Is Food Art?
Objectives:
- Examine methods for evaluating qualities of art, such as product versus process, the difference between craft and fine art, must art be archival, and what is an aesthetic reaction
- Explore the notion of food as an art-form
- Consider cultural differences in the production and consumption food
Artifact (original post link):
From an online article “Food can be artistic – but it can never be art” by Jonathan Jones, the author states that food should not disgust customers beyond a certain point, and food is not the food if it does disgust customers beyond the certain point in the article, which means that food should be edible. The article also focuses mainly on the importance of the intention. If the intention of making food is to feed people, food cannot be a work of art. Although the cook makes food to be aesthetic and artistic, it will not be considered as an art. There are several opinions that support the argument “food is not an art”.
Telfer quotes, “There is another possible distinction between art and craft: art is original creation, whereas craft is carrying out an instruction, following a convention or employing a technique (Whittick 1984: 47-52)”, and also says, “for example the architect who designs the church is an artist, whereas the masons and woodcarvers who carry out his instructions are craftsmen.” (Telfer, Page 15) to support the quote. When people make or create a recipe of food, the recipe might be a work of art because the one who makes a recipe is the original creator. But, Jones contradicts the idea of creation by focusing on the intention of creation. Jonathan Jones, the author of the article, says “In reality, even a genius among chefs is obliged to please the customer (and cook to order), which means no chef can claim the freedom of mind that artists won in the Renaissance.” Jones believes that the cooks can make food artistic or aesthetic but they are not true artists because their main purpose is to feed and make their customers satisfied with the food. Telfer says “The classifying sense of the term “work of art”, in the way Urmson uses it, takes the maker’s or exhibitor’s intentions as the criterion for deciding whether something is a work of art or not.” (Telfer, Page 12) This opinion matches with the one of Jonathan. These two different reading and article emphasize the same thing, the importance of the intention.
Telfer says “A meal that claims to be a work of art is too complex and long-drawn-out to be understandable in terms simply of feeding, and a cook who has cooked a work of art is not satisfied if the eaters do not notice what they eat. Such a cook aims to produce a particular kind of pleasure, one which depends upon a discerning appreciation of the flavours and how they combine and succeed one another.” (Telfer, Page 14) to favor the phase “food as art”. Although the cooks aims to produce a particular kind of pleasure, its original intention is to let them know what they are eating, that is, to let people eat. He gives an extreme example of why food cannot be an art. He writes “Caravaggio could paint fruit that looked good enough to be eat but he also painted tortures to turn your stomach: that’s art. Until people go to a restaurant to think about death, cooking won’t be art.” Paint fruit can be definitely viewed as an art; however, people would not consume them because they know the purpose of paint fruit is not to eat. The initial intention of creating paint fruit is just like the paintings on the wall of museum not to eat.
Telfer says “The distinction between the classifying and the evaluative sense of the phrase “work of art” is relevant to food. I shall claim that some dishes clearly constitute works of art in the classifying sense. But I shall also discuss arguments purporting to show that food does not merit aesthetic attention: in other words, that dishes cannot constitute works of art in the evaluative sense.” (Telfer, Page 13) Coming back to the paint fruit, it can be sorted as an art in the classifying sense. But, it is not in the evaluative sense. The recipe can be viewed as a work of art when seeing in the view of classifying sense. The recipe is not the real food but the way of making the food, which is in the rage of classifying sense of art; however, the intention of the recipe is also to feed people not for the purpose of an art.
In conclusion, sorting food as art is controversial, but I am against the phase of “food as art”. Making food inherently intends to feed people, not to have a purpose of being an art. Jones, the author of the article, strongly believes that art should not be considered as an art, and Telfer takes the position of in between. With the view of classifying and evaluative way of sense and the importance of the intention to be an art, food is highly unlikely to be considered as an art.
Reflection:
I never thought that I would see food as art. combining things that I have learned from “What is Art For” discussion, I can tell that I also can give a special meaning to food and think of it as art. Before reviewing things that I have learned with creating this portfolio, I had thought that food can never be an art because food is a thing that relieve my hunger, nothing more. But not everyone thinks it in the same way. Everyone values everything differently.
While I was doing this research on “Is Food Art?” discussion, I was on the side of which that food is not an art. Because Jonathan Jones sees the original purpose of making food is not to be seen as art, but to be eaten by others. Jones says that the original purpose of making food defines whether it is art or not. “In reality, even a genius among chefs is obliged to please the customer (and cook to order), which means no chef can claim the freedom of mind that artists won in the Renaissance.” (Jones 2007) Therefore, he concludes that food is not an art although it gives aesthetic reaction to the eaters. I was totally agreed with him until before creating this portfolio. But by reviewing things that I have done, it changed my mind.
Future goals:
From now, I would try to see food as art, and enjoy them. With the species-centered view, I would give “special” meanings to everything including food also. Before having food, I would find or see what the makers have done, what they have done, and what they wanted us to see from the food so that I can have much enjoyment by having food. Dissanayake states “What artists do, in heir specialized and foten driven way, is an exaggeration of what ordinary people also do, naturally and with enjoyment – transform the ordinary into the extra-ordinary.” (Page 24, Dissanayake)
Click here for the YouTube video link for more information.
Previous Page:What is Art For?
Next Page:Enjoying Horror