Month: April 2014

In the high class world there is a desire and a need to be the best at certain things. For many years that need was fulfilled with art or music. The art world became a realm where the high class snobs could one up each other in their abilities to be superior to others. In the past decade that focus has shifted into a new realm. The new realm of superiority and being a snob is in the food world. High class people now try to compete with one another in their knowledge and understanding of food. The overtaking of art by food has hurt the cultural society of America, and the younger generations have forgotten how to appreciate what is truly unique about high culture and how art fits into that world.

In this week’s readings we were asked to think differently about the world of food. We were forced to face the limits of what high art can be and challenge the common thinking of what makes art so unique. In the readings Elizabeth Telfer wants us to think about how art is unique and then to see if we can qualify food in those same terms. According to Telfer food is art in that, “People sometimes treat them as works of art, and I have argued that we can compare the creator of a recipe to a composer, and the cook who follows one to a performer” (p. 18). It is this idea of food and art that Telfer argues makes food a high class form of art. By creating this food the cook is either becoming an artist, or they are following a recipe like a performer of a dance would follow the plan of a choreographer. If we are to categorize these people all as artists, and their work as art, then we must do the same for people in the food world that are creating unique pieces that can either be unique or recreated many times. But, there is an argument that this is just a simple way of thinking of food which is stated by William Deresiewicz.

In the article “A Matter of Taste”, Deresiewicz argues that the current trend of food appreciation is not an extension of the art world, but instead is a poor substitution. Deresiewicz looks at the current trend of high class food appreciation and does not see art appreciation but instead a world that is devoid of art. Deresiewicz argues that food cannot be art in the sense that he grew up in because food does not have the range that art does. “Food is highly developed as a system of sensations, extremely crude as a system of symbols” (Deresiewicz). In this explation of what it means that food is not art there is then raise another question of just what exactly it means to be art. It is almost as if Deresiewicz is arguing against the ideas the Telfer put forth. Deresiewicz does concede that there is some level of food that is similar to art. “Many try their hands at it as amateurs — the weekend chef is what the Sunday painter used to be — while avowing their respect for the professionals and their veneration for the geniuses” (Deresiewicz). This understanding of the importance food has taken in some peoples’ lives points to the idea that in fact food is an extension of art, but not one that is generally realized in the historic sense.

Food as art is a highly complex problem. The main thing that it calls into question is the identity of art and at what point we can all agree that art begins and ends. It is clear that there is no definite answer to the problem at hand. In one case Telfer is arguing that in the definition of art there is room for food. On the other hand Deresiewicz is arguing that the traditional meaning of art does not fit the realm of food. It is then up to us as the audience to question whether or not the traditional sense of art is the actual definition. At what point in time did art become “art” and when where the boundaries decided upon? If there are ever changing lines in which art fits then there is a great chance that food will fall into those lines. If we are stuck in the idea that only what those in power decide is art then food may not have a place. But, if we decide that there are limits on what can be considered art then there is a chance we will lose out on great experiences in the future.

Telfer, E. (2002). Food as art. In Neill, A. & Ridley, A (Eds.), Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2 ed., pp. 9-27). New York: Routledge.

Deresiewicz, William. “A Matter of Taste?” NewYorkTimes.com. New York Times. Oct. 26, 2012. Web.

I myself do feel that food can be art. There are limitations to this fact in my mind. There are sometimes that food is just something that is needed and not something that is aesthetic. I agree that the idea of art is to be aesthetic and by that it is to be taken as something outside of an appreciation for normal means. “Aesthetic judgments can be made in the absence of the non-neutral reaction which normally accompanies them” (Telfer). This means that we can find something to be aesthetically good in any scenario. This is not always the case of food, but in the case of food there is an aesthetic joy that comes from food. It goes beyond the idea of simply enjoying what is seen on a plate as nourishment, and seeing it as the combination of artistic talents that are needed to create the food. Especially for anyone who has tried to cook gourmet food, the amount of artistic presentation is just as important to the piece as is the nourishment or flavor.

I think that food as art is a perfect form of art in the medieval sense of the word. Dissanayake talks about the word “techne” and how it refers to activities that require a certain level of skill. Dissanyake argues that these mundane actions are not what we would consider art today, but I disagree with this interpretation. It is exactly that skill that is put into the work that makes food art. Not every piece of food is art, but there are aesthetic parts to all the ingredients and in certain forms the presentation is more complex than some of the great works of “art” in the world. In its highest form cooking and food preparation is one of the highest forms of true art in my mind.

