I try to use the searching engine to get some information about the relationship between art and food. I found that Andrea Borghinit’s article Can Food Be Art explain his idea about food and art. He deeply introduce why people should not consider food as art. Andrea Borghint’s article is every convictable, he compare the different between both things with durability, subjectivity and meaning. Then, he make a conclusion that food is not the same context with art.
Firstly, Borghini consider durability is a factor to identify a thing belong to art or not. “The first point that may be raised is that food is fleeting: a sculpture, a painting, or a temple may last for centuries, maybe millennia; the delicious food that the restaurant El Bulli used to prepare just a few years ago is long and gone”(Borghini) Food cannot last for a long time, but artwork can. Borghini use this example to shows one of the factor that why he cannot consider food as art, In addition, experiences along foods and art are different. People want to get food because they can eat foods. They eat together and share, that’s it. For food, people can consider is physiology need then cause the psychological need. Borghini consider people’s motivation for food is totally different from art. The motivation for people to enjoy an artwork is to admire rather than to eat. Artwork can bring the visual impact then make people to think about some specific things in their mind. However, food cannot cause the same effect. So, the author consider artwork can change people’s value but food is not.
Secondly, Borghini said food is different from other form of aesthetic experiences because it got the taste. “This is not simply because foods are fleeting, but also because taste is a destructive sense: you’ve got to destroy what you taste. Hence, taste in unavoidably an individual affair.” Each individual has different taste for the word “ food”, so food is more subjective than other forms of art. Different from There’s no standard for food, no one can sure their taste is the same with others. Borghini said that gastronomic experiences is totally different from art.
Finally, Borghini mentioned that food have no original meaning inside, people give different meaning for different food. “food cannot vehicle meaning .“This is total different from art. Art is a expression for emotion, however, food just is food., people only want to eat them rather to consider about it. “A reply to the latter objection moves from the observation that even a painting or a sculpture may be interpreted in a infinity of different ways, depending on how it is experienced. It is not clear why gastronomic experiences, in this respect, shall be regarded as less transparent than gastronomic ones.” From my opinion, this idea is very similar with the author we read in this week’s task. Ellen Dissanayake mentioned artists can be every normal people, they are not mysterious as people think. They just use their personal feeling and their sensibilities to describe the world what they think. In other words, it means every people can be an artists. I found that Ellen Dissanayake’s idea is oppose with Borghini’s. One consider every body can use their feeling to identify what is art and one suggest people should follow the traditional rule, knowing what is art and what is not. It’s hard to say right or wrong for both authors. However, I would like to Ellen Dissanayake’s idea. If every body can be a artist that they have right to choose what they wanna to be art. Food has create and good visual impact, so food can be art.
No matter Ellen Dissanayake or Andrea Borghinit’s article, we can see the real conflict between both. The point for the real problem is people’s different standard for word “art”. And the problem cannot be solve forever. Like the taste of food, the feeling for art is very diverse. I think the best way is people respect each others and try to know what others thought. In some culture, for example:China or Japan, people trust food can as art. They create food not only just for taste but also for visual impact.

Borghini, A. (n.d.). Can Food Be Art?. About.com Philosophy. Retrieved April 27, 2014, from

http://philosophy.about.com/od/Philosophical-Theories-Ideas/a/Can-Food-Be-Art.htm

Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

In last week’s discission, we are talking about what is art and what is art for. It’s hard to image, in this week, we will consider food is a kind of art. Before reading the text, it’s hard for to believe that food is a form of art. However, after reading the article, I will definitely say yes, even through I have different opinion with this article. Let’s look at the similar points between art and food. I believe that artwork and food also belong to creation. No matter chiefs or artists, they need to put their feeling into their creations that make their creations to be attractive. Maybe the target group is different, but chief and artist have the same goal. In order to make their work to be better, they practice again and again. Artworks catch people’s eyes, encourage them to think about the surrounding world. Food catch people’s taste, encourage them to love their life.
After watching the video “Fast Food Presentation”, I think I saw art inside bugger. Cheese, onion, bread and beef, all the things inside a bugger according to the Golden Ratio.When I eating a bugger, I always remember Golden Ratio. I can image how Vinci use the Golden Ratio into his artwork Mona Lisa Smile. Some people might argue that art should be like printing and sculpture but like food. However, each people have their own definition for the word “art”. When people use the same appreciative mode to see food. They will find out there are such similar between art and food. Human use the word art for the things they admire, if they admire something, they can call something as art. So, there’s no right or wrong answer for the debate food is art or not, ins’t it?