Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
How best to dene the term art has been a subject of constant debate; many books and journal articles have been published arguing over even the basics of what we mean by the term art. Before dealing with the question of what is art it is wiser to look into the more subtler question of why we perceive some objects as works of art. Why do we react differently to objects which have an inherent aesthetic value? Elizabeth Telfer discusses this (Telfer, 1996) based on J.O. Urmsons (1962) article on aesthetics. According to Telfer, anything can be viewed aesthetically provided they result in aesthetic reactions which have the following ve features: 1. Aesthetic reactions should be disinterested and non-instrumental. Reactions should arise out of appreciating the work for its own sake. 2. Aesthetic reactions are non-neutral in nature. Although according to Urmson, they are also sources of pleasure, Telfer disagrees with this claim giving the example of reaction towards a well written novel with a sad ending. 3. Aesthetic reactions must be very intensive in nature. A weak reaction such as thats nice does not merit the name aesthetic.
4. Aesthetic reactions are very frequently sensual. But again, this may not be the case as in appreciating a beautiful poem. 5. Aesthetic reactions are usually objective in nature. For example, I can not only like a particular artwork, but can also believe that it is something that people ought to like.
Food as Art
Since our purpose is analyzing food as art it would be worthwhile to see if reactions to food satisfy Telfers aforementioned features of aesthetic reaction. Food can be appreciated for its taste, smell as well as visual appeal. It is the reactions to tastes and smells that we are concerned with. Telfer assumes (claims that it is generally agreed) that reactions to tastes and smells can be aesthetic. Food can be enjoyed with without being instrumental. For example, if I appreciate tofu because of its taste and smell then my reaction would be disinterested and aesthetic. But if I prefer tofu because it ts my need as a meat analogue and has less calories, then my reaction is no longer aesthetic. Food can be experienced with great intensity. It is easy to distinguish the person who enjoys his food but does not notice what he eats from the person whose awareness is more vivid; only latter has an aesthetic experience. Clearly not all objects give aesthetic reactions can be called works of art. As Telfer argues, an art form must be man-made, even if the involvement was little - such as putting a natural object in a gallery and giving it a name. Thus even if one experiences aesthetic reactions on seeing a scenic mountain, we wouldnt certainly classify a mountain as a work of art. Telfer argues that there are two senses of works of art. In the classifying sense something is a work of art if it is intended or regarded primarily for aesthetic consideration (that is, appreciated with intensity and for its own sake). Since only the primary intention is aesthetic in nature, it allows for the object to have other utilitarian purposes. Food can often be prepared just for the sake of aesthetic considerations. Since the classifying sense also allows food to have other functions (such as quenching hunger), it is a work of art.
Art or Craft?
Is food art or craft? I will try to summarize the various arguments given by Telfer (1996) and occasionally give some of my own opinions. One argument which favors food as a
craft is that, to call something an art, it must be creative. The basis of this argument lies in what we regard as art and what we regard as craft. Art in general is considered to be an original creation whereas craft is just carrying out instructions or obeying orders. For example, architects who design buildings do art, whereas masons and craftsmen who actually build the building practice a craft. An objection to this argument is the example of musicians and poets who stick to a particular convention. For example numerous poems are written in such a way that it rhymes. But does this make poets mere craftsmen? But again, they arent forced to follow the rules and there is enough room for innovation. Can we resolve this issue of art vs. craft by evaluating the amount of creativity involved? If we generally agree upon the fact that a good amount of creativity is enough to classify something as art, we could very well call poetry and composing music as art rather than craft - even if it follows some conventions. But when there is only modest creativity, and very little originality wed have to call it craft. Again, this distinction has its own pitfalls. If we were to call somebody as an artist or craftsman merely by seeing how much originality he puts into his work, what would we call a good portrait painter as? A good portrait painter by denition has to do portraits which accurately resembles the subject. But since does not leave any room for innovations of his own he would be by denition a craftsman rather than an artist. Yet another argument is that performers and interpreters are technicians rather than artists. For example, there are probably a good number of musicians today who can play Beethovens symphonies better than he himself could ever do. But since they are merely repeating (or interpreting) what Beethoven originally created, little art is involved and we would be forced to call them as technicians. Telfer does not agree much to this idea and she responds by saying that interpretation can also be creative at times. Interpreter is like a composer or artist who works in genre with strict conventions. Thus she argues that each performance can be a work of art to at least some extent. So is cookery an art or craft? Before addressing this issue it should be mentioned that food involves two kinds of art: a recipe, which is analogous to a musical composition, and the dish which is cooked on a particular occasion. As we have seen if degree of creativity is the criterion, cookery can be sometimes be a form of an art. For example a chef who prepares a particular dish for aesthetic considerations can be called as a creative artist. Chefs who improve upon standard recipes in a creative way can also be called artists. But if a cook merely follows a recipe without putting much thought into it, he becomes a technician as per our previous discussion. For example, bartenders who mix cocktails are mere craftsmen. But this is seldom seen in other areas of culinary arts as most cooks do have their own special methods of doing the same common tasks. The mere usage of butter instead of oil would count as an innovation in this regard. Thus it is safe to call all
1 See
Conclusion
I have tried to discuss the issue of Food as Art in light of Elizabeth Telfers views on the same. Food can be as moving and profound as artworks. Culinary arts involve high levels of technique, creativity and skill - not to mention patience, concentration, and endurance - all of which requires years of practicing. But as we have seen, artworks are in general more expressive than food. They have more profound qualities, histories, and meanings. Food can represent social, historic and cultural meanings to some extent, but nowhere in detail and sophistication as artworks. Food should, therefore, I believe not be considered a major art. It is more tting to consider it a craft or a minor art form.
References
B. Gopnik. The big debate: Can food be serious art? The Washington Post, September 2009. URL http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2009/09/22/AR2009092203137_pf.html. Philosophy of Food Project. URL http://food.unt.edu/philfood/#d. G. Parsons. Aesthetics and nature. Continuum International Pub., 2008. E. Telfer. Food for thought: philosophy and food, chapter Food As Art, pages 4161. Routledge, 1996.