Unit 04

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.

Jonathan Jones (2007, May). Food can be artistic – but it can never be art, The Guardian. Retrieved October 26, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2007/may/17/foodcanbeartisticbutitca

I do not view food as an art because I only consume food to relieve my hunger. In this week’s reading, Elizabeth talks about aesthetic reactions to discuss whether food should be considered as an art. Definitely food give rise us to aesthetic reaction while eating; however, giving an aesthetic reaction does not equal to an art. Telfer says, “Not all objects that can give rise to aesthetic reactions are works of art.” (Page 12) In addition to that, Telfer also says, “One problem is that the phrase “work of art” can be used in either a classifying or an evaluative way. To use it in a classifying way is to say something about how the object is regarded, whereas to use it in an evaluative way is to say something about the extent to which it merits the label “work of art.” (Page 12) In my evaluative way, I do not evaluate food by “work of art”, but by the taste of food. Telfer says, “Because people have to eat them to appreciate them, and because each person necessarily eats a different part of the dish, it might seem that in the sphere of food no one can appreciate a complete work of art, and no two people can appreciate the same one.” (Page 17) Which means that no one can have the exactly same food and evaluate it. Elizabeth also mentions that the intention of creating is important. She says, “Our definition of a work of art, in the classifying sense, was: “a thing intended or used wholly or largely for aesthetic consideration”.” (Page 14) Almost every food that is made by cook has an intention to be consumed by customers, and I see food as something that I consume. I think the theory of art that best represents my opinion is postmodernism. Ellen says “Artists, just like everybody else, do not see the world in any singularly privileged or objectively truthful way, but rather – like everybody – interpret it according to their individual and cultural sensibilities.” (Page 19 from Week 2’s reading) I interpret the intention of making food is to eat not to see it as an art. Therefore, I do not view food as an art.