Today, I spent an hour to watch people in Starbucks in the morning.  I found three people that interested me a lot.

The first guy was sitting next me. He focused on his own computer doing layout stuff. I noticed there were no drinks and foods on his table, and his computer was not very clean. I could see finger points on the computer screen. He wore a Duck T-shirt and black pant. I didn’t look at his face very clearly because I think it was weird and rude to stare at someone sitting next to me. He had an old backpack that I couldn’t tell what brand it was. He was a student at UO for sure. Also, I guess he is majoring in Journalism or Digital Art because he was doing layout by using Adobe Indesign (I am advertising major). He might not have too much money. As I said, it seemed that he didn’t buy anything in Starbucks. I guess he just needed the free Wi-Fi. I could feel he was in a serious mood from the sound of his typing. He should be very busy to do his schoolwork. Otherwise, he was a kind of lazy person because he rarely cleaned his computer screen.

The second person was an old lady sitting in front of me. I could watch her face very clearly because she was focusing on reading her book. What’s the book’s title? I didn’t saw it, but it was a very small one and easy to carry on. The old lady had a white curly hair. She wore a pair of small glasses. Her face looked very happy and relaxed. Her long dress was dark blue, and her blazer was black. She looked very decent when she read her book. I noticed she didn’t bring a handbag or any other stuff. I think she is a well-educated person from her personal interest to reading. Also, she should have some taste of beauty because I saw her hair style and clothes colors were matched each other nicely.  This lady might not be a very socialized person, and she might like a quite life style. I really wanted to know what book she read. If I knew that, I probably can figure out her cultural background and knowledge level.

The last person was someone out of the box. He was laughing to his friends. I didn’t know what made him so happy. He is a student at UO because I saw his textbook. We are the same major, advertising. But, he looks older than other students. He has a golden curly hair that is longer than normal boys’ hair. Oh, why does he look older? He has mustache. Although he looks older, he is still a fashion guy. I saw he wore earrings and rings. The most interesting part is he has tattoo on both his arms. I have not seen that kind of colorful tattoos before. The tattoos were filled with his whole arms. I believe the person who has tattoos must have his or her own story. In my opinion, tattoo is a symbol of one’s persona. It relates to race, religion, cultural background and personal experience or belief. From his colorful tattoos, I guess he has very unique personal interest relates to art and religion. However, I couldn’t understand the meaning of the shapes and lines on his arms.

What is the difference between eating sandwich in Subway and having appetizer in Michelin? You may say “dressing”. It could be the difference between wearing a T-shirt and a suit; or it could be the taste of appreciating “high culture” and “low culture”. Is food art? Does it represent one’s taste of art? Before reading Elizabeth Telfer’s article “Food As Art”, I simply thought food could be art because I saw many creative artworks were made by foods. For example, there is an article called “16 Awesome Food Ideas”. However, after reading Telfer’s arguments about food and art, I think it is hard and vague to define whether or not food is art. Telfer first helps define what an atheistic reaction is. And then she points out there are two categories, which are the classifying sense and the evaluating sense, to illustrate “a work of art”. In the end of the article, Telfer gives her reasons for “food as a minor art”. First, she states that food cannot represent anything as most literature and much visual art does. Second, food cannot express emotion. Finally, she thinks food cannot move us in the way that music and the other major arts can.

In my pint of view, food in general is not art other than we appreciate it in a particular way. Why do I say generalized food is not art? Try to think about the reason why you go to McDonald and Subway. It’s because of the natural desire of food. The assistant is not an artist that creates an artwork called “6-inch buffalo chicken”. He or she just put what you want to eat together. Food and drink have a primary function – serving for people’s stomachs. As Telfer says, “Perhaps those who say that food should not be treated as art because it is useful are really claiming that abstracting from usefulness is particularly difficult in case of eating and drinking” (19). Also, food does not have sustainability as major arts do. It will not exist even a day. However, if we consider food in a particular way, it can be art. That is to say, on the one hand, food can be an inspiration or a material to create new artworks. On the other hand, if people interpret a dish as art by appreciating its design, smell and taste, then it also can be art. The “particular way” is really depends on the creator of the food and the people who taste it. Overall, I don’t think we can give a specific criterion to define food as art.

In the article “What is Art for”, Dissanayake coined the term “paleoanthropsychobiological”. “Paleoanthropsychobiological” is an adjective that is quite literally stunning. It is associated with human history, human societies and it accounts that “art is a psychological or emotional need and has psychological or emotional” (15).

