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”.