Person A

This person is not wearing any shoes. That is the first thing that I notice about them. It’s probably because I wouldn’t be caught dead without shoes in a place like the Lillis atrium. He is wearing some capri-length pants, and a t-shirt. He has a messenger bag style pack, with white ear-buds in his ears. His hair is short, nothing remarkable. No piercings or tattoos, as far as I can tell. I feel that his clothing and bodily adornment tell me that he values comfort over perception, in my opinion. It may not be a huge deal, but walking around a crowded building with no shoes is a bit taboo; looks out of place. He seemed to have no problem drawing that kind of attention to himself. I’m guessing he doesn’t worry about things like athlete’s foot, or stepping in dog-poop. His lack of shoes bothered me. Observing him made me realize that I value wearing shoes.

Person B

This person had tattoos all over his body. When I say all over his body, I mean ALL OVER HIS BODY. His entire face was covered in tattoos. This is not something you see every day. I saw him while walking back home from class, so I didn’t get a chance to linger for fear of looking like a creep. He was wearing jeans, skate shoes, and a t-shirt. At least I think he was. It was hard to look past the tattoos and piercings to take a mental note of anything else. I think that this person must highly value his body. There had to be thousands, if not tens-of-thousands of dollars’ worth of piercings and tattoos on his body. You can’t sell a tattoo, so it’s a commitment for life (for the most part). In my belief, he is either the world’s most decisive person, carefully weighing the pros and cons of each decision he made in regards to his tattoos, or the most impulsive person with a pretty addictive personality. The way I reacted to his tattoos made me realize I value the long-term. I know I could never get a tattoo because at some point in the future, I would regret it.

Person C

This person was wearing a crew neck sweatshirt with three Greek letters on the front. Nothing else about her get-up was worth mentioning. I think that the sweatshirt told a lot about what she values. The Greek letters represented the sorority that she belongs to. I believe that she values community, comradery, and commitment; all things that come along with being in a club, organization, or family, like a sorority. I believe that she values that distinction so much so that she advertises it on her chest for the world to see. She wants people to know that she associates with that particular sorority, and that she accepts the fact that people will transfer their perceptions of that sorority on to her. This tells me that I too value community/family. I noticed the letters first, and thought of her first as part of a unified group, then as an individual person.

In Fabio Parasecoli’s Huffington Post article, he proposes the same question that we analyzed this week, “is food art?” He starts by plugging an upcoming panel discussion hosted by The New School that occurred last September. The discussion will be around the idea of food as art in fine dining, private catering, and less formal eating out experiences. Parasecoli, who is an associate professor and coordinator of food studies at The New School in New York City addresses the question himself with two quick points. The first argument he makes is that food is an art form rather than a craft. The second explores the idea of haut cuisine in terms of the idea of avant-garde. 

The first point that Parasecoli makes is that “chefs are not just craftsmen, artisans, or business persons; they are expected to offer patrons (and critics) dishes and menus that stimulate and surprise them, find new methods to manipulate ingredients, and interact with technology and design in ways that keep them on the cutting edge and ensure coverage from the press, TV, and the Internet” (Parasecoli 2). Tefler makes the distinction between art and craft in “Food as Art” saying, “art is an original creation, whereas craft is carrying out an instruction, following a convention, or employing a technique” (Tefler 15). Parasecoli acknowledges that chefs do in fact carry out instruction, follow convention, and employ technique, after all he is an instructor at a renowned culinary institute. It’s part of the learning process. He goes a step further, however, and say that a chefs (at least some) exploits go beyond the craft, and into the realm of original creation. Parasecoli also points to the definition of art that Tefler proposes, that art is “a thing intended or used wholly or largely for aesthetic consideration”, by assigning the task of offering patrons dishes and menus that stimulate (the senses) and surprise them (invoke critical consideration) (Tefler 14).

The second point that Parasecoli makes is reminiscent of the “chicken before the egg” argument. He explains that the definition of “avant-garde”, according to Websters, is “the pioneers or innovators in any art in a particular period”. He goes on to posture that by association with that definition, food falls into the category of art. Because there are chefs who are pioneering new styles or techniques in the culinary arts, the concept of avant-garde applies to food, and by the transitive property of equality (a=b, b=c, therefore a=c), food is art. Tefler would agree with this claim, as it aligns with the distinction between art and craft as discussed earlier.

