Can food be art?

Originally Posted by Milhouse

Click to expand...

Do you distinguish between the man that paints your house, and the man that paints a masterpiece. . .or are they both painters?

Again, if I just view it as something that brings me practical utility, I don't see it as art. So the painter and the "painter" are divided.

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Click to expand...

That's a great question. I think in the broadest sense art is anything that can bring us feelings, emotions, or insights that cold logic and process cannot. In that sense, food can be art - just by its taste alone.

Practically speaking (not theoretically), for me, food is not art. It's just not what I consider art. For me, art is something that brings the viewer to another plane of consciousness or allows him new insight into humanity or himself. Food cannot do that for me. However, I know that certain people absolutely love food and do experience emotions that I do not when they eat. This might just be a biological difference, in that I am not as sensitive to it as others.

So, to you, art is purely visual? Music does not qualify, for example?

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

Click to expand...

But what is it about sculpture, photography, painting, or design that makes them art? Are they not just another specialized field where people express creativity, skill, and experimentation? Is it the fact that food is consumed and then gone forever?

There are thousands of words written by critics and intellectuals that could shed light on the subject a to why certain things are qualified as art, but I am not sure of any specific references I could give you as to why food specifically is not considered art.

I'm just stating what I am pretty sure to be true.

A lot of things people call "art" and a lot of people are considered "artists" because it's the closest word we have to describe someone who is very skilled in a particular practice.

One big factor I can think of would be that all other forms of art are viewed the same by every person because of controlled circumstances. Since different people experience food in incongruous ways and have very personal reasons for why some things cannot physically be appreciated. I've heard this argument made in regards to why video games are not art (because every person who plays experiences is it differently).

Originally Posted by Milhouse

Click to expand...

So, to you, art is purely visual? Music does not qualify, for example?

Oops - let's change viewer to subject. Music is such a strange art. That's a whole different discussion - not sure Kwilk wants us to hijack his thread. But I see music as its own category of art, with the other subcategory being visual arts/sculpture/film/writing.

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Click to expand...

If you are referring to me, I was restricting food as art to the presentation of the food. If you consider something like a delicious sirloin burger art, then that's your choice. I don't. I consider it good food. Just like how I don't consider good sex art. Or a great spirit. Generally I don't consider things that I consume art.

Was I refering to you? Or was I simply asking lots of random questions that seem very profound and insightful?

Originally Posted by Brian SD

Click to expand...

One big factor I can think of would be that all other forms of art are viewed the same by every person because of controlled circumstances. Since different people experience food in incongruous ways and have very personal reasons for why some things cannot physically be appreciated. I've heard this argument made in regards to why video games are not art (because every person who plays experiences is it differently).

The rest of your post, I get. This, I don't buy at all. If you and I both went to an art gallery right now, we would be seeing different things all night. I'd be able to appreciate a certain painting while you weren't, all because of your personal experiences and your ability to interpret that painting and viceversa. If we both were served the exact same meal, we'd both have entirely different reactions to it. I think that's what is beautiful about art in any form---- while it's there, and it's one exact thing in objectivity, it has the ability to be 100% different to each individual depending on a number of factors.

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Click to expand...

Oops - let's change viewer to subject. Music is such a strange art. That's a whole different discussion - not sure Kwilk wants us to hijack his thread.
Don't mind at all. Just sitting here, kinda bored and was doing some brainstorming.

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

Click to expand...

The rest of your post, I get. This, I don't buy at all. If you and I both went to an art gallery right now, we would be seeing different things all night. I'd be able to appreciate a certain painting while you weren't, all because of your personal experiences and your ability to interpret that painting. If we both were served the exact same meal, we'd both have entirely different reactions to it. I think that's what is beautiful about art in any form---- while it's there, and it's one exact thing in objectivity, it has the ability to be 100% different to each individual depending on a number of factors.


Don't mind at all. Just sitting here, kinda bored and was doing some brainstorming.

Yea I understand your point, and I have an issue with that argument as well, it's just one of the things that's been brought up. I'm sure my explanation isn't doing it justice.

But still, what you're saying isn't entirely accurate. Whether or not we have personal differences in how we appreciate a particular painting, there's no physiological difference as to why we would see it differently.

While food can be a medium for some expression, such as culture, I'm not sure that it can convey the depth of emotion, history, knowledge and experiences that music, sculpture, or poetry can.

I think food is comestible art, which is a slightly bizarre category, since most art creates a kind of permanence. It's also interesting because it can't be experienced vicariously; it's a sort of throwback to a time before photographs and the internet, where there was no mass production of the object of art.

However, it's also complicated by the fact that while food can be replicated, every instantiation of a dish is going to be slightly different; so is the art in the recipe, or in the execution?

Finally, I think food as art has to incorporate flavour, which involves jettisoning a notion of art that privileges the visual and aural over all else. Once you deal with it that way, though, you open the floodgates for perfume, wine, cigars, candy, chocolate, cigarettes, etc. as art.

Now, can flavour be beautiful? Or sublime? Do these categories even apply, or do we need new ones? What would that mean for the concept of art as a whole if we were to expand it?

Good question.

