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.