In the final paragraph, Parasecoli says that young chefs are not worried about “narrow-minded customers” not appreciating their work. This brings up an interesting question that Tefler points out in “Food as Art”.  Something shouldn’t be considered non-art just because a viewer can’t appreciate the aesthetic value (in this case being taste, smell, texture, temperature, etc) (Tefler 13). The modernist idea that the audience/critic/expert is as imperative to the piece’s classification as art the art itself makes this distinction important. In many contexts, the food is not art, but rather just the vehicle for energy derived from caloric intake. While the eater may wish to have a pleasant experience, that does not make the dinning experience one of an artistic experience. The sole purpose of the dish was not to challenge the eater’s pallet with a unique combination of unrelated flavors and textures to incite an aesthetic experience. I think both Parasecoli and Tefler would agree that the context of the dining experience, along with the creator and his or her skills, play a vital role in determining food as art.

Sources:

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.

Parasecoli, F. (2013) “Is Food Art? Chefs, Creativity, and the Restaurant Business?”The Huffington Post. retrieved from TheHuffingtonPost.com.

I’ll start off by saying I do think that food, in some contexts, should be considered art. Tefler defined art in “Food as Art” as a “thing intended or used wholly or largely for aesthetic consideration” (Tefler 14), meaning to be evaluated beyond the basis of merely satiating hunger. The creator (the chef) works tirelessly on combining and transforming ingredients into something that will “produce a particular kind of pleasure, one which depends upon a discerning appreciation of the flavour and how they combine and succeed one another” (Tefler 14). The chef does not seek to just fill the belly of the diner, but rather encourage the diner to critically evaluate the aesthetics (taste, texture, temperature, etc) in order to appreciate the work as something more than just a vehicle for delivery of caloric energy. There is an entire network on cable that is devoted to the culinary arts. These shows that judge a chefs ability to create a work of olfactory art (many experts say that our sense of smell and taste are inseparable). People wouldn’t be interested in these shows if the objective was to see who can most efficiently provide a meal with the necessary calories to provide sufficient energy until the next meal.

In a sense, the person eating the food is the most important aspect of the art form. If they are not driven to consider the meal in a way that extends beyond their full belly, but instead to appreciate and contemplate the combination of flavors, textures, colors, temperatures, etc, then there is no art. Modernism as discussed in Dissanayake’s essay “What is Art For?” aligns with this idea that “there is no appreciation for art without interpretation” (Dissanayake 19). This idea that art is only as important or credible as a how it is interpreted and appreciated by those who will critically evaluate it is what allows food to be considered a form of “art”.

The most intriguing part of this weeks reading, for me,  was section on Modernism. In AAD 251, I remember reading about Modernism, focusing specifically on the idea of the “Artworld”, and it struck me as being very bizarre. I think often times the idea of “art”, by which I mean as a very specific profession or culture and not as the universal truth that Dissanayake suggested, is expressed through is Modernism lens. Every representation of an artist or an art gallery is characterized by some pretentious curator or critic who uses “art” to separate him/her and his/her people from the average Joe.  The idea that “art became [so] esoteric and outrageous, the role of the critic became not only helpful but integral to the reception of works of art” strikes me as hilarious (p.18). The concept of “high” art being to unrecognizable, an expert is necessary in order to classify it and communicate it’s artistic value to high society the “Artworld” claims to cater to is ironic. The Modernism movement in art history goes so far to say that “what is said (or written) about a work is not only necessary to its being art, but is indeed perhaps more important that the art itself” (p. 19). This idea that art is art because some pseudo-authority figure deems it to be art goes against Dissanayake’s claim that “art must be viewed as an inherint universal (or biological) trait of the human species” (p.15), later in the reading going so far to say that human “deserve to be called aestheticus, or artistic just as much as they deserve to be called sapien or wise” (p.16). If art is literally in the DNA of humans, this notion that art answers to a higher authority that serves as a function of higher society is wrong. Art is a human experience; all humans. It’s more than the medium in which an artist chooses to express emotions. Art can be as intricate and glorious as the Sistine Chapel, or as simple and intimate as a love note.

