AAD 250: Art & Human Values

In his op-ed to the New York Times, Deresiewicz argues that food has not led to art, but that food has replaced art. He asserts that “foodism” has taken on the sociological characteristics of what used to be known as culture: it is costly and requires knowledge and connoisseurship, which are costly to develop. He sees “foodies” as an elitist bunch that compete with each other through their knowledge of food, also claiming that “food now expresses the symbolic values and absorbs the spiritual energies of the educated class”. Despite this, Deresiewicz is quite clear about the fact that food is NOT art: “it is not narrative or representational, does not organize and express emotion”. Dereseiwicz acknowledges the central focus of food in French and Italian cultures, but believes that Americans revere food in a way that is a disadvantage to traditional art.

Although Dereseiwicz agrees that both food and art begin by addressing the senses, he argues that food stops there. He believes that “meals can evoke emotions, but only very roughly and generally, and only within a very limited range – comfort, delight, perhaps nostalgia, but not anger, say, or sorrow, or a thousand other things”. While I do agree that it would be difficult for a meal to evoke emotions like anger from the person eating, I believe that a meal can communicate many more responses than comfort, delight, and nostalgia. A meal eaten during a certain time period by a certain group of people can show many things; while a simple meal eaten by peasants delivered little more than the sustenance required to perform manual labor, comparing this to an upper-class feast demonstrates the enormous difference in the lifestyle of the two groups. The difference between the peasant meal and the meal consumed by the nobility in this example could be likened to Telfer’s definition of an aesthetic reaction, “which may be characterized as non-neutral, non-instrumental, having a certain intensity and often accompanied by judgments for which the judgers claim a kind of objectivity” (Telfer p. 11). Seeing that most would fail to see the most basic of meals to be a form of artistic expression, the aesthetic reaction experienced by eating the upper-class meal demonstrates the potential for food to evoke emotional reactions. Dereseiwitz argues that food will not give you an “insight into other people, allow you to see the world in a new way, or force you to take an inventory of your soul”. However, by looking at food in the context of its place in time and in the world, it is quite reasonable to believe that food can provide these things to a degree. If an individual from a country like ours were to temporarily adopt a diet like one eaten in Sub-Saharan Africa, I believe that they would be given an insight into other people, see the world in a new way, and to evaluate the things they take for granted. For these reasons I believe that Dereseiwicz is incorrect in his assessment that food is not art, primarily due to the fact that he fails to view food in the correct context by only comparing it to pieces of fine art created during or after the Renaissance.

Dereseiwicz seems to approach art in a manner similar to those of the Modernist movement, who believed that art should be judged by an elite few that supposedly had the authority to define art for the population as a whole. This limits his argument in that he sees the evolution of art in a series of clear, well-defined stages. He argues that aestheticism took the place of Christianity around the turn of the 20^th century, and that foodism took the place of aestheticism around the turn of the 21^st century. After reading Dissanayake’s argument it should be clear to us that art is far more complex than these simplified stages of evolution, and that one who fails to realize this has a very narrow view of what constitutes as art. Because of this, I reject Deresiewicz’ argument that food has ‘replaced’ art. Instead, I believe that the idea of food as art is simply an expansion of the definition of art, offering yet another medium of artistic expression. Although I reject his main argument that food is NOT art, Dereseiwicz is correct in calling food crudely developed as a set of symbols. This was brought up by Telfer, calling food a ‘minor’ art because it is “necessarily transient, it cannot have meaning, and it cannot move us”. Food lacks the permanence that a statue or painting has, but can be replicated to a degree. Food can give insight on a group’s way of life, as I mentioned in an earlier example. Food can move us in some ways, but it is hard to argue that an old family recipe moves us more than an exceptional work of architecture. Although Deresiewicz brings up good points, I fail to accept that food is not art. Instead, I believe that food could be considered a minor art as described by Telfer.

