1
Cody Boulware
Dr. Williams
Philosophy of Food
December 8th, 2014
Can Food Be Considered As Art?
While many commonly think of a painted picture, crafted sculpture, or performed song as a work of art; is it acceptable to include food into this category? There has been several philosophical arguments made for both sides of this question.Some state that even though food or a prepared dish can produce aesthetic reactions, it cannot be art due to the fact that it istransient. Furthermore, others claim that the fleeting aesthetic pleasures of music, theater, and dance performances could lack the same persistent qualities of art in which food is disregarded by. In spite of this debate, I defend the position that food can be a work of art by the simplistic qualities used to define art.
In considering something a work of art, one has to first take into account the creator of the work and his/her intentions when making it. If he or she intends for the work to be considered and evaluated as art by those who experience it, then by definition it is art because they have used their time and effort for it to be so. Elizabeth Telfer states this as: “if something is a work of art, then its maker or exhibitor intended it to be looked at or listened to with intensity, for its own sake” (12). For example, if an individual was to create a dish of food in which their focus was to make the food taste good, this would not be a work of art because the creator’s intentions are focused on appealing to the physical desires of whoever eats the food such as taste, nutrition, or hunger relief. However, if one is to cook a dish while organizing and decorating the food in a manner which invokes aesthetic pleasure from the eyes of the viewer, then this could be considered a work of art. In this case the cook has created a work of art because they wanted the aesthetic quality of the food to be appraised, thought about, and discussed rather than just be consumed for its taste and ability to appease one’s hunger.The difference between these two scenarios makes it clear that the creator’s intentions for the object to bring about an aesthetic reaction is what allows the food to be considered as art or not.
When debating whether food can be art, it is also important to consider the original creativity that is used when constructing a work of art. Since art is defined as an original creation, an object must contain some sort of creativity that makes it original and different from any others that have been created before. This strict definition of art poses a problem for food to be evaluated as art because many dishes are constructed by following a specific recipe or directions of how it has been made previously. When specific instructions are followed in creating a work, this is defined as a craft and not a work of art.However, there is still an opportunity for food to be considered a work of art because food does not have to be made exactly how it is specified by instructions or a recipe, leaving space for creativity to be added to its construction. For example, if an individual was to make a cake following a certain recipe and did not do anything more or less than what the directions called for, this would not bear the creative qualities of an art work. Then again, if someone was to make the cake from same the recipeand added more elements to it in a decorative manner such as icing, fruit, or fondant to the cake’s exterior to bring about an aesthetic reaction which is unlike any other cake ever made. Then this would be considered a work of art because its creation is original, even though it is still fundamentally a cake. Therefore, if the cook or creator of a food uses enough creativity when constructing it so that the creation becomes an original piece that is distinct from all others, it then has the creative quality to be consideredart[U1].
A possible objection to this argument is that food cannot be art due to its usefulness or instrumental value.One could argue against food being considered art by stating that regardless of the intentions held in its creations or how is is organized and decorated to look, it still holds the same usefulness and instrumental value as it would if it were just prepared in a normal fashion to be eaten. This objection does in fact hold some truth because no matter how a dish is prepared or food is created, it will always be able to fulfill the instrumental value of appeasing one’s appetite or appealing to the bodily pleasures of taste during the consumption of the food. A great example that illustrates this objection is sushi. When one thinks of sushi, many ingredients come to mind such as fish, rice, seaweed, sauce, and vegetables. When a cook uses these ingredients to make a dish, he does so by placing them in the shape of a roll while uniquely placing each piece on the plate and decorating it with certain sauces or ingredients to appeal visually to the individual who is to consume it. However, the cook could simply put all the ingredients of sushi onto a plate without considering the shape and visual aesthetics of it while still providing the same nutritional value as well as saving a lot of time and energy in creating the food. However, I believe that this objection forms an assumption about food being created as a work of art in which leaves out a very important quality of art itself.
In response to this objection, I claim that the instrumental value or usefulness of an object does not prevent it from being art when the aesthetics of the object arise from an abstraction of its utility. The objection stated above assumes that regardless of the creator’s intentions or the creativity used in preparing the food, it is ultimately still meant to be consumed. Despite this assumption, I believe that when food is created with the intentions of being a work of art and an amount of creativity is used in which makes the work original, the food is then meant to bring about an aesthetic experience in which is abstract from its common use. This aesthetic experience does not derive from the consumption of the food, but the appearance in which the creator used his or her time and effort for it to be evaluated.
When analyzing the creator’s intentions and original creativity in a work, it becomes clear that these simplistic qualities of art allow food to be categorized as such. Regardless of the instrumental value that food holds, I believe that food created as a work of art needs to be evaluated and perceived as more than something which can be consumed. But if food cannot seriously be considered as art, then this leaves room for speculation about if other popular forms of art should be reconsidered[U2].
Work Cited
Telfer, E. (2002). Food as art. In Neill, A. & Ridley, A (Eds.), Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2 ed., pp. 9-27). New York: Routledge.
[U1]I was unable to discern the premises.
[U2]Grade: 78