According to Dissanayake, “make special” means “one cares deeply about or activities whose outcome has strong personal significance” (22). She also points out that “special” is extra-ordinary, and “special” could take on importance that was more than simply alertness to possible danger. It relates to the beginning of a behavior of art. She gives an example of using red color to make special in 250,000 years ago. Also, in hunting society, “behavior made special is as much a part of preparation for the hunt as readying spears or arrows” (23). Art, as a behavior of making special, refers to objects such as paintings, pictures, dances, musical compositions. They are the result of artistic behavior.

Dissanayak identifies several different theories of art throughout western European history. The first theory is “Modernism”. It was developed in 18^th century. Modernism refers to “a special frame of mind for appreciating works of art”, which is a “disinterested” attitude that is separate from one’s own personal interest in the object. The second theory is “Postmodernism”.  It is “a point of view that calls into question two centuries of assumptions about the elite and special nature of art” (19). People can interpret one’s gender, nation, religion, class and profession through art objects. The last one is “Art for life’s sake”, which is her paleoanthropsychobiological view. She thinks art is a universal need and propensity of the human species.

In Ellen Dissanayak’s article “What is art for”, she gives her definition of art, “art must be viewed as an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species, as normal and natural as language, sex, sociability, aggression, or any of the other characteristics of human nature” (15).  As she says, art is associated with any of the characteristics of human nature. It relates to our history, culture and society. Also, she briefly introduces the timeline of Western art. In the section of “Postmodernism: Art as Interpretation”, Dissanayak points out that postmodernists think “Artists, just like everybody else, do not see the world in any singular privileged or objectively truthful way, but rather – like everybody – interpret it according to their individual and cultural sensibilities” (19). It seems that they think art has its own characteristics for different individuals.

“Art is not universal, but conceptually constructed by individuals whose perceptions are necessarily limited and parochial” (19). I agree that individuals’ perceptions are “limited” and “parochial”, but I don’t think art is not universal. As the author mentions in her definition of art, she claims “art must be viewed as an inherent universal trait of human species”. Art cannot be simply considered as an individual thing because it is associated with many aspects around world. For example, people explore history by analyzing paintings in different ages. Otherwise, art can represent culture and religion of a group of people or a region. Therefore, we cannot say it is individual. Instead, I think art is a universal property that can be appreciated by individuals in their own ways. In the article, the author also indicates, “’high’ art is then to the postmodernists view a canon of works that represent the worldview of elite” (19). That is to say, art can be divided into different levels. “High art” represents the ideas and perspectives of elite. Compared with “high art”, there should be “low art” that relates to ordinary people or grassroots. No matter what kind of art is, it is a universal thing that can be interpreted in many different ways.

How do we define value? As the author says, “value is often used loosely, it should be synonymous with personal evaluation and related beliefs, especially personal evaluations and related beliefs about the ‘good’, the ‘just’ and the ‘beautiful,’ personal evaluation and beliefs that propel us to action, to a particular kind of behavior and life” (7). I agree with him that one’s values are based on personal evaluation and related beliefs. Some people may think our values are instinct. However, the author also indicates, “human beings are not primarily driven by genetically determined instincts but are rather free to make their own choices” (7). That is to say, human values can be changed as the development of human being themselves and other conditions such as time, places and interpersonal communication.

If value is not instinct, how does it form? The formation of value can be influenced by our parents. For example, I am very clear about how to distinguish “good” and “evil”. The criteria of judging “good” and “evil” is my personal value. Where does it come from? It comes from my parents. Since I was a little girl, my mom told me Snow White was good, the Queen was bad; my dad told me the angle was good, the demo was evil. Once they told me, I believed and remembered what they said. In the fact, I automatically defaulted the criteria as my value. Of course, some values are changeable when you go to a new place and meet new people. The surroundings will affect one’s values. Four years ago, it was my first time to visit the United States. I defined myself as an “employee”, a “good employee”.  I had never thought I would be a “boss” someday. In other worlds, I don’t want to be a leader in a group because I didn’t want to mess up. Nevertheless, I joined HuaFeng magazine, a Chinese student-run magazine of University of Oregon, in my sophomore year. I was an editor and writer in the first two terms. When I started to learn design and editing stuffs in my J-school classes, I found my potential ability in design. At that time, HuaFeng magazine was looking for an editor in chief that had both editing and design skills, and then I became the new editor in chief. My updated skills and the opportunity pushed me to change my old value and embraced new challenges. I gained very useful experience and improved my communication skills. Therefore, our values are not permanent, and they are developing all the time.