Citation:
Deresiewicz, William (2012). A Matter of Taste? (n.d) Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html

Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote addresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Tefler, E. (2002). Food as Art. In Neill, A. & Riley, A. (eds.) Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2nd ed., Chap. 2). New York, NY: Routledge.

Because food and drink are so essential to our survival, many fail to appreciate them as a form of art. However, it should be obvious that food can serve a greater purpose than simple nourishment. “We can distinguish liking the taste and smell of food from approving of it instrumentally on the grounds that is nourishing, fashionable or produced by politically respectable regimes” (Telfer, p., 11). In other words, food oftentimes produces an aesthetic reaction separate from the knowledge that after eating it, one should expect their appetite to be satisfied. Telfer describes an aesthetic reaction as one that is “non-neutral, non-instrumental, having a certain intensity and often accompanied by judgments for which the judgers claim a kind of objectivity” (Telfer, p. 11).

I believe that food should certainly be viewed as an art. While some argue otherwise on the grounds that food’s main purpose is not to produce an aesthetic reaction, the fact that people are willing to pay a premium for higher quality food demonstrates that food serves many more purposes than simple biological necessity. It can be argued that cooking is a craft (carrying out instruction, following a convention or employing a technique), rather than art (an original creation). The distinction between the two is unclear, as the act of cooking requires very different degrees of autonomy. While fast food is intended to be produced in a uniform manner that prohibits any artistic expression from the cook, a good cook is able to interpret recipes and processes in a way that makes each dish unique. Although it is easier to argue that a cook at a high quality restaurant is an artist, even the least autonomous cook has to use personal judgment when dealing with ingredients of varying quality and improvising when the instructions cannot be followed exactly. The reason that the demand for high quality food exists can be explained by Dissanayake’s assertion that humans have a need to make things special; “via art, experience is heightened, elevated, made more memorable and significant” (Dissanayake p. 10). Because food is a form of art, many are willing to pay a premium for food produced by an artist that has ‘made special’ out of what is otherwise mundane.

Citation:
Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote addresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Tefler, E. (2002). Food as Art. In Neill, A. & Riley, A. (eds.) Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2nd ed., Chap. 2). New York, NY: Routledge.

Question 1: Describe the term paleoanthropsychobiological. Who coined this term?

Ellen Dissanayake coined the term palaeoanthropsychobiological. It describes a unique perspective that challenges the Western idea of art, which fails to see the artistic nature of many human actions. This perspective sees that the idea of art encompasses all of human history, includes all human societies, and that art is a psychological or emotional necessity than has psychological or emotional effects. Dissanayake believes that to truly understand the idea of art and to include all of these intertwined processes, it must be viewed as an inherent or biological trait of the human species.

Question 2: What does Dissanayake mean by the phrase “making special”? How does it relate to art and to human survival?

Although all animals can see the difference between ordinary and extraordinary occurrences, humans are unique in that we consciously seek to transform the ordinary into extraordinary. A normal human characteristic is “the behavior or propensity to ‘make special,’ particularly things that one cares deeply about or activities whose outcome has strong personal significance”. Dissanayake asserts that the emergence of this behavior marks the beginning of art, much earlier than is commonly believed. To make something special demonstrates control over that object or action, which was necessary to the performance of ritual ceremonies (commonly believed to be the beginning of art). Dissanayake states that works of art are the result of “making special”, which causes experience to be heightened or elevated, and to be more memorable and significant. Through use of what we consider to be the arts, the importance of certain objects/actions are manifested, reinforced, and shared.

Question 3: Dissanayake identifies many different theories/movement/periods of art throughout western european history. Name three different theories of art that Dissanayake mentions in her essay. Identify the time period when each theory developed and was prominent. Provide a brief description of the philosophies and ideas that define each theory/movement/period of art. Support your answer with quotes from the reading.

