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 completely.  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.