In this article, the author explains two connections between food and art.  His first point is that chefs of “haute cuisine” are expected to wow people.  Chefs are innovators and creators who “find new methods to manipulate ingredients, and interact with technology and design” (Parasecoli).  The second connection, he believes, between food and art is the word “avant-garde,” which is used in the media to describe top chefs and restaurants.  The formal definition of this word is “the pioneers or innovators in any art in a particular period” (Oxford English Dictionary).  Therefore, he suggests, that since chefs are being called avant-garde, they are innovators for an art form: food.  In closing, the author mentions briefly the relationship between haute cuisine and the arts, and patrons and investors.  Both new artists and chefs are helped by investors, or donors, and the relationships are complex.  He explains that artists careers “take off when their work starts carrying conspicuous price tags determined by intricate market dynamics” (Parasecoli).  With chefs, investors are taking a risk: they are betting on new talent that wants to be so creative it might become excessive and therefore cause the investors to lose money.  In both the artist and chef cases, “the tension between commercial requirements and innovation… is not easy to resolve” (Parasecoli).  Both relationships are dangerous because both require taking risks on new innovations that may not turn into a success.

Before I begin the main part of this assignment, I want to say that there are many ways to look at food being art, or not being art.  You could look at it from taste or smell, from the look of the food, from the creation of the food, or from the business side of it (like I mentioned previously with the relationship between chef and investors).  For the most part I will be talking about the look of food as an art form.  However, I will briefly discuss the taste and smell part of it in combination with the creation of the food.

My first point supporting food being art is that, like art, food creates an aesthetic reaction.  This meaning our reaction is “based solely on how the object appears to the senses” (Telfer, 9).  With our senses being either sight, taste, or smell.  Next, we are given a definition of art in Tefler’s paper: “an artefact primarily intended for aesthetic consideration” (Tefler, 12).  Combining these two definitions, we get something along the lines of ‘art is something that is intended for our consideration by appealing to our senses.’  This could by all means be a beautiful plate of food carefully prepared by a master chef in which we consider all the different flavors, or the unique arrangement of food on the plate.  One could have an aesthetic reaction to the way food looks on a plate, “the taste of food and drink as well as the look of it can give rise to aesthetic reactions…” (Tefler 14).  Sometimes, from my own experience, one may not want to eat it because it would ruin the “artwork” that was created for them by a chef.  Now, one could just as easily have an aesthetic reaction to the taste, or smell, of the food.  Whether it be bad or good, one forms an opinion after tasting it.  This is what is meant by “aesthetic consideration.”  To relate all this back to art, when looking, or exploring, a piece of art, whether it be a sculpture, painting, or a movie, we all seem to have a reaction based on the artwork and whether or not it appeals to us.  We then contemplate the piece of art and form an opinion to whether or not we like the piece.  The same goes for food, like I mentioned above.  One can have an aesthetic reaction to either the look, taste, or smell of food, then consider all the different elements of the “art work,” and form an opinion about the piece.  The process of “aesthetic consideration” is the same for food and pieces of common art (painting, sculpture, movie, etc.).

My second reason for considering food as art is the great deal of design and innovation that goes into one particular piece of food.  This could be a wedding cake, an elaborate dessert or meal.  “[Chefs] are expected to offer patrons (and critics) dishes and menus that stimulate and surprise them, [and] find new methods to manipulate ingredients…” (Parasecoli).  In this regard, chefs are innovators, sometimes called “avant-garde,” that design new recipes to make sure they keep surprising people.  In Tefler’s paper, she quotes different chefs talking about their process of making a certain dish: “These passages and many others like then illustrate the authors’ desire to design dishes, courses and whole meals which present patterns of harmonious or contrasting flavours and textures.  This is the approach of the cook who is designing a work of art” (Tefler 15).  With this, it is appropriate to make the claim that chefs do not just follow a recipe and expect it to wow the consumer.  Instead they make sure that the design and innovation process will create particular flavors that will result in a certain reaction out of the consumer.  They spend time and effort making sure that their work of art has a particular reaction that comes with it, just like artists.

