In Crystal Neely’s article “The Significance of Food in Culture: Is Taste an Art Form”, she encompasses many of the questions and objections surrounding the argument that food should not be labeled as a legitimate form of art.  Neely does an incredible job structuring this argument and by responding to those arguments with her theory that food is in fact an art form, while at the same time supporting her reasoning with other professionals and philosophical viewpoints.  Neely believes that “food is an important part of everyday life and the emotional role that it plays in informing our reactions to what we eat makes it essential to consider food art just as we would art that is evaluated with any of the other senses” (Neely 1).  She responds to objections such as what actually is the piece of art when food is being considered, or the objection that food is considered functional and art should not be functional at all.  Additionally, the article discusses the idea of aestheticism and how it relates to food, and therefore as a result of the concept of art.

Food has been an integral part of every person’s life since the existence of man.  It is a bare necessity to live and a necessary component for our bodies.  As Dissanayake said in her article “What is Art for?”, “art must be viewed as an internal universal trait of the human species, as normal and natural as language, sex, sociability, aggression, or any other characteristics of human nature” (Dissanayake 1). Over the generations, food has taken on an increasing amount of importance in our culture.  I believe that culture in the late 20^th century and the current 21^st century has redefined food to be a culturally sophisticated component to our every day lives.  However, as author Crystal Nelly points out, food seems to go about unappreciated too often.  If we reflect on what the importance and impact food has on our lives, we would realize that it “reflects our lifestyle, culture, preferences and beliefs” (Neely 1).   Additionally, there are hundreds of thousands of people across our nation that have aesthetic reactions that turn into emotional responses when they come across certain foods.  For example, a specific dish or type of food has the ability to bring back warm and loving memories of family, friends, or loved ones for people who encounter them.  I believe that it is nearly impossible to argue that food does not have this type of ability, and that food does have the power to allow people to experience an aesthetic experience.   In Elizabeth Teller’s article, she states that many philosophers agree that although food and drink can give off aesthetic reactions, they still do not constitute a form of art.  These philosophers believe that a “work of art is ‘an artifact primarily intended for aesthetic consideration’” (Telfer 12).  This statement would make the argument that food is a not a work of art completely invalid.   This also goes against the widely viewed opinion that music is most definitely a work of art.  Music is by no means an ‘artifact’, but it does primarily intend to give off aesthetic experiences.  As culturally integrated as music is, so is food; and, as artistic as music is, so is food.  With how important food is to our lives and how important it has become to our cultural overtime, the aesthetic experiences that it gives off to people exposes itself as a work of art.  Like Neely stated in her article, “art is an object created with intent to give rise to an aesthetic experience and which in some case successfully achieves this objective” (Neely 2).

Both Elizabeth Teller and Crystal Neely go deep into the question of whether or not the recipe or the dish itself is the work of art that we are trying to support and argue.  A dish is duplicated over and over again, whereas the recipe is the hardcopy manual for those dishes.  An objection rises stating that “there is no way for an exact experience to be duplicated thus no way for the art to be reevaluated” (Neely 4).  However, Neely argues with the concept of music once again.  Musical composition is a form of art not from the written notes on the page itself, but the actual performance based on those notes on the page.  However, each musical performance is not identical to one another.  This is the same for a specific dish made over and over again for one single recipe.  I believe that each time you analyze or experience a painting, a piece of a music, or even a sculpture, your experience will never be identical to the last time you experienced it.

In conclusion, there are fundamentally two components to art.  The first of which is aesthetic experiences and human emotion.  Without this, no one would respond to works of art the way they do, and would result in the human species not identifying art for what it is.  Food gives off emotional responses, brings people together in society, and allows us to respond aesthetically to its taste and smell.  The second component is detail orientation.  Without detail, art would not have the aesthetic pleasure that it does without it.  Food falls underneath both of these categories that make it a legitimate form of art.  With its ability to connect with our minds, memories, and emotions, there is no reason to not label food as a form of art.  It’s one of the most needed and desired things in the world.

Bibliography

Neely, Crystal. The Significance of Food in Culture: Is Taste an Art Form? [Online Journal]. Retrieved Jan

30, 2013 from [http://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2007/neely.pdf].

Telfar, Elizabeth. Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates, 2^nd Edition [Online Journal].

Retrieved Jan 30, 2013 from [http://aaablogs.uoregon.edu/aad250-shuette/files/2010/09/3

tefler.pdf].

Over the ages, many philosophers have argued that the concept of food – both in its physical and taste form – is not a fundamental work of art.  Many of them argue that “although food and drink can give rise to aesthetic reactions, they cannot constitute as a work of art” (Telfar 18).  In my personal opinion, I disagree with these philosophers wholeheartedly.  As Telfar explains in her article, there are many forms of art that such philosophers would constitute as art that do not give off aesthetic reaction.  A reaction to a form of art is a subjective emotion; every viewer or consumer of art will react to it in his or her own unique way.  As Dissanayake said in her article “What is Art for?”, “art must be viewed as an internal universal trait of the human species, as normal and natural as language, sex, sociability, aggression, or any other characteristics of human nature” (Dissanayake 1). I believe that Dissanayke’s words directly apply to the argument whether or not food is an art form.  I believe that art should be viewed and is in fact an internal universal trait for all humans.  With that being said, is food not a desire by all human beings?  Is it not a characteristic of the human body to be desired and needed?  As much as a painting on the wall is art, so is the looks and tastes of food.