“The Romantic Rebellion” was a response to the substantial changes in society brought by the Renaissance, marked by the increasing importance of individuals instead of the divine. Science and technology changed society dramatically, breaking feudal ties and encouraging dissent. Individuals became unsure of their place in the world and became alienated from their work and from other people. “It became necessary to please the public – multiform, faceless, swayed as today by hype and novelty – in what was to become an art market” (Dissanayake, 1991, p3). The market structure that required intermediaries like private dealers and galleries gave birth to what we now call Modernism. Concerned with aesthetics, viewers would judge works of art based on their own tastes and idea of beauty. They believed that art could be appreciated whether the meaning was understood or not, providing a special sort of knowledge. Since everyone did not possess this knowledge, Modernists who claimed to understand art essentially interpreted it to the general public. According to Dissanayake, “implicit in this account is a recognition that what is said (or written) about a work is not only necessary to its being art, but is indeed perhaps more important than the work itself” (Dissanayake, 1991, p5). Postmodernists found that “Modernist aesthetics masked chauvinistic, authoritarian, and repressive attitudes towards uneducated, non-Establishment and non-Western people, and towards women” (Dissanayake, 1991, p6). Postmodernists believed that art should belong to everyone, and demonstrated this idea in with pieces that the author described as “puzzling, if not shocking and offensive” (Dissanayake, 1991, p5). They promoted the idea that anyone was capable of producing art, and any piece could be appreciated if interpreted correctly. It’s easy to see why it could be argued that this was not an improvement over Modernism. Though many works of questionable quality were a result of postmodernism, this era was an important step in the democratization of artistic expression.

Citation:
Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

In this reading, Dissanayake outlines the progression of art from the beginning of human expression into postmodernism. In primitive societies, art acted as “a galvanizer of group oneheartedness, art-conjoined-with-ritual is essential to group survival – quite literally art for life’s sake” (Dissanayake, 1991, p. 7). Examples often involve hunting, reproduction, and survival in general. Early expressions of art demonstrated a human desire to make otherwise mundane activities or objects “special”. This made basic tasks more pleasurable to perform, promoted emotional bonding, standardized the task, and helped give early humans a sense of control over the outcome of the activity.

As art has changed over time, it has served many purposes. At a time, art was made to replicate nature and the things around us. As any objective observer could see what was being expressed, more abstract forms of art served a way for those at a higher place in society to demonstrate their knowledge of what constitutes as art. Postmodernism has attempted to break down barriers between the “statuses” of art, instead looking objectively at a piece attempting to determine the historical, cultural, economic, and philosophical context of a piece of art. Dissanayake (1991) urges us to adopt a “species-centered” view of art, which “allows us to better appreciate the continuity of ourselves and our artmaking with nature” (p. 11). Since the beginning of our species, art has been a necessary expression of our higher understanding of our place in the world. Instead of dismissing a piece of art for failing to appeal to our own definition of “artistic”, a defining characteristic of the human race is that we are able to look objectively at the work of another individual, culture, or group to determine the context of their form of expression. This has lifted the elitist idea of art found in the modernist movement, and has made it an accessible form of expression for all.

Citation:
Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

I believe that I inherited almost all of my values from my family. Values that I believe I came to value on my own are those of leadership. I am a first generation college student, therefore when coming to college I had no idea what to expect. In addition to my studies, I found passion in leadership activities. I am a member of Kappa Delta Sorority, where I served on the Executive Board for two years. I also served on the University Senate. I enjoy leadership activities because they help my personal growth, while building my independence. My family helped me build integrity in everything that I do, as well as the importance of loyalty.

Today, I went grocery shopping – which represents my independence. I enjoy being able to do things on my own, while providing for myself. My independence is something that is very important to me. After running errands, I spent the rest of the day watching football with family and working on homework. I enjoy being able to spend time with family, because it is something that in a busy life can be hard to find time to do. In working on and completing my homework, I had a great sense of personal accomplishment. I love being able to go to bed knowing that I accomplished a great deal throughout the day.

