In his article “Food Can Be Artistic – But It Can Never Be Art” in the Huffington Post, Jonathan Jones discusses the differences between the traditional branches of art and food. Jones summarizes his main point in saying, “Chefs are artists – almost. They are not true artists because even the most modern food cannot disgust people beyond a certain point” (Jones, 2007). He goes on to point out the chefs are supposed to please their customers by cooking according to the orders they receive, which means that cooks and chefs do not have the artistic freedom of traditional artists. He closes his article with a interesting comparison, “Caravaggio could paint fruit that looked good enough to eat but he also painted tortures to turn your stomach; that’s art. Until people go to a restaurant to think about death, cooking won’t be art” (Jones, 2007). Susan Smilie responded to this Jones’ article in her own article for the Huffington Post, “Is Food Art?” Smilie expanded on the artistic limitations that chefs face and compared them to other arts. She wrote “They do, of course, care about what the restaurant critics think, but any artistic director, actor or writer who tells you they don’t care similarly about theatre critics is lying…Art, to put it simply is work that moves individuals – it is not up to the experts to decide what constitutes a work of art; the viewer decides” (Smilie, 2007).
I enjoyed reading these articles because the brought up another comparison between food and more traditional art. Jones is pretty clear in his belief that food is not art because chefs are unable to practice total artistic freedom, while Smilie points out that external critics limit many avenues of art including food. I think both Jones and Smilie bring up good points. Some forms of art, such as painting, are not at all limited by what other people think. A painter is free to express himself in anyway that suits him/her by either delighting or disgusting viewers. However, an actor or musician may face more outside critics that guide or direct how they express themselves as artist. I would argue that even the most limited forms of art like music and acting still have relatively more freedom of expression. Viewers do not need to like or enjoy music, acting, or a painting to appreciate its artistic quality. A given piece of art may not even illicit positive feelings or emotions and yet viewers may still appreciate its artistic quality. For example, I hated the music in Le Mis and the movie Black Swan but I can still appreciate the artistic creativity behind each film (I am a bit of a movie buff). Comparatively, if I went to a fine restaurant and hated the way the food tasted, I doubt I would find appreciate the art or creativity that went into it.
Elizabeth Telfer concluded that food is art in “Food as Art”, yet I think some of the points she made agree with the argument Jones made. She wrote that art must have an “…appreciation of a thing for its own sake… (Telfer, 2002)” Food does have utility because of our reliance on it, even fine food, but I believe the more important point is that art can be appreciated for what it is. This point can be expanded to the idea that art can be appreciated for the emotions and stimulation it elicits, whether negative or positive. The same cannot be said about food. People do not appreciate poor tasting food.
Ellen Dissanayake’s most basic view of art is as a means of expression importance, or as she puts it, “…making special…” and “transform the ordinary into the extra-ordinary” (Disssayunake, 1991). Her primary view of art doesn’t necessarily disagree with any of the other authors. However, the degree of freedom to which cooks and chefs are able to make a meal special is fundamentally limited. Cooks and chefs are unable to completely freely cook because they are limited to what customers will enjoy and buy. I would argue that Dissanayake’s definition of art and line of reasoning simply follows a different path. It doesn’t necessarily affirm nor negate the points made by the other authors.
Bibliography
Jones, J. (2007, May 16). Food Can Be Artistic – But It Can Never Be Art. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2007/may/17/foodcanbeartisticbutitca
Smillie, S. (2007, May 24). Is food art?. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2007/may/24/theatreoffood
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.