Mary Harris

Original Post

The article “A Matter of Taste?” by William Deresiewicz raised many thought provoking and insightful ideas that has actually completely changed the way I see the connection between food and art. The article discusses how the author believes that food has replaced art as high culture in our society, not that food is art. Up to this point, even after reading Tefler’s article, I was a big believer that food is art and that there should really be no debate about it. After reading this article I realized I have fallen victim to what the author describes as “confusing our palates with our souls” by believing that food is art (Deresiewicz). The author agrees that “like art, food is also a genuine passion” of people and that it has a “cultural apparatus that parallels that one that exists for art” but still it is not art (Deresiewicz). His main argument for why food is not art is that even though it does ignite our senses, that is all it does. Food is not “narrative or representational, does not organize and express emotion” like true art should (Deresiewicz). It was this point that altered my view of food as art and also made me think of Tefler’s article in a different way as well.

Tefler provides two definitions to help define what makes something a work of art. The first being that “the maker…intended it to be to be looked at or listened to with intensity, for it’s own sake (Tefler 12). The second one being that the thing must be treated “as primarily an object of aesthetic consideration” by society to be considered a work of art. When I first read these qualifications for what something needs to be a work of art, I was undoubtedly sure that food qualified on both accounts. In the broadest sense, food does fit these requirements but when thinking of art as something that affects not only your senses but also your soul it no longer does. The maker, or chef, of the food’s main goal is not have the customer look or listen to the food, they intend for the food to be eaten and enjoyed. If the job is done correctly most of the time the food is barely looked at because the customer is too busy devouring the food. Obviously, the customer is concerned about the aesthetics of the food because people do not want to eat something that looks or smells unpleasant but it is not the primary objective. It is interesting that aesthetics is not the main driver of food consumption because that is the only thing that the consumer can use to judge the food. Whereas for art, people do not only worry about the aesthetics they are concerned about the emotional connection or awakening within them that the art ignites.

Both Tefler and Deresiewicz discuss the emotional side of art. Everyone can think of a time that they listened to a song or saw a picture that gave them goose bumps or a memory that pops into their head when they see or hear a certain piece of art but rarely this happens with food. Food can be related to a memory but, at least personally, the food is a background player to the real memory not the sole reason for the memory. Tefler says that “food cannot move us in the way that music and other major arts can” and Deresiewicz would agree (26). Deresiewicz probably said it best 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” like art is supposed to (Deresiewicz). From start to end a song can tell a story and cause deep thought and raw emotion. In the say three minutes it takes to listen to a song and hear the story of the composer is portraying, you could have eaten an apple but “an apple is not a story” and never will be, unless you are Snow White (Deresiewicz). As a society we have become so enthralled with the idea of food in that as we keep consuming it, it continues to consume our daily lives and us to the “disadvantage of art” (Deresiewicz).

Food is a necessity that will always be a part of our lives but we need to make sure that we understand what exactly what are getting from the food we eat. It is important that we “strike a balance between the aesthetic claims of the food on a particular occasion and the social claims of that occasion” instead of bundling it all into one experience (Tefler 26). Having dinner with a good group of friends, no matter how good or bad the food is, is going to create a memory. We must be able to dissect what the food made us feel and how the people made you feel. The happiness and joy does not come primarily from the food but the company, something that many people have a hard time differentiating. Both Tefler and Deresiewicz’s articles have completely changed the way that I view food and it has really got me thinking about the way I perceive different memories in relation to the food.

Sources

Deresiewicz, William. “A Matter of Taste?” The New York Time.NYtimes.com, 28 October 2012. Web. April 27, 2014.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.

Objectives

• Examine methods for evaluating qualities of art, such as product versus process, the difference between craft and fine art, must art be archival, and what is an aesthetic reaction.
• Explore the notion of food as an art form.
• Consider cultural differences in the production and consumption of food.

Reflection

This assignment made me second-guess what I thought I knew about art after reading Dissanayake. I was completely convinced that food was most definitely art and there was no doubt about it after reading Tefler’s article. It was only until I read an online article by William Deresiewicz, that I realized had completely manipulated many of Dissanayake’s statements about what art is to fit the picture I painted with Tefler’s words. I realize now that although food may provide a “range of sense experiences” it does not convey what major art does which goes beyond senses to the soul (Tefler 11). I believe I also entered this argument a little bull headed.

Art, along with food, involves a lot of opinion. One “expert” may hate a painting while another one fawns over it. As for food, one critic may love a certain dish while another finds is repulsive. It is all a matter of taste, literally and figuratively. Therefore, I created my own bias that food was an art form because “I” believe it should be when in actuality there is more to both than opinion.

Future

More than anything, what I will take from this assignment is that just because art does involve a lot of differing opinions, it does not mean they are all right. Yes, I am allowed my own opinion but if I am using the wrong criteria to formulate said opinion, it is not relevant.