Perhaps food is not considered an art on a wide scale because of all the senses, it is the one that is most practical and used for utility. As such, it can be difficult to separate the art from the function. Other art, for example painting, serves little to no practical function and so can be viewed unequivocally from an artistic perspective.

Originally Posted by Brian SD

Click to expand...

While food can be a medium for some expression, such as culture, I'm not sure that it can convey the depth of emotion, history, knowledge and experiences that music, sculpture, or poetry can.
I'm not entirely sure it can either. Not sure it can move you in the same way other art can, like a piece of literature or a painting. In the world of fine art, people don't want to be thought of as simply a representation of their culture, which is generally more closely associated with folk art. Art, fine art at least, is meant to answer broader questions. A great painting can mean something profound to people all over the world. Does food exist on that same level? Is that what some chefs are doing? I'm not sure. Maybe food is less expressive and by necessity has to stay rooted in the culture that it comes from.
Maybe food as an art is more like an opera. Everyone seems to recognize that opera can be an art form, but it isn't exactly universal or easily accessible. It's arcane. An opera can be moving, but it's an art form that you have to be well-versed in to appreciate, perhaps food is like that.
Food has a unique impression on people. Taste and smell are the most evocative of our senses, almost purely instinctual. There are times in art where there is ugliness--- you're meant to have a gut, visceral, negative reaction to it. That doesn't happen with food, does it? Do we have sad flavors, hateful flavors, angry flavors? If we don't does that make food less an art and more a craft?

Anyway, I really don't know, I just think it's interesting to think about.

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Click to expand...

Perhaps food is not considered an art on a wide scale because of all the senses, it is the one that is most practical and used for utility. As such, it can be difficult to separate the art from the function. Other art, for example painting, serves little to no practical function and so can be viewed unequivocally from an artistic perspective.
That's entirely possible. Food uses all 5 senses, though. We only have 5 basic flavors that we can taste in our mouth, but with our nasal passages we have almost unlimited taste combinations we can sense. You see the food and react accordingly as well, how food looks matters to your appetite. You can feel the texture across your tongue. People often complain of not liking a certain food for the texture-- regardless of how they feel of the flavor. Hell, even hearing comes into play. When you bite down into a potato chip you can hear it and the vibrations run into your ear drum.

Originally Posted by Brian SD

Click to expand...

There are thousands of words written by critics and intellectuals that could shed light on the subject a to why certain things are qualified as art, but I am not sure of any specific references I could give you as to why food specifically is not considered art.

I'm just stating what I am pretty sure to be true.

A lot of things people call "art" and a lot of people are considered "artists" because it's the closest word we have to describe someone who is very skilled in a particular practice.

One big factor I can think of would be that all other forms of art are viewed the same by every person because of controlled circumstances. Since different people experience food in incongruous ways and have very personal reasons for why some things cannot physically be appreciated. I've heard this argument made in regards to why video games are not art (because every person who plays experiences is it differently).

That's really not true imo. I'm not an art expert, but I have studied a fair amount of ancient art in archaeology classes, and one example comes immediately to mind. Victorian scholars would look at Hellenistic sculptures of hermaphrodites from a single viewpoint. As it happens, the view they'd look at them from was the one that hid the surprise. Many of these statues hid the fact that the subject was a hermaphrodite because the portion facing the viewer showed the features of a female body and hid the others through the orientation of the body. The surprise only came when you walked around the statue, but these Victorian men chose to completely ignore the other part of that experience by focusing only on the parts that were visible head-on, and in considering the statues, they totally missed the point. They exhibited similar cultural prejudices in attempting to explain away the nudity of statues of Aphrodite. Or you could take perhaps the most famous example in hellenistic art, which was the Laocoon group (now in the vatican). When it was restored in the renaissance, it was restored incorrectly because they superimposed their contemporary thinking onto the group. It's still controversial, but they re-assembled it relief-like instead of in a pyrimidal configuration and that totally alters how one would approach viewing the statues.

Originally Posted by Brian SD

Click to expand...

Yea I understand your point, and I have an issue with that argument as well, it's just one of the things that's been brought up. I'm sure my explanation isn't doing it justice.

But still, what you're saying isn't entirely accurate. Whether or not we have personal differences in how we appreciate a particular painting, there's no physiological difference as to why we would see it differently.

While food can be a medium for some expression, such as culture, I'm not sure that it can convey the depth of emotion, history, knowledge and experiences that music, sculpture, or poetry can.

Color blindness? Myopia? Astigmatism?

btw kwilk, I have a book called Culinary Artistry on my bookshelf. Maybe check if your school library has it. You might find it interesting.

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

Click to expand...

Do we have sad flavors, hateful flavors, angry flavors?


I'd say yes, we have hateful, angry flavors. Sneaking some habaneros into someone's food will likely evoke those emotions.

Seriously though, with music, for example, are sad songs sad because of the notes, or because of a cultural filter we have applied. Would a sad European song sound sad to an Australian Aborigine?

What about wine? Is wine art?

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Click to expand...

btw kwilk, I have a book called Culinary Artistry on my bookshelf. Maybe check if your school library has it. You might find it interesting.

Yes, that's what I'm reading right now. My last argument to Brian SD was almost an exact quote of a discussion in the book. It's what got me thinking about this whole thing. Karen Page & Andrew Dornenburg are really good authors.