When trying to discover whether or not food should be consider an art. The Huffington post has an article that continues some idea from the reading in class by Elizabeth Tefler. While it might not be as extended as Tefler’s , the article “Is Food Art? Chefs, Creativity, and the Restaurant Business?” by Fabio Parasecoli, an Associate professor and coordinator of food studies, in New York, compares current presentation of how food is documented, and why that might make them more than just a craft. Parasecoli brings up recent documentaries like “Jiro Dreams of Sushi, Three Stars, and Step up to the Plate” as examples of notable successful chefs. He then goes into details about chefs, saying that:
“Some chefs — or groups of chefs — actually express their visions and their goals in cookbook introductions, interviews, or Internet profiles that are similar in intention and tone to the manifestos of the avant-garde movements of the past.” (Parasecoli)
That like “architects that might design churches id an artist” (Tefler 16), the chefs also follow the same course of passion into their own creations. Parasecoli also goes into details about how business side of the culinary arts, saying modern chefs needs to match the style of the present (or at least something that could be accepted) for being too creative, the food will “becomes excessive, intimidating” and “turn away customers” (Parasecoli), while this might seem anti-art like because it doesn’t challenge the viewer (or in this case the taster), but that is not necessarily true. Just like commonly accepted art, there is many cases where a painter might draw something that was culturally unacceptable at the time, and was only regarded as repulsive. Of course while most chefs won’t purposely do those sort of action that might get the same sort of responses due to the fact it could ruin their business and welfare, the fact that that possibility could even existed is proof enough that just maybe art, and food might have a little more in common than what is normally thought of.
This of course brings us back to the discussion about food being an art, or a craft, and the deference between the two. From our readings, Telfer brings up the point that “woodcarvers who carry out his instructions are craftsmen“ (Telfer 16), much like chefs that follow recipe books, therefore cooking can be regarded as a craft. But it is not simply categorized with just that reasoning. While it might be true that woodcarvers that just follows instructions, and makes a chairs, or any other common commodities like that, are consider to be only craftsmen. But there seems to be a change of impression if the process is done differently, or a more obscured object is made. Is it not true that there has been a chair displayed as art in a museum before? Of course you can you arguments that while it might look like a chair, it was made “differently” therefore it should not be regarded the same as a normal chair. But using this argument only proves a loophole in the craftsmen, art categorization. A chef that makes food “differently” could also be considered an art. The major question left is, what exactly is this “difference” that causes the separation? And this is where I believe the concept of “what is art” comes to play.
Art is not something that has a defined definition. It changes for person to person, each having their own justification of what merits makes something an artwork or not. Just like African tribes that craved masks for ceremonies, when British colonist found them, they thought highly of them, more than just tools like how the African tribes perceive them to be. For the British finding these mask, they symbolize the differences between their own culture with there’s. Asking the viewer deep questions of human nature when they gaze upon the mask. While it might seem like a sidetrack starting from food to African masks, the truth of the matter that I’m trying to bring up, is that food can be consider as art, as long as they means more to you than just a good meal. Even then the meal itself could be a commentary of social classes if it tastes really good as well. If anything, food is more of a fleeting art than one that is preserved like a painting, or drawing. It is easier to relate food as art if you compare it to a dance, performance. It is an experience that only last a set duration, and when it is gone, the feeling you thought while consuming it will fade away if time, much like a rush of emotion you might get from watch a sad performance.
Work cited
Parasecoli, Fabio. “Is Food Art? Chefs, Creativity, and the Restaurant Business?” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com. Web. 1 Feb. 2015. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fabio-parasecoli/food-art_b_3830791.html>.
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.