At first, I immediately consider food to have the potential to be art, but it is only a possibility, not a definite requirement. Upon taking a first glance at the title of this most recent excerpt, “Food as Art,” I allowed an imagine to take over my mind. A white plate with some small portion of meat or veggies, perfectly placed upon a bed of arugula or some other green, and the plate was decorated with swirls of different brightly colored sauces. It was an imagine of a plate that may be served at an upscale restaurant, or on one of those Food Network shows. This, to me, is art. Telfer states that philosophers investigating this topic agree that, “…whereas food and drink can of course produce aesthetic reactions, it cannot be an art form or produce works of art” (p. 9). I disagree with this claim because I think that if the intention is there, food can be a form of art, regardless of its “instrumental” or nutritious value.
To add to this argument, I will add a quote from Dissanayake’s work that we have given thorough examination to: “Yet if art is regarded as a behavior, making things special, emphasis shifts from the object or quality or commodity to the activity (the making or doing and appreciating)…” (p. 10). If a chef, whether qualified as professional or not, dedicates a specific effort to the creation of a plate or bowl of food, he or she is intentionally making that food special, and in that, I consider food as art.
Food can include many aspects that are usually used to describe art, including shapes, colors, textures, and depths. It is not to say that every burger or piece of toast is an artistic presentation of food, but I do think that food can stand alone as a piece of art.
Dissanayake, Ellen. (1991). What is art for? In K.C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote addresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (p. 15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Telfer, Elizabeth. (2002). Food as Art. Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates, 2nd Edition. Routledge, 2002.
I really like that you said at the first of your blog that it is only a possibility, not a definite requirement. I think i miss this part when i tough about. Thank you for remind me that.
The good food requires it looks good, smells good, taste good. If the food is met these three requirement i would say it is a good food. But sometimes even it is amazing it still only means it is the food. The food that could make your less hungry. When people are hungry and they saw a really good food in front of them i would say they wont consider the food as art. And i totally agree with you that not every food is art but the food can be art.
Great post! Your point of view is that some foods which have beautiful decoration and severed in high grade restaurant can be called art, but some fast food cannot be called art. Also to disagree the quote from philosophers in Telfer article that “food and drink can of course produce aesthetic reactions; it cannot be an art form or produce works of art”, you quote from Dissanayake’s article that “Yet if art is regarded as a behavior, making things special, emphasis shifts from the objects or quality or commodity th the activity.”, I agree the your point that some food which needs lots of human work can be called art, and I think in Telfer article, he also described that “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.”(Page 19).