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.