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.
Hi Emily,
I really like your example which says that the difference between eating sandwich in Subway and having appetizer in Michelin. However, at last you write that “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.” Indeed, in fast food restaurant, assistant just put bread and chicken together, anyone could do it. However, everything is like this. For instance, some people could never make a beautiful painting in their whole life, but some could draw some extraordinary paintings, such as Picasso, Van Gogh, and etc. The same fact is on food. When I go to sushi restaurant, sometimes the chef makes some really delicate sushis, and I do not even want to eat them. But sometimes, when the chef gives me the sushis he makes, I think they are rough and uneatable. Then I call the first chef an artiest. In general, what an artiest makes is called art.
—Houzhi Wu
I agree mainly with your point about why we go to subway and or McDonalds, its not for the art. We go to get food. Mostly, we go to every restaurant because we are hungry for food, not to appeal to our aesthetic sense. That is somewhat why I find it hard to say that food in general is art itself. I believe food can be art, but it depends on the display, the presentation or the purpose and if the chef put the special effort into it. There are plenty of examples that exclain food as art such as “Cake Boss” the cake decoration television show. But that man put his aesthetic appeal to work. The fact that food art can be eaten is difficult to grasp as well. Art is for display, for enjoyment. But food is enjoyable as well. But the traditional idea of art is for display and aesthetic appeal, not for eating. According to Dissanayake though aesthetics address,“a concern with elucidating principles such as taste and beauty that govern all arts” (Dissanayake, 17). Food tastes. Overall, art is classified by an individual and anyone call say anything is art in their own opinion, regardless of its intention.