In “Food As Art”, Elizabeth Telfer explores the various arguments and points in the discussion of whether or not food is art. She starts by explaining that art generally requires an aesthetic reaction. She says aesthetic reactions are such that are “…based solely on how the object appears to the senses” and an “…appreciation of a thing for its own sake…” (p. 2). She adds that one can have aesthetic reactions to tastes and smells, which sets the stage for food as an art form. Telfer also explores the separation of food (product) from cookery (craft). She concludes that cookery is art because cooks “design dishes, courses and whole meals which present patterns of harmonious or contrasting flavors and textures. This is the approach of the cook who is designing a work of art” (p. 8). Eventually she concludes that food can be art by saying, “I conclude that there are no limitations, in us or in the nature of tastes themselves, which prevent food from giving rise to works of art…” (p. 15).
I think in many ways food can be more artistic than more traditional physical art, such as paintings and sculptures. I am not trying to judge the artistic quality of a painting or sculpture, but those avenues of art appeal aesthetically to only to the sense of sight. Food may appeal to sight, smell, taste, and touch. According to Ellen Dissananyake’s wrote that art is a means of “making special”. Through this lens food can certainly be art. The people who prepare fine meals plan the experience through four different senses in such a way to be pleasing and special.
It is important to note that food exists on somewhat of an artistic spectrum. I mentioned earlier the planning and effort that goes into a fine meal, certainly the same amount of effort to “make special” does not go into fast food or pre-prepared meals. Remember that Telfer said that art creates aesthetic reactions that must be based on how something appeals to the sense and not the utility of an object. I would argue that fast food, pre-made meals, and fitness-based meals are valued for their utility (timely, inexpensive, healthy) more than how they appeal to the senses.
Sam,
I really enjoyed reading your reaction to whether or not food can be art. I think it is really well written and that you get your point across very clearly!
I agree with you that food is art. I especially enjoyed your point that, “food can be more artistic than more traditional physical art,” because I had never entertained this thought before. You give a really good point that many paintings and sculptures only aesthetically appeal to one sense, while food may appeal to many more. In addition, I agree with your point that “making special” is one of the main reasons for making a meal, and thus, gives food even more of an artistic quality.
I think you make a great point that fast-food, pre-made meals, and fitness-based meals are valued for utility over aesthetic and artistic appeal. However, I wonder if the fact that they are simply used for utility takes the aesthetic planning out of the equation? Do people give up sensual indulgence, just to get the basic function they desire from the food? In my answer, I wanted to discuss more about your point that food exists on an artistic spectrum. I would definitely agree that the quality of food and many meals are on a spectrum of quality and taste. However, this spectrum is largely up to my discretion. For instance, someone may very much aesthetically enjoy a fast-food meal that is identical to thousands of others being served simultaneously, and not enjoy a fresh, delicately designed meal at a well-respected restaurant. As you noted in the start of your response, “aesthetic reactions are such that they are ‘…based solely on how the object appears to the senses’ and an ‘…appreciation of a thing for its own sake…’” In this instance, aesthetic appeal is in the eye of the beholder, and could we therefore argue that fast-food is artistic because it is aesthetically appealing to some people? Finally, if we do accept this as truth, would this extend to pre-prepared, and fitness-based meals as well?
Sam, I found your article exploring the relationship between food and art to be very insightful. Through reading several articles that discuss this relationship, I have come to the conclusion that most people seem to consider food to be something that can be artistic, but is not worthy of being categorized as art. You go against this opinion when you state,
“I think in many ways food can be more artistic than more traditional physical art, such as paintings and sculptures. I am not trying to judge the artistic quality of a painting or sculpture, but those avenues of art appeal aesthetically to only to the sense of sight. Food may appeal to sight, smell, taste and touch.”
I think you have a very strong point that many people neglect to look at. Food does in fact stimulate more of the body than art does, which means it really comes down to how you define or “measure” an items artistic credibility. If art were defined as something that stimulates the senses, then food would definitely be considered art. I personally don’t think that just because food stimulates more senses than a painting, or a sculpture it is more artistic but that is just my opinion. I believe that it is up to each individual to define what art means to them. For me, art is something that stays with me after I view it and encourages thought. Although a good pasta dish may be extremely stimulating, once it is gone it is likely to be forgotten. It most certainly doesn’t inspire thought or change the way that a painting, or a drawing has the potential to do for me.