Food as art is written by Elizabeth Telfer, a famous philosopher who masters the relationship between philosophy and food. In the book named Food as art, Elizabeth makes a deep research on the top which concerned with whether food can be regarded as a work of art. She tends to put forward the question and then try to answer the question step by step instead of answering the question at the beginning. In order to answer the question whether food is art, Elizabeth makes an introduction of the definition of aesthetic reaction. And then she cites Urmson’s definition of art in order to give rise to the discussion of the definition of art. Therefore, she makes a conclusion that only when the food is delicious and man-made, and made with aesthetic consideration by the makers and cooks. Moreover, the aesthetic standard of the society and the intention of the makers should also be taken into consideration when discussing whether food can be considered as a piece of art. The food can be considered as art if the makers want the eaters have a sense of pleasure and the food is so tasty and delicious that the eaters enjoy the food very much.

When I see the topic of discussing whether food can be regarded as art, I cannot help thinking that food must be a piece of art because I enjoy eating very much. But when reading the article named Food as art written by Elizabeth Telfer, I learn to analyze the topic in the view of philosophy. I realize that in order to figure out the question, we need to consider in many factors. However, I feel a little confused the standard which we should use to conclude whether food can be considered as a piece of art. Let’s take fast food as example. We eat fast food all the time because fast food can bring us convince. However, can we that fast food is art. Fast food is made both human being and machines. And it sometimes tastes good. But the intension of the makers is to make the food fast and not wasting too much time, instead of making it in order to make the eaters feel happy. Aesthetic reactions are the species of pleasure to something (Telfer, 2002). That is to say, fast food can not be treated as art because it can not fulfill the requirement of aesthetic consideration. Therefore, fast food can not be considered as art.

Ellen Dissanayake is an American anthropologist, who also makes many research of art. According to his experience of living in many countries for more than ten years, she writes a book named What is art for?, which makes a great contribution to the world’ study on art. According to Ellen Dissanayake, art is about emotion and psychology, which accords with Elizabeth’s idea which thinks that the food which can bring eaters a sense a pleasure can be regarded as art. Moreover, Dissanayake also thinks that art is inherent characteristic of human being which includes society and history (Dissanayake, 1992). Dissanayake thinks that art is concerned with the society and history which also accords with Elizabeth’s idea that art should be conform to the aesthetic standard of the society. However, Dissanayake put forwards the phrase of “making special”, which is the core of the term of Behavior of Art. But Elizabeth does not think that the food which can be considered as art should be special. Elizabeth thinks that the food should smell and taste good but she does not require the food to be special. Elizabeth has said that the food which can be regarded as art is too complex so that it is long-drwan-out to be understandable (Dissanayake, 1992).

As far as I am concerned, I think that sometimes food can be considered as a piece of art but sometimes it can not. I believe that besides the taste, the smell, the society’s aesthetic standard, the history, the intention of the makers, the food which can be considered as a piece of art must be made not only by the hand of the makers, but also by the hearts of the makers. Only when the makers make the food with their hearts, can be food be considered as art, can the food brings the eaters the sense of pleasure. I believe that only when the food can make people happy, can be food be called as a piece of art. There are many kinds of food in the world, but some of the food is used to make people to survive but some is used to make people happy. The enjoyable food should be art.

 

 

References:

Dissanayake, E. (1992). “Art for life’s sake”. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 9/4, 169-178.

Telfer, E. (2002). “Food As Art”. Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philophical Debates. Taylor-Francis e-Library, 17-26.

As far as I am concerned, I believe that food is an art sometimes. In order to make a judgment whether food can be considered as an art, we need to take many factors into consideration. Before we come to the question whether food is art, we need to figure out what aesthetic reactions are. Aesthetic reactions refer to a species of pleasure to something (pg. 10). Meanwhile, we can find objective judgment when we react to something, without entailing whether these things are graceful or beautiful or not. Meanwhile, the definition of work of art is argument. According to Urmson, in order to figure out whether one thing is an work of art, besides man-made stuff, we need to take the exhibitor’s and maker’s intentions into consideration. The opinion of the society should be considered as the criterion of aesthetic consideration as well.

As is known to all, food is made by human being so that it is man-made stuff. Meanwhile, as some food is made and cooked as a work of art by the cook, there is no doubt that these kinds of food can be considered as an art because the cook’s intentions should be taken into consideration when deciding whether a dish should be looked as an art. Moreover, the smell and taste of the food should also be considered as the criterion of an art as well. Only when the food smell and taste good, can the food be considered as an art. However, there is no doubt that the food is not an art if the smell and taste cannot lead to the eaters’ aesthetic reactions. The food is an art if the cook and maker make the food for aesthetic consideration when making the food. If the cook want to make the eaters have the sense of pleasure when eating the food they cook and they succeed, the food can be considered as an art.

According to Ellen Dissanayake, art belongs to the term of emotion and psychology and it is human being’s inherent biological or universal characteristic. We can conclude that only when the man-made stuff which is made to make others have the sense of pleasure and take the aesthetic reactions into consideration, can the stuff be regarded as an art. In order words, only when the food smells and tastes good enough to give rise to people’s sense of pleasure and the cooks look the food as an art and take the eaters’ aesthetic reactions into consideration when cooking, can the food be regarded as an art.