In what I first assumed to be a declaration of food as an art form, Deresiewicz claims that food began replacing art as a new “culture” around 1994 when Americans began fine-tuning their senses. Deresiewicz continues to explain the constant exposure that kids at top-notch schools receive regarding “the local/organic/sustainable fare” available in their lunchrooms or nearby grocery stores. Also remarked upon is the idea of pursuing an occupation in the vast industry of food, including ownership of a cupcake shop or “high-end cookie business.” Deresiewicz claims that for this age group, food closely resembles religion. In his second claim, Deresiewicz declares food as a “genuine passion” shared between friends and pursued as a common hobby. Food resembles art because of its many associated mediums, including journalism, critical literature, memoir, awards, and TV performances. Certainly, we can all remember flipping through the channels and coming across Bob Ross’s show, The Joy of Painting. Now, the numerous Buddy Valastro cooking shows on TLC or the variety of Food Network cooking challenges and explorations of outlandish foods are impossible to ignore. The presence of food as something more than just sustenance is found everywhere in our society. Even with these many validations, Deresiewicz ends his argument with a bold statement, “But food, for all that, is not art,” and this claim is made on the basis that food does not reach past the senses. Certainly, it has the ability to excite each of the senses, but it is not a source of emotion, nor is it “narrative or representational.” One cannot find insight through food, and this is where food falls short.
Once we were able to “distinguish subtle differences and make fine judgments” with our senses, a greater and more aesthetic appreciation for food came about (Deresiewicz, 2012). This relationship between food and the senses is comparable to Telfer’s claims that food is not an art, but can produce aesthetic reactions when it “appears to the senses” (p. 9). Deresiewicz offers a single example of food’s ability to produce a reaction past one that is purely related to the senses. He claims that meals have the capability to produce a few emotions, including comfort and delight, but “only very roughly and generally” (2012). Likewise, Telfer describes the type of aesthetic reaction exhibited by food as “a species of please” (p. 9). It is interesting that both articles designate positive, and only positive, emotions to food. Furthermore, Deresiewicz continues to describe this replacement of culture for food as a movement of the upper class, of those who could afford the costly “knowledge and connoisseurship” that was required to designate foods as aesthetic. In a similar matter, Dissanayake describes the experience of viewing art as one designated as “an elite activity” (p. 4). This talent was dependent on a certain “apprenticeship and dedication,” one similar to Deresiewicz’s “badge of membership in the higher classes.”
It is interesting that anytime Deresiewicz mentions a specific food, he is appealing to the Slow Food movement, rather than any form of fast food. He mentions things like market fresh tomatoes and organic farmlets found on campuses. So, if there is any chance that art could be exhibited in the form of food, it would be in these food items and food places that incorporated the idea of farm fresh foods and the ideals of self-sustenance and supporting local economies.
In contrast to Deresiewicz’s abrupt argument that food is not art and that there are no exceptions to this, Telfer’s offers insight on a single exception she finds valid. Food that is “arranged or decorated in creative and attractive ways” have the potential to “constitute a visual work of art” (p. 14). Even Deresiewicz’s example of the “high-end cookie business” is not considered a form of art, as it may follow Telfer’s description of food that is “to be savored, appraised, thought about, discussed” and to be considered art (p. 14). Deresiewicz’s depiction of food as a “genuine passion” contrasts that of Denis Dutton’s description of art in A Darwinian Theory of Beauty. Dutton explains that art is a survival trait and belongs to nature. This is similar to Dissanayake’s view of art as “a kind of behavior that developed” as humans evolved (p. 2). Certainly, Deresiewicz is evaluation food as art, rather than the exact definition of art, but his opinion still differs in these ways.
It seems as though this argument of food as art could go on forever, but it can also be agreed upon that food has the ability to be more than just nourishment, or sustenance. It can be presented in an aesthetic way, and food can evoke emotions, even if only “very roughly and generally.” Regardless, food exemplifies one of the most basic qualities of art, and that is “sensual responsiveness” (Deresiewicz, 2012).
Deresiewicz, W. (2012, October). A Matter of Taste?. The New York Times [Online Newspaper]. Retrieved February 1, 2015 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html.
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.