Can food be art?

[Nouveau Pauvre]

^ This ain't no zeitgeist.

 

[Go Surface]

Originally Posted by Magician

^ This ain't no zeitgeist.

Whatever, it had to be done!

 

[kwilkinson]

I'm not trying to legitimize anything. There's no need for legitimization. I do what I do because I love it and it gives me enjoyment, and I'm good at it, not because I think it "is anything it's not." I'm just trying to have a conversation, as I don't konw exactly how I feel on the subject.

 

[Piobaire]

Are some folks conflating "art" with "spectacle" in the thread? Food as spectacle is a done deal. IMO, there are whole disciplines, such as "molecular gastronomy," dedicated to food as spectacle. Just a thought, maybe the conversation needs to be disambiguated?

 

[Go Surface]

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

I'm not trying to legitimize anything. There's no need for legitimization. I do what I do because I love it and it gives me enjoyment, and I'm good at it, not because I think it "is anything it's not." I'm just trying to have a conversation, as I don't konw exactly how I feel on the subject.

Oh, I don't think that you are. We've had this conversation before, and you know how I feel about it.

 

[coldarchon]

is there anything that can´t be art?

 

[MetroStyles]

This conversation is pointless because every poaster is using a unique definition of art.

 

[kwilkinson]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

This conversation is pointless because every poaster is using a unique definition of art.

So? There is no singular definition of art. It's the fate of any discussion about art.

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

So? There is no singular definition of art. It's the fate of any discussion about art.

Which is why any discussion about art is meaningless. The only insightful discussion is the one that attempts to define art.

 

[Qzar]

Originally Posted by GoSurface

What foodies have done is turn a necessity into something that lacks universality, the 'snobbification' of a basic need. In that, very few people can actually appreciate an expensive and avante garde meal, or are willing to pay for one, but everyone has to eat. One of the things that separate food from art is the ability to experience it. In art, though very few people are able to afford the works, the ability to see and absorb (Or reject) the meanings of a work is shared by all. There is a freedom (Of interpretation) in art that food does not allow, even if the newness and complexity of a dish challenges expectations, it means nothing if no one can afford to taste it.

I see where you are coming from with this but I think we're not just talking about haute cuisine as the only form of food that can be art. A plate of food doesn't just have to be visually aesthetic in order to be good... just as a piece of music doesn't have to look good on paper. Food appeals to olfactory/taste the same way music appeals to us aurally. We listen to sounds all the time, people talk to us as a necessity of communication... what makes music art is that we took this necessity... this essential aspect of our humanity and we imparted on it values that took it to another level... I think while food is a necessity... it can be elevated to this same level.

I think food as art is most analogous with music. They are very similar forms. Just as music would be very difficult to describe as art, I feel food is also a victim of our ambiguities towards a definition of art in Western culture. To say food lacks permanence and historical pertinence is a rather simple statement since most of our culinary values date back to the very basic foundations of mankind. Entire chapters of history can be written solely from the point of view of food. Tracing back our culinary history reveals a lot about our human condition. Just look at French cuisine. Open up any book of classical french dishes and you can learn a lot about the essence of being French and their cultural values just as opening up a book on Chinese cooking shows a whole new universe of ideas. To say that food is just digested is the same as saying music is just a vibration in the air that dissipates into nothing and thus lacks permanence. Just as music is written down, so is food... what is a piece of music but a recipe on how to play a song.

I understand how difficult it is to have this discussion without a definition of art. That in a way is the essence of this problem. What is a sport? that would just about bombard us with the same philosophical conundrum. At the same time while we may not be able to define that food is art, the argument I am trying to make is that food in and of itself shares many of the same characteristics as music, theater, photography, and other disciplines that are considered art and thus it is justifiable to consider food and its preparation an art form. I can tell you hockey is a sport because it resembles football and we generally consider football a sport.

Yes cooking on the line isn't necessarily and art form... but what about playing violin at an award show like the Academy Awards? or being a violinist in a musical? It's a job right... I mean you are following directions and getting paid... is that art? What about an illustrator? Is Norman Rockwell an artist? I'm not saying all cooking is a art just as not all music is art and not all photography is art. The truth is however that food does have the potential for being art and thus should be and has every reason to be considered a meaningful medium of expression.

 

[dtmt]

"art" + food = Cloaca http://technabob.com/blog/2009/02/04...a-no5-machine/

 

[LabelKing]

Here's your food and art.

 

[Maharlika]

^^^ I'm suspecting a south American country like Argentina. It can't be in Spain; interesting perspective.

 

[Saigon]

http://www.gourmet.com/food/2009/04/...ooking-and-art

Interesting take on the question, especially the part about arts' ability to disgust.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Which is why any discussion about art is meaningless. The only insightful discussion is the one that attempts to define art.

Woah, backup here ***** (I know it's an old post). If that was the case wouldn't the question "Why define anything as art?" be a prime requisite?