1. Family
2. Loyalty
3. Health
4. Creativity
5. Wisdom
6. Friendship
7. Personal Development
8. Personal Accomplishment
9. Location
10. Wealth
11. Expertness
12. Independence
13. Integrity
14. Prestige
15. Power
16. Leadership
17. Enjoyment
18. Security
19. Service
20. Community

I chose to spend every weekend up north in Portland at my parent’s house. I am writing this post from the couch in my living room, while my dad reads on his iPad and my mom catches up on her soaps from the past week. We don’t have much of an extended family, so my parent’s, my two sisters, my brother, and my dog are all we really have, and because of this, we are extremely tight knit and loyal to each other. I spend every weekend with these people because I care so much about them. They have been there for me, so it’s only fair that I am there if they were to ever need me. My loyalty and commitment to my family is a direct result of our family dynamic, and I don’t see those values losing any validity in my lifetime.

Today, I will continue to work on a custom designed table that was commissioned by a customer. My woodworking hobby/craft/profession has been my primary creative outlet for the last few years. It is also why I chose to drive over 200 miles a weekend to spend my weekends in Portland. I value the ability to create, which is something that I developed on my own. My parents were never the “artsy” type, not that they have never not supported me. From a young age I have always wanted to make things, and that desire has developed a deep seeded value on creativity. It dictates how I spend my money, my free time, my energy, etc.

The reading laid out thoughts on how we as social creatures develop and determine our values. The author outlined internal forces (experience, deduction, emotion, intuition), as well as two external, or synthetic, forces that shape how we for our set of values. The authority force was the one I find most interesting. There as long been the question of “nature vs. nurture”, and I am one to subscribe to the idea that how we are brought up paired with the experiences we encounter are the primary forces driving us to become the people that we are. Specifically, the influential people in our lives that most often take on roles of authority (e.g. teachers, parents, older siblings, etc). The relational dynamic plays the key role in the development of our values. When we are young, it is much easier to “draw a conclusion without having to see, feel, or think it through from the beginning on our own”, it being a value or set of values (p.10). This indoctrination of values starts from a very early age, and is seen most prevalent in religion. The values of an authority figure in a persons life, especially early on, is almost always perpetuated through the generations. The impressionability of a child supplemented by an internal need to be accepted allows for a situation in the developmental years where values are passed on as if they were genetic, but are still the result of social conditioning. I was watching a movie that chronicled Jackie Robinson’s trials while being the first black man to play major league baseball (titled “42”), and there was a scene that I think perfectly illustrates this idea that our values, at least in the early years, are almost entirely derived from the values of the authority figures in our lives. The scene shows a father and a son having a wholesome conversation while sitting on the bleachers waiting for the baseball game to start. The second that Jackie takes the field, the father stands up and begins screaming racial slurs. The son looks at his father, rather dramatically, acting the way he is, and stands to join his father yelling obscenities towards Jackie. It was much easier for the sun to take on the values of his father in that moment, than it would have been for him to think through the situation on his own and come to a different set of values relating to race.

I am a creator. My idea of heaven is a shop full of tools and enough time to make whatever my imagination can dream up. Woodworking has allowed me to channel my creative determination into a productive activity. I tell people that I drive up to Portland (where my parents live and consequently where my workshop is) to work on commission orders, but the truth is, I would drive up regardless if I had a commission piece to work on. Some of my favorite weekends are spent going through the scrap bins and creating something like this. That’s all to say, that I really like woodworking (duh). Naturally I would select a woodworking blog for this free-for-all assignment. My favorite blogging woodworker is Chris Schwarz, the former editor of Popular Woodworking Magazine. In a recent blog post, Chris laid out his philosophy of the woodworkers workbench. As someone who will be building my first “big boy” workbench, I paid close attention to what he had to say.

Mr. Schwarz and I share a similar philosophy. Simple is always better. Anyone could see by the style of furniture I enjoy building that I appreciate a spartan design quality. The overarching theme of Chris’ post is that simplicity in the design, composition, construction, and features of a workbench is golden. He reminds us that the workbench has one purpose, to be a “single work surface that should be flat and solid” that is to be used to build actual furniture. The more we bogged down in the details of the workbench, the easier it is for us to forget that it is ultimately a tool to be used to practice our hobby/profession/sickness. I think there may be some life lesson in there somewhere, but my computer is about to die, so I will have to psycho-analyze Schwarz’s advice some other time.

Be fresh.

T.