Monthly Archives: April 2015

Food Article:

This is an article about a technique used at a restaurant to test how the food would be received based on different presentations, including recreating art through the placement of ingredients on a plate. What the study realized is that based on the presentation, the diners would be more receptive of the food and willing to pay more for the same food. Food was presented in a dark room, on white sheets, and with a single light shining on the plate. There were 3 variations used of the same ingredients for a salad, all prepared the same way, but presented in different ways. When the food was presented as a recreation of a piece of artwork by Kadinsky it was considered to not only be worth more, but also considered to look and taste better than when it was not presented in this way.

The article brings up a good point about not only the intention of the art work, but also how food can be recreated in a way that is both aesthetically pleasing as well as pleasing artistically. The food was created so that way it was good to look at as well as to eat. I think that this is an important point when thinking about food as art. While not all food is created in this way, there are connections between the two worlds. For example in the Telfer reading the concept of intention was brought up. In the reading, it stated, “There are, however, objects such as ethnological objects, or religious buildings, which were not intended by their makers as works of art but which are now treated as such” (Telfer pg. 12 2002). This brings up an important aspect of the art world, and that is the intention of the creator versus the reception of the audience.

Defining art is a complicated process that has changed dramatically over time and across cultures. Looking at food as art now is a process that is undergoing this defining moment. While there are many who think that food is not art in the institutional sense, there are other factors that come into action in this discussion. As Telfer noted the intention of the artist can at times be irrelevant to the reception of the piece as art or not. Looking at the article for reference, the idea of food as art is put into a deeper understanding. The visitors to this restaurant saw the food as art, or at least as aesthetically pleasing, and they were more appreciative of that food because of this connection. While it may not always be the intention of the cook to make art, though in the case of the article it was, the results may lead the viewer, or eater in this case, to make their own decisions. By eliminating the possibility that food can be art the world is taking away the ability for individuals to make their own choices. While food may not be the traditional idea of art as has been theorized for the past century or so, there is also the fact that this definition has gone through many stages of growth over that time, and accepting food as art is one more juncture that needs to be passed.

At the same time there is a valid argument about the inclusion of all food as art. While intention is not always definitive of how it is received, intention is still important. Once again from Telfer, “Some commentators draw the distinction on the basis of the purpose to which the artefact is to be put: if it is intended for contemplation it is a work of art, if for use it is a work of craftsmanship” (pg. 15 2002). In the case of the original article, the food was intended for both situations. In one the food was presented as art, and in the other it was simply presented as food. By doing this the restaurant was making a conscious choice between the two worlds. I think that when food is created as art, it should be treated as such. While some may argue that food does not have the same lasting value as other forms of art, to me food is like music. There is a specific guideline for what to do with the pieces, the music sheet versus the recipe, but in the end the skill of the artist is the change that can occur. Food has the unique ability to play on almost all our sense, and in doing so it is capable of bringing out a strong emotional response. If art is the ability to recreate emotion in the world using objects of everyday life, then it stands to reason that food should be categorized in this same way.

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.

I do feel that food is art. I think so because of the fact that it takes a certain level of skill to make food, and the more skilled a person is the better of an artist that they are. When I first thought of this I thought that food is not art for the fact that anyone can do it. Opening a can of soup and putting it onto the stove, or microwave if you are in a hurry, is technically cooking food. But then again, finger painting is technically painting as well. When I dip my fingers into green, red and blue and throw them onto a piece of paper that is not the same as Jackson Pollock creating his work, though depending on how you feel about his work it could be similar. If find the same to be true of food. While microwaving soup is technically cooking, it is not the same level as a world class chef making a great soup, and no matter what I do, I most likely never will be able to replicate the abilities of that level. It is something that is given through genetics, and while through training I can become better, I will never reach the levels of those world class chefs. This is the same with art, I can practice with a brush, but being able to paint a masterpiece is more than just paint and brushes. The readings introduced to me a bold idea, which was, “Not all objects that can give rise to aesthetic reactions are works of art” (Telfer 12). If this is true then it would also stand to reason that not all art needs to be aesthetically pleasing. This is why I do think food is art.

If I had to categorize the type of art, I would think of it like the Greeks did. The word techne explained the concept of art as a craft, and not limited to only what we think of as art now. As it was stated, “It meant ‘having a correct understanding of the principles involved,’ rather as we understand the ‘art’ of salmon cookery or of motorcycle maintenance” (Dissanayake 16). While Dissanayake here states art in a way that demonstrates skill, I think that this is the best way of describing the act of creating food, and how it is in fact art.

The point that truly made me think about art the most this week came from the TED talk. I do want to point out that I always love the TED talks, as they give new perspectives of the world from some of the most interesting people. As to this specific TED talk the point that surprised me the most was the idea that there is an ideal image of the world, the one where the artist point out certain aspects of the landscape that were considered beautiful from people all over the world, even if their environment did not contain any of the pieces that were in the picture. This was an intriguing aspect to me, because I think that the evolutionary drive that is in all animals, including humans, gives us a sense of what it is that we are looking for in a place to live. The image contained the water, trees, grass land and in the distance some place of water that is inviting. When I thought of this, I wondered if this will eventually begin to change as we evolve as a species, or if this is so tied into our genetics that it will be thousands of years before this ideal is gone.

While part of the idea most likely is tied to the disparity between societies around the world, even for the most advanced this image should still be considered beautiful. It is clear that the image provides the environment where life would be beneficial to tribal life, or early forms of human life. With an evolving sense of human life, this image seems more nostalgic for some societies, and because of that I wonder if in 50 years from now that view of the world will not hold that same level of beauty. It could be possible that the agreed upon beauty would come from life in cities, and having clean streets, lined with trees and beautiful sunlight. The view of the world needing to be the natural look from that image seems to be tied to our survival instincts, so if those continue to change, would the view of a beautiful world change, and what would that mean for the natural scene depicted there?