Author: Sam Allred

Person 1

The first person I observed was a young woman, probably in her early twenties, wearing a black North Face jacket and black leggings/tights. She has Ugg style boots on and is wearing minimal make-up. She has no visible piercings or tattoos and there are very little logos or brands on her apparel. She also has no jewelry on aside from a single necklace around her neck. Her hair is pulled into a ponytail. She is carrying a large backpack that is extremely full.

 

I think that this woman probably is fairly conservative in the sense that she does not appear to be very expressive. I feel this way because of the lack of jewelry and branding. Her conservative appearance also makes me feel that she is probably studying a practical subject rather than liberal arts. The utility and athletic nature of her clothes makes me believe that she is athletic and exercises regularly. Based on the size of her pack-back and relatively serious demeanor I think she is a good student who takes her classes seriously.

 

Person 2

The second person I observed was a young man who I also think is in his early twenties. He is wearing a light, loose fitting blue sweatshirt with USA Olympic logos and the USA flag on it. He is also wearing black and white Nike athletic shorts and grey vans. He has no visible tattoos, piercings, jewelry, or make-up. He was standing next to the woman I previously observed. He had a very short buzz cut. All of his hair was very close in length. His backpack was relatively light and empty.

 

I think the young man has a relaxed demeanor because his is wearing loose fitting athletic clothes with casual shoes. I believe that he is more concerned with being comfortable rather than having a trendy or attractive appearance. I don’t think he is a very serious student because he does not appear to be carrying any books or anything heavy in his backpack. Similar to the woman, I think he is very conservative because some people would describe his appearance as bland. I think he probably comes from a conservative, republican, and Christian home. He is probably fairly patriotic.

 

Person 3

The third person I observed was a man that was likely in his mid thirties. He had a short buzz haircut, a single black hoop earring in each ear, and glasses on. He had three days worth of unshaven facial hair. He was wearing a green jacket, a black polo, black jeans, and black shoes. The green jacket he was wearing had a logo for a veterinary hospital and he appeared to have animal hair on his pants. The shoes appear to be designed for comfort rather than appearance. He has a wedding band on his left ring finger. The wedding band is a plain gold band. He had no visible tattoos.

 

I think this man probably worked at a veterinary hospital based on the hair on his jeans and the jacket he was wearing. He probably dresses for comfort more than appearance because he chose comfortable shoes and pants rather than more formal dress shoes and slacks. This also makes me think he is fairly laid back and humble. I think he is probably married because of the ring he is wearing. His ring is very traditional so I think he is probably fairly conservative and traditional and probably comes from a family with similar values.

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

 

Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

 

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.

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.

Dissanayake coined the term paleoanthropsychobiological in her piece about Art. It means that art exists in all of human history (paleo), societies/cultures (antho) and is emotionally and physically (psycho/biological) necessary for human life. Dissanayake also uses the phrase, “making special”, in her discussion of art. She uses the phrase to explain that humans use art to convey importance or values such that art is the process of “making special”. She argued that “making special” was part of a human need to express the importance of individual and societal values to such an extent that it was a fundamental part of life.

 

In her piece on art, Dissanayake identifies several periods of art with different theories and understandings. The medieval times, from the 5^th to the 15^th century, was a period in which most art was rooted in religion. During this period art was a service and expression of religion. Art was evaluated more on its divine content than the aesthetic nature of its appearance. 18^th century modernism viewed art as its own universal ideology more concerned with the “…taste and beauty that goven all the arts and indeed make them not simply paintings or statues but examples of (fine) art” (p. 3). Finally, postmodernism became prominent in the late 1900’s. This movement evaluated art beyond its appearance and considered the perspective and intention of the artist. Dissanayake wrote that, “artists, just like everybody else, do not see the world in any singularly privileged or objectively truthful way, but rather – like everybody- interpret it according to their individual and cultural sensibilities” (p. 5).

Ellen Dissanayake explores the ever-changing meaning of art through history and explains her “paleoanthropsychobiological” view of art. She points out that art was originally an expression of importance, or as she puts it, “…making special…” and  “transform the ordinary into the extra-ordinary” (p. 10). Dissanayake explains that in some ways art has become a dictatorship lead by a collection of individuals that interpret the meaning of art (often incorrectly) and deem what is and is not art.

 

Of all the points Dissanayake brought up in her piece, I believe the idea that art has become overly dependent on critics is the most interesting. During my time as a student I have often heard the phrase that you cannot grade art, yet that is exactly what we as a society enable a select few to do. According to Dissanayake, art is the action of expressing importance or specialness. How can someone else tell another individual, society, or culture what is or is not important to them? An individual’s values dictate what is important to him/her. Art is a means of expressing what is important or deeming something to be special. In many ways this expression can be shared with those close to you or with similar beliefs and values. However, I believe that Dissanayake failed to point out that art is also inherently personal because of what it reveals about the artist. It reveals the artist’s values.

 

I think Dissanayake definition of art is a much more holistic interpretation. She explains that art is essential to human survival or “art for life’s sake” (p. 4). We read earlier in the term that it is impossible to live a full life without values. Values dictate what is important and what individuals “make special” through art. Therefore art is essential to survival, or in this case, a full life.

Family

Friendship

Enjoyment

Loyalty

Integrity

—

Security

Health

Personal Accomplishment

Personal Development

Leadership

Independence

Wisdom

Community

Wealth

Expertness

Prestige

Power

Service

Location

Creativity

 

My top five values are family, friendship, enjoyment, loyalty, and integrity. My typically actions on a daily basis are relatively in line with my top five values. I value integrity and loyalty in the people around me and in myself more than any other characteristic. I strive to make sure the company I keep has those qualities everyday.  During the school year I am away from my family but I have grown really close to my two older brothers in recent years. I should call my parents and sister more often so that my daily actions would be more consistent with my values. Lastly, more than any of my other values I should spend more time cultivating my friendships than I currently do on a daily basis. I live with my long-time girlfriend and because I love spending so much time with I spend a lot less time with friends than I used to.

 

I believe that people’s beliefs are more a result of nurture than nature, and so I believe I “inherited” (learned) a lot of my belief patterns from my family. I was raised in a religious family and so a lot of religious values were instilled in me. I am no longer religious but a lot of those same values and beliefs influence me still today. I am fortunate enough that I do not have any particular goals that I have yet to achieve. Most of the things I have set my mind to I have been able to accomplish. My next goal that I am working towards is to become a homeowner after I graduate.