I believe that the fundamental goal of art is to stimulate or enhance our senses in a variety of ways.  I believe that art is subjectively interpreted by each and every one us through contemplation, analysis, and reflection.  Lastly, I believe that food fits all of these categories that all other art forms do.  Food is on this earth to fundamentally keep us alive, but also to be liked by personal preference, interpreted by individuals for when to eat a particular food throughout the day, and reflect on how good a piece of food was.  D.W. Prall claims the same sense of idea in his own words:

Like all sense presentations, smell and taste can be pleasant to perception, can be dwelt on by contemplation, have specific and interesting character, recognizable and remarkable and objective (Prall 1958: 187).

D.W. Prall’s statement parallels how art affects our senses: sense of presentation, pleasant to perception, contemplation, and interesting character or characteristics.  Since art is and should be a universal trait to the human species, so should food be categorized as a form of art since it is most certainly a universal object to all of us.

1.Paleoanthrosychobiological is a term coined by the author Dissanayake in her article for the purpose to describe her views of art. This term indicates that art is related to human history, cultures and psychology in a very broad way. That is to say art is a universal need for all human beings just “as normal and natural as language, sex, sociability, aggression, or any of the other characteristics of human nature”(Dissanayake 15). Art is related to all human history, reflected from human societies, and need people to have emotional effects to response to it. By beginning with this term in her article, the author can continue describe how Western art was formed and how both modernism and postmodernism related to one concept-human behavior.

2.“Making special” describes one human behavior to make things that “one cares deeply about or activities whose outcome has strong personal significance” (Dissanayake 22). This phrase is related to the author’s view of art as” species-centered”, according to modemism, art is a priority value of human with heightened personal experience. According to postmodemism, art belongs to everyone. Both claims refer art as a natural human behavior and we need to make this behavior “special. This term also relates to human survival that we make things different from ordinary and used in a good way. For instance, human can use language, make tools and join with each other for mutual endeavor for the purpose of human survival. Different from animals, human also can make this special into intelligence, mental complexity, and make a significance in human history than “simply alertness to possible danger”(Dissanayake 22).

3.

One theory of art is from Greek and medieval period. This theory of art indicates that ordinary people’s views of art are different from the art of artists. In addition, art is used to as service of religion. The author indicates that during that period of time, art means “ having a correct understanding of the principles involved” (Dissanayake 17), rather than the ways we think of what “art” is.

One theory of art is modernism, which refers to art as ideology. This theory was brought up around 18-19 century. The theory refers art as “aesthetics”, which indicates principles such as “ taste and beauty that govern all the arts and indeed make them not simply painting or status, but examples of fine art”(Dissanayake 17). Art in the modernism is related to important personal experience of human beings and a supreme value of human nature. Art should be viewed as a universal need of human and “disinterest”, since people all have the chance to view art in a unbiased way.

One theory of art is postmodernism and refers art as interpretation. This theory was prominent around 20th century. This theory challenges the entire “modemist ideology” that art can be the intrinsic of everybody and can be seen anywhere in our daily life. It challenges the aura of religiosity of museum. The theory also indicates that artiest are normal people and without any priority or privilege when viewing objects. Artiest like everybody “interprets art according to their individual and cultural sensibilities”(Dissanayake 20).

Art is a symbol that can be disguised as many things in life.  Music, singing, and dancing are just a few channels of art that are embedded not only in the American culture, but in every culture across the globe.  For centuries, art has been a means to express personal emotions, religious viewpoints, and political force.  It has over time become a common factor in everyone’s lives, whether or not someone doesn’t like art.  Personally, I don’t find interested in paintings, drawings, or any channels of art that are similar to those.  I do however find great interest and pleasure in music.  Whether someone’s interest lies in drawings, paintings, music, or dancing, “art must be viewed as an internal universal trait of the human species, as normal and natural as language, sex, sociability, aggression, or any other characteristics of human nature” (1).

As universal and accepting art may seem today, it was not always the case in previous periods of time.  Modernism in the 18^th century marked a time where artistic understanding only stemmed from the interpretation of scholars.  People who were educated enough in understanding the true value and understanding of art were thought to have ‘disinterest’, where the viewer could appreciate any form of art, regardless of the type and period it came from.  The modernity idea that art could only be appreciated and understood by none other than scholars and the sufficiently educated is in direct opposition to the theory that art is and should be universal.  It bothers me greatly to think that in the 18^th century you had to be a scholar to understand, appreciate, and value the universal form of our own human nature.   This same philosophy spilled into the 20^th century as well, with many people believing that newly developed art forms such as ‘abstract expressionism’ were too difficult to understand without the proper education.  As difficult as art might be to interpret to the naked eye, any interpretation is the right interpretation.  If art is truly the universal language and should be as natural as sociability or aggression, there is no need for proper education or scholarly knowledge to interpret and to enjoy art.  Art is a beauty that comes from the way we interpret and express it ourselves.