Now, to briefly talk about a counter argument as to why food may be considered art: Food is not art because food is supposed to serve a single purpose: satisfy our appetite and fuel our bodies.  Food is a necessity and no one can argue with that.  However, I can argue as to which food is a necessity and which foods, even though they satisfy our hunger, are not considered necessary.  Take cake for example.  Wedding cakes are not meant to be considered as the main meal.  They are there for looks and taste.  The design process that goes with wedding cakes is an intricate and delicate process.  It takes a large amount of creativity and thought.  Wedding cakes are meant to be appreciated for their remarkable design and the amount of effort that went into creating such a masterpiece.  “A meal that claims to be a work of art is too complex and long-drawn-out to be understandable in terms simply of feeding, and a cook who has cooked a work of art is not satisfied if the eaters do not notice what they eat” (Tefler, 14).  Here we see that there would be no point in making such an intricate meal if the only purpose was to relieve hunger.  Therefore, I am not going to completely refute this counter argument, but I will say that not all food is meant to serve the single purpose of satisfying hunger, some food should be considered works of art because it took a great deal of design and innovation to create such a meal.

Parasecoli, F. (2013, August 29). Is Food Art? Chefs, Creativity, and the Restaurant Business? Retrieved October 20, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fabio-parasecoli/food-art_b_3830791.html

Telfer, E. (2002). Food as art. In Neill, A. & Ridley, A (Eds.), Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2 ed., pp. 9-27). New York: Routledge.

First, I want to clarify that in this post I will be addressing “food” as the finished product, not the process of cooking (which could be considered craft).  I will be discussing whether or not a plate of food can be considered art.  I’m using the word “art” to mean a piece of artwork, just like one would say a painting is a piece of artwork.  I am also going to brush the surface of answering thiss question because one could write a never ending essay answering this question. So here I go:

The author describes food as a minor form of art (Tefler 24-26).  I’ve never thought of it that way but I believe she is right.  Food is a minor form of art because not all food is considered art. For example, fast food? Not art. Even though in the video it is said that it was “scientifically crafted” for us.  Which could be considered art, but not by me.  I consider some food works of art like cakes, and dishes at fancy restaurants made to look pretty.  That, to me, looks like a work of art.  And the taste of it could also be considered a work of art, but for me I think the look of food is the most important part.  The author also talks about an “aesthetic reaction” (Tefler 11).  For me I believe when one looks at a dish, or a beautifully designed cake, it should be considered that one could have an aesthetic reaction: “food can elate us, invigorate us, startle us, excite us, cheer us with a kind of warmth and joy…”(Tefler 26).  For example, I spent months trying to design a cake for my 21st birthday.  I wanted it to be stunning, and awe people.  I wanted to get a reaction out of my peers.  While giving the design to the baker, she asked “what flavor?”  Of course, I was so worried about how my cake would look I didn’t even think about the taste, the main function of a cake!  So, of course I believe food can be a work of art because it can give us that aesthetic reaction, it can awe us just like a beautiful painting can take our breath away.

I believe this view on art is a representation of the modernism view and the postmodernism view.  The reason for this is my view on food as art has a little of both belief systems in it.  From the modernism era, comes the idea of “‘disinterest’ [implying] that viewers could appreciate any art, even the artwork of eras or cultures far removed from their own” (Dissanayake, 18).  I believe food could be looked at in the same way: a recipe from years ago that has been passed down from generation to generation can still be made and appreciated.  From the postmodernism era is the idea that “any ‘truth’ or ‘reality’ is only a point of view”(Dissanayake 19).  This means that everyone has their own opinion, or “taste,” regarding food and are able to form their own opinions about both the look and taste of the food.  They are able to do this regarding art as well, so therefore food is art.