First, he talks about the inherent edibility of food. He said food provide energy for people to survive. Food is the necessary consumption in people’s life, so the aesthetic interest in it may not be genuine. Like the auther said, “People do not go to restaurants to see the food. Instead, they go to eat it, ultimately for the reason of survival.” The value to appreciate food is not that practical than appreciate painting, movie, or music. Second, the author talks about that food does not have the ability to move people. An artwork should express people’s opinion and influence the way that people look at the world. A food could not do these. He also mentioned that, “All art seems to require a medium of some sort, and physical food cannot be its own medium.” He thinks that an artwork should have its own soul or spirit to influence people. Food is just a form in the menu. At last, he talks about that food could not last for several generations. He says that people still making food again and again, but no one wants to reproduce a Van Gogh’s painting. The value to reproduce an artwork is very cheap. An artwork has its own symbol. If that could be copy or reproduce, this could not be called artwork.

The article that I found is totally different than the Tefler’s article “Food as art”. In Tefler’s article that she claims that food is the form of art, also the dishes is the part of art also.  Recipe and dish are regarded aesthetically (Tefler, 2002). She thinks that food has it own aesthetic way. She thinks that food is a product that could provide appreciation to people. Food has its color and its shape. People have the appreciate mood. I found that in “Food as art” has some similar point like the Blog that I found. In “food as art”, she also mention that “food is necessarily transient, it cannot have meaning and it cannot move us”. I also found that “We must conclude that works of art in food, whether creative or interpretative, cannot gain the same stature as those of greater permanence.” This shows that Tefler’s mind of art. She has some definition of art, so she can think the entire factor that related to art. This is similar as the one that I found, that author claim that an artwork should have the ability of move people. Not only move people for a short time, but real artwork need to influence people for thousand years. In Tefler’s opinion shows that food must have its shape and appearance. When people appreciate an artwork, the appearance will impress people a lot. She is a little conflict with her opinion. She first mention she think food and dishes are artworks. After that, she makes some point to against her opinion. This is kind interesting.

To defined food is an artwork is a very controversial thing. When you read the blog, you will have a very clear mind to identify that food is an artwork or not. Because it is clearly said that, an artwork should move people and express the artist’s mind. As a food, I think the function of it in the whole world is to survive people. I agree that food is creativity. People design the look of it, and chef make the tastes of it. This doesn’t mean that it is an artwork. People always appreciate artwork in the museum or some serious place. I think food is not that valuable to appreciate. People always eat food, it is hard for people to appreciate. If people appreciate food, there will be two possible ending. After appreciating, people will eat it, or it will rot by itself. Food is a temporally thing, it appear in the world has reasons. As an artwork, it should last a long period. Artwork is for people to appreciate, also it will express the artist’s mind. Food as an artwork, it does not have the basic feature. An artwork also has some historical meaning for people. It will take people to that decade or period. People will discover that period by the artwork. This means a lot to human civilization ‘s progress. Food is just the production of human civilization. It is a symbol of the improvement in people’s life. People find different way to cook, and they enjoy the taste of food. These are all the improvement of people’s pursue. As an artwork, it is not only the improvement of people’s life, it means more than this.

Reflection:

After I read about my article about should food be treated as art? I connect the definition of art that I talked about in last chapter. I found that food could be treated as an artwork. Food is the gift from the nature mother. Have you ever think about how food shaped. When we look a food carefully, there is no exactly same food in the world. That means every food have their characteristics. This is like the “making special” in the art. Every kinds of food are special for me. The nature mother made them, and people eat them for life. This is just like a circle. If we really want to say food is art, it depends how the chief design it. Every chief is an artist, because they could make food look much delicious and beautiful. In China, most chief pay lots of attention on the appearance of food. They use green leaves or carrot to make the dish looks pretty. I think food is an artwork depends on how people cook them.

Future goal:

For the future goal, I will plant some vegetables in my yard. I will observe these types of food, and try to make some food. I will also look some cooking book, and I try to find the beautiful of food. I will go to some restaurants and compare the food in different restaurants.  I think I can find some interesting pion from different country restaurant. I also want to observe how the chief make the food beautiful.

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.