The term palenoanthropsychobiological was coined by Ellen Dissanayake. The term was created to show the many facets of art. The first part refers to the fact that art covers all of human history all the way back to the earliest art pieces. The second section is to detail the fact that art is not limited to one section of the world, but instead covers all cultures. The third and final sections are to cover the emotional and physical nature by which art connects with the audience. This is a great term that was created to encompass the entirety of the ideas of art within one study. In the reading Dissanayake uses the term “make special” when referring to how humans and all other species have a tendency to realize a difference from the ordinary. This term refers to the art world because it is precisely that need to make something special that art was created. To make something standout and be noticed is what art has come to be. In the history of human evolution the term refers to our ability to realize what is different from the ordinary. It is this ability that is one of the first lines of self defense. If we can spot something out of the ordinary we are better able to be prepared for it.

One of the periods of art that was discussed in the reading was modernism. Modernism began in the 18^th century and lasted through that time. This art was created to be different from art of the past. It was created to be something different from what the world around it was. According to Dissanayake, modernism “The work of art became a world-in-itself, made solely or primarily as an occasion for this kind of detached aesthetic experience”. In this Dissanayake is explaining the fact that this art was created to be not attached to the traditional ideas of art, but was instead created only to fit this new style. One other period of art came during medieval times and was Renaissance art. This art changed one major role of the subject, which was no longer were mythical figures the subject but humans. “Renaissance artists replaced God-centered with man-centered concerns, but their work continued to portray the recognizable world” (Dissanayake). In this the author is stating that the focus of the art shifted from the outside world to the real world yet still held true to the romanticized ideas of that world. The final period discussed was post modern styling. This style was more based on the world of art and interpretation instead of aesthetics. A new need for art to be explained to the audience developed which has changed the idea of art even more.

I was not born in the United States so I have knowledge of the western world viewing it from a different perspective. When I read this week’s article it was interesting to think that not only did art take a transition from a divine style into the more modern style that is seen today, and this only happened over the last few centuries, but also that there was such a different movement of art outside of the western world. When I first read the line, “Indeed, one of the major insights to come from my studies was just how peculiar our Western concept of art is” (Dissanayake), I thought about how my own cultural view of art is so much different from that of the Western world. As I was reading I began to think more and more about how art is thought of in China and other places around the world that are not in the “Western” style of the world.

The main question that I came to mind as I was reading was, is this transition a natural occurrence or is it something that was specific to the Western world? As I kept reading the concept of divinity and the transition into the modern way of thinking kept coming up. When I though deeper about the idea I realized that divinity could be restated as spiritual. When I continued to think of this in that sense then I began to think back on the historic art of not only my home, but others that I had seen around the world. From this I realized that the spirit world being represented in art transitions into the modern world in coordination with the economic realm. This transition can be seen in many nations that have developed a more modern economy. It is interesting to think just how much influence there is the art world from elements of society.

In the readings this week the author H. Lewis talks about how the idea of values is not driven by genetics. This was a thought that really troubled me at the beginning. When I first read that section I thought about the fact that many people get their values from the way that they are raised and from their parents. I for one was taught that in order to be successful I would need to work hard. In my family going back four generations there is a small business, a local store that is run by my parents. This store has been there for many years and it has always been tended to and run by the father of the family. As the years went on it was passed down from father to son. From this we learned that hard work was important from a very young age. This was my first interpretation of the concept of genetics contributing to my values. If I had not been born into that family then I would not have had that experience that shaped what I think of as values. Then as I continued to think about this concept I realized that it is not the genetic connection I have with my family that shaped the values, that is just one part that lead me to the values. There are people born into the world that are adopted, and their life would then be shaped by the culture around them and not that of the biological connection. I was at first confused by the idea that genetics do not play a role in values, but then I read the section that stated, “The proposition that individual human beings are programmed into their values, either by the influence of genes on personality or by social pressures, can neither by proven nor refuted” (Lewis). In this statement it calls into question both the genetic question and that of mine which is whether or not the family can shape the values. But, this statement helped to reassure me that there is a chance that not only can genetics be part of values so can social elements.

http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2014/4/5/5585692/timbers-vs-sounders-2014-mls-review

I have always been a huge sports fan and my favorite by far is soccer. It is such a popular game around the world, but it just does not have the same following here in the United States, but luckily here in Oregon and the surrounding area the feeling is a bit different. In this blog on SB Nation the author did an amazing job of capturing the pure emotion that comes from these types of games. The heated rivalry that is occurring between Portland and Seattle is great for the sport and in this blog you can see why. The author does very well to explain the subtle emotional swings that happened during the game and the words he uses allows the reader to feel like they were there in the stands, or even better feel like they were on the field with the teams.