In the article I found, “A Matter of Taste” by William Deresiewic, the author talks about how food has become almost religious in America. Furthermore, he goes on to say that not only has food not just become art, but rather it has worked its way so resolutely into our culture that it has replaced art. He states that it used to be that people would go to Ivy League schools to become highly educated and cultured, but now they’re leaning on food and bustling farmer’s markets to express their knowledge and demonstrate their astuteness. He brings up Italy and France, both countries that hold their food in high regard, but unlike here in America, they both hold art in higher esteem and don’t forget to respect it ahead of their food. Deresiewicz gives his argument about why he believes food is not art and I will admit that he does bring up some compelling points. Food cannot evoke all the senses, or make you angry or make you sad. It does not have nearly the impact as other forms of art. He wraps up the article with this line, “Here in America, we are in danger of confusing our palates with our souls.”
Although some of his arguments do have validity, I really don’t agree that food is not art, nor do I believe that we are ‘confusing our palate with our souls’. I do not believe that just because food does not reduce people to tears, nor makes them go off in an angry tirade, that this means food is not art. Deresiewicz went on to say, “A good risotto is a fine thing, but it isn’t going to give you insight into other people, allow you to see the world in a new way, or force you to take inventory of your soul”. I don’t believe all art has to do this to be counted as art. I have many pieces of art in my home from all around the world, only one has ever reduced me to tears and that had more to do with the context of which the piece was given to me in. Does this make them less inferior and not as artful, because I do not find myself weeping at their feet, or screaming at them in a fit of rage? And on the contrary, I actually do believe that new foods actually can see the world through new eyes.
In, “Food as Art” by Elizabeth Tefler, she writes, “Many philosophers argue that although food and drink can give rise to aesthetic reactions, they cannot constitute works of art.” Deresiewicz and what I could be considered, close-minded arguments, must come from this same traditional standpoint. I appreciate that Tefler makes sure to face that head on and goes on to elaborate on the statement where she writes, “Not all objects that can give rise to aesthetics are works of art. A work of art is by definition a man-made thing, even if the human involvement need consist of no more than putting a natural object in a gallery and giving it a title.” I think it really is important to think about what ‘art’ is and not apply such closed boundaries to the definition.
Ellen Dissanayake wrote, “What is Art For?” and in the book, she states, “Art has become if not a religion, an ideology whose principles were articulated by and for the few who had leisure and education enough to acquire them.” It is for this reason that I believe fine dining can fit perfectly into what one thinks about as ‘art’. Regardless of what these authors think, I know that food really is a form of spirituality for me; a form of expression and an ability to put an idea on a flawlessly composed plate. It helps me to show those around me that I care about them and I can give the love a physical embodiment that looks beautiful and sustains their body’s need for nourishment. My brother has always told me that the meals I prepare are the best he has ever had because it is clear that I prepare and cook the entire meal with love. That to me is absolutely art.
Cooking is a form of abstract expressionism and every meal is different for me.
Dissanayake says, “Because these values were not easily apparent to the untutored observer, appreciating art became more than ever an elite activity.” I think we can all agree that fine dining is reserved for special occasions and those that are affluent. Food is, at times, a costly activity. It can be meticulous and it can evoke emotion. It can cause nostalgia and takes thought and intention to create. To me, this constitutes ‘art’, no matter what other authors have to say.
Works Cited:
Deresiewicz, W. (2012, October 26). A Matter of Taste. The New York Times. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html?_r=0
Dissanayake, E. (1988). What is art for?. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Tefler, E., & Ridley, A. (2002). Arguing about art: contemporary philosophical debates (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Leave a Reply