Can Food Be Art? 2v4p5t

Essay: Can Food be Art?

November 10, 2011 In this essay I am trying to critically examine the question “Can Food be Art”. To do so, I shall first examine the question of what constitutes an art, and an art form. I will also try to discuss the differences between art and craft, as many philosophers and aesthetes hold on to the view that cooking is a craft rather than an art form. Then I’ll go on discussing the many arguments given by philosophers which rejects the idea of food (and cooking) as an art form. Finally I present some concluding remarks on the subject.

Introduction How best to define 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. Urmson’s (1962) article on aesthetics. According to Telfer, “anything” can be viewed aesthetically provided they result in aesthetic reactions which have the following five 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 “that’s nice” does not merit the name aesthetic.

1

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 Telfer’s 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 fits 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 wouldn’t 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

2

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 aren’t 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 we’d 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 definition 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 definition 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 Beethoven’s 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

3

cooks as “performing artists”.

Arguments for and against food as art. In his 2009 article in The Washington Post, philosopher Blake Gopnik (Gopnik, 2009) presents this question in form of arguments. One of the key points in his discussion is that food can be enjoyed for only a brief period of time, i.e, during the course of a meal. Thus it has this unique characteristic that no other art form has in that it must actually be consumed and destroyed in order to be experienced and enjoyed. Thus it is pointed out that since food is not eternal, it does not deserve to be called artwork. But music, like food does not last long either. It is the “performance of a recipe” that would survive over the years. Non-instrumentality in the reactions towards food can be questioned because food as such exists for a purpose - to feed people. As Oscar Wilde said “all art is useless”. But just because food has a functional purpose, we can’t completely deny it of any aesthetic value. Buildings, architecture, photos, paintings - all have their respective “functional” versions. For example the Taj Mahal, has a functional purpose as a tomb. But this does not prevent us from looking up to it as a work of art. To appraise an object aesthetically is to consider it in abstraction from its usefulness (and this can be done with food as well). Philosopher Glenn Parsons (Parsons, 2008) argues that pleasures of smell, taste, and touch are not aesthetic because aesthetic pleasure (and reaction) is a “disembodied pleasure” and these sensations are felt localized in the body, where as pleasures of sight and sound are not located at any specific place in the body. For example to enjoy a delicious pizza, one has to physically taste it, whereas one can enjoy a beautiful painting or sculpture by merely looking at it. Sight and sound are in this view “more nobler senses”. This is in stark contrast with the assumption made by Telfer when she says that reactions to smell, taste, and touch can be aesthetic. In response she rejects this idea by asking “why should it (how we enjoy food) matter” and considers it to be mere prejudice against the body. Yet another point which I personally feel has been overlooked by Telfer and others is the differences in taste which can arise out of cultural and personal differences. I cannot for example, taste sushi without being minutely repulsed by the fact that its raw fish. Thus I cannot allow myself to experience a non-instrumental reaction to sushi even if I wanted to.

4

Food as a minor art form The status of food as art is debatable. I believe that there are more differences than similarities between food and art. Certainly the culinary arts require high-level skill and artistry – but does that make culinary objects fine art? Most would agree that food and artworks overlap but each does something the other cannot. Here I look into Tefler’s concluding section in her essay about culinary aesthetics and I agree with her view that food can be a minor art form. Food and recipes surely change over time. This transient nature of food makes it difficult for us to contemplate it over time. We see philosophical essays about the works of Da Vinci even today. But its rarely that we come across something which contemplates the bread making process of Da Vinci’s time. Also, to be a great work of art, it should be able to communicate with different generations. Although a particular recipe may survive over time it is this limitation of not being to communicate with different generations, which makes it a lesser form of art. For example, in the late 19th century beef lard was a common ingredient in cookies and biscuits and even in some gourmet dishes. Although the recipe might still be available, only few people would find it appropriate, considering the general health worries about cholesterol and vegetarianism prevalent today. But this transient nature of food is not universal. Take the example of beer. Beer has known to be brewed since the early Neolithic periods (9500 BC). But the recipe has survived close to 12,00 years without much change and people still use it widely.1 Food in contrast to other major art forms lacks “meaning”. Here meaning refers to the representational qualities an art form might have. For example paintings and poetry can tell us about the world and ourselves. Food can sometimes have other meanings as well. For example it can symbolize a nations way of life and traditions. Food cannot express emotion, although a cook or a chef can express his emotions while creating the dish. Artworks can say more than food; they relate to broader, more articulated histories and meanings; they enjoy a very different social status; and art can depict food and eating with far more sophistication than food can depict art. Yet another problem with food as a major art is that it cannot move us like the way major arts can. Good food can elate us, invigorate us, startle us, excite us, cheer us with a kind of warmth and joy. But can’t shake us fundamentally (as shown by tears or fear).

1 See

the Wikipedia article on beer for further information.

5

Conclusion I have tried to discuss the issue of “Food as Art” in light of Elizabeth Telfer’s 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 fitting 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 41–61. Routledge, 1996.

6