave some great insight on why you think that food can be considered art. I really like how you asked if a food’s taste has any impact on whether it is art or not. I hadn’t even thought about that while I did the readings for this week and it definitely brings up a valid point. If a food tastes and looks awful, can it still be considered art?
When you argued how you “believe that for food to be art it must still maintain its core purpose, which is to be eaten,” I absolutely agree with what you’re saying. One point that I believe you could have brought up to further your argument would be to add how while the nutrition and health qualities of a food are important, the exterior appearance of the food is just as important to deem the food “art.”
From your post, I can tell that you completely understood the material for this week and you helped me gain better insight as well.