Category: Unit 4

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.