If values are freely chosen personal evaluations and beliefs, how do we arrive at these evaluations and beliefs?

The above question is key in determining where values stem from. Through our learned knowledge we have a list of things we know to be true, for example our eye color. We rely on direct observation, otherwise known as a simple form of sense experience, to believe or know something. Lewis (1990) states that, “there are very few interior mental modes through which we come to “believe” or “know” anything”; however, there are four basic ways we reach knowing or believing something (p. 7).

Sense Experience:
Gaining direct knowledge through our own five senses. We know something to be true because we saw, heard, smelt, or touched it ourselves.

Deductive Logic:
Subjecting beliefs to a variety of tests that underlie deductive reasoning – e.g., consistency. Given the fact that A is true, B must be true, as well, because B follows A.

Emotion:
Feeling that something is right. We know it to be true, because we feel it.

Intuition:
The most powerful, unconscious, part of our higher mental processing capability stems from our intuition. The unconscious mind is much more powerful than the conscious. One may struggle with a certain problem all day, then finally go to bed and wake up the next morning as if awakened with the solution.

In addition to the four interior mental modes, we also rely heavily on two major synthetic mental modes. Combined with the interior mental modes, the two major synthetic mental modes are drawn upon.

Authority:
Due to the fact that we are social beings, we often utilize an indirect mental mode that allows us to rely on someone, or something, else in order to draw a conclusion. We draw this conclusion without having to see, feel, or think about it. In order for an authority to be used, we must accept its validity, by being convinced that the authority is reliable through our sense experience, logic, emotion, or intuition, and trust; we gain faith in the authority of whomever or whatever it may be.

Science:
Science is a more formal synthetic mental mode. Generally, it relies on emotion to give us the energy and motivation to begin investigating something. It relies on sense experience to collect observable facts. Intuition is used to develop a testable hypothesis about the facts. Logic helps develops the test, or experiment, and then sense experience again to complete the test.

These the four basic and two major synthetic mental modes help describe the way in which we approach things, as well as describe how we develop and choose our values. It is not known whether or not these mental modes are complete – they may or may not be.

Citation:
Lewis, H. (1990). A Question of Values: Six Ways We Make the Personal Choices That Shape Our Lives. Axios Press.

While searching for a blog post to review, I came across Technorati’s Top 100 Blogs. The number 19 spot is filled by a water crisis that is occurring in Charleston, West Virginia.

An environmental enforcement boat patrols in front of the chemical spill at Freedom Industries.

One the morning of Thursday January 9th, a chemical spill was detected at Freedom Industries’ storage facility. The storage facility is upstream from a water treatment facility, near Elk River in Charleston. A chemical known as 4-Methylcyclohexane Methanol (MCHM) was detected in the water. MCHM is used for coal production and is known to cause “severe burning in throat, severe eye irritation, non-stop vomiting, trouble breathing or severe skin irritation such as skin blistering.” Once detected, a state of emergency was declared and more than 300,000 people were ordered not to use or consume their water, for anything other than flushing toilets.

In a press conference Friday evening, Freedom Industries President, Gary Southern, could not confirm the amount of chemical that had spilled into the water, nor confirm when the leak began. At this point, the contaminated water cannot be treated and is distributed to a 1,500 mile area. There is no timeline for when the water ban will be lifted, throwing West Virginians into a water crisis.

Empty shelves at a local Foodland between Freedom Industries and American Water.

Local stores have been chaotic, with shelves of bottle water being cleared quickly. Police officials were called in to guard the water delivery at a local Wal-Mart, as well as National Guard overseeing the distribution at the state capitol.

View the stunning article by Kiley Kroh, here.

I believe that this chemical spill and the effect that it is having on the city shows how important it is to have clean water. We are very lucky to live in America, where we have the means to obtain clean drinking water. Other countries are not as lucky, making me very grateful to be able to not have to worry about where I will be getting my next drink of water from.