Ellie Tallman

Ellie Tallman

Dr. Williams

Philosophy of Food

Dec. 10, 2016

Can Food be Art?

The aspect of art and what can be classified as art can be a complicated and rabbit-hole conversation. Many people have varying opinions on how the concept of art should be defined. Some define art by material, saying that art should be composed of specific materials, like oil on canvas or a marble sculpture. Other people associate the idea of meaning with the correct definition of art. Other definitions have to do with the educational background of the creator or the aesthetic beauty of the work of art. Many people have their own opinions on what art can and cannot be based on material, meaning, education, etc. The issue of food as art has caused many disagreements and caused people to question their definitions of art. While I will argue that yes, food can be art, many others have opinions otherwise that no, food cannot be art. These objections have to do mostly with questions about the creator of the art and the fact that food is perishable and consumable, contradictory to many pre-existing ideas about art. Through this paper, I will argue that food can be art due to the fact that the assertion of an object as art makes anything art.Also I will give specific examples of Western art work conducted by well-known artist such as Marcel Duchamp and Felix Gonzalez-Torres that will support my argument.

The conversation on whether or not food can be considered art contains varying opinions. Dave Monroe argues against the argument that food is not art because it is consumed and therefore no longer there to appreciate.[1] Monroe believes this is not valid when considering food as an art. He argues back that food, even though consumed, is art because of the feeling and pleasure it gives to someone. Even though they are not consumed, many other things that are considered art are not the same every time therefore should not be considered artif going by the definition related to consumption. Dave Monroe talks in his work about how music is an art form and can be considered consumption because it is not preformed or heard the same every time. He argues that both food and music have structure with music being the score and food being the recipe. Also he argues that both food and music come to an end. The food is digested and gone off the plate while the music ends with a final song and clearing of the stage. Both food and music have similar and important qualities, so the idea that consumption denies that food is art is not necessarily correct. If music is considered art, then food should be considered art. Otherwise, an argument about consumption would not be valid. Other scholars differ on their opinions about whether or not food can be art. I will also argue along with Dave Monroe that consumption does not matter when defining food as art.

In the tradition of Western art, a definition of art can be based on the existing precedents. It seems to be the case that anything can be art once someone asserts it as a work of art. Therefore, if someone were to assert food as art, it would become a work of art. A precedentexists in the history of Western art to support this definition. ATwentieth-century artist named Marcel Duchamp submitted a urinal turned upside down and signed as a work of art and titled it Fountain.[2]As the artist, he argued that his assertion of the object in this case the urinal as a work of art made it a work of art. This work was a revolutionary work of art that caused many people to question their existing definitions of art and made people rethink what can constitute a work of art. Today, Duchamp’s Fountain is taught in nearly every class concerning Western art as a foundational work of Twentieth-century modern art. This new definition of art that was established by Marcel Duchamp can be applied to food. In this case, food, like the urinal, can be considered art when asserted as so. Based on this precedent, it seems to be the case that anything can be asserted as art, and it does not have to be the original creator of the object does not have to be the artist. In the case of the urinal, Duchamp was not the creator of the object but as the artist he was able to assert the object and make it into a work of art. He simply took something that someone else constructed for function and declared it art. This takes intention of creation out of the definition of a work of art. Food fits into this definition, because even if the creator of the food did not intend it to be a work of art, it can be asserted as a work of art once an artist does so.

One question that is raised in objection to this definition has to do with the definition of an artist. Does someone have to be formally trained as an artist in order to be called an artist and be able to declare an object a work of art? In response to this objection, the field of outsider and folk artists can be used to refute this objection. There is an important field in art history that focuses on the work of self-taught and folk artists. These artists have made their way into exhibitions in major museums, including the Museum of Modern Art in New York. One important exhibit focused completely on the work of folk artists. This was the exhibition “The Quilts of Gee’s Bend” at the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York City.[3] This exhibit showed the work of the Gee’s Bend quilters from rural Alabama. These African-American artists had no formal training and worked in folk-art traditions, and yet their quilts were regarded as works of fine art at some of the most influential institutions in the nation. This refutes the objection that a work of art has to be created by a person who is trained as an artist. It seems to support the assertion that anyone can be an artist. Applied to food, this means that anyone can assert food as a work of art.

Some also object that food should not be considered art because food is not everlasting and it is consumed.Asserting food as art interferes with the idea of art that is something that is long-lasting and is something that is able to be appreciated by viewers over a long period of time. Based on the conception of art as a long-lasting object that is not consumable, many object to the definition that allows for food to be considered art. This objection does not stand when faced with an example of a work by prominent contemporary artist Felix Gonzalez-Torrez. His installation was featured in the new Met Bruer, which is the brand of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, one of the most important cultural institutions in the country, devoted completely to contemporary art.[4] His installation was composed of a 175 pounds of candy arranged in a pile in the corner of the gallery space that viewers are actually encouraged to take samples from. This work shows one of his favorite themes, which is the transience of human life. In this piece, the depletion of the pile of candy represents the way that the life of Gonzalez-Torres’s partner slowly dwindled due to his death by AIDS. In order to represent the transience of human life in his conceptual art, his works of art are in fact transient. This complicates the definition of art as something that is long-lasting, because this piece shows a work of art that is completely perishable and is meant to disappear. In this piece, Gonzalez-Torrez uses actual food that is consumed by viewers, showing an example of food being included in a legitimate work of art. The fact that this piece by Gonzalez-Torrez is included in such an important institution establishes its validity as a work of art. This example of Gonzalez-Torrez’s candy art shows that art does not have to be defined as something that is long-lasting, and sets a precedent for assertion food as art.

Opinions on the question of whether or not food can be art are dependent on how you define art. While many philosophers vary on their opinion of whether or not food can be art, there are presidents in the history of Western art that support the definition that anything can be art once someone asserts it as a work of art. As seen in the work of Marcel Duchamp, who asserted a urinal as a work of art, and in the work of Felix Gonzalez-Torrez, who actually put forth a pile of candy as a work of art, this definition stands as a supported and validated definition of what art can be. When art is defined this way it is possible and easy to assert food as art. Based on these examples, I argue that yes, food can be art.

Bibliography

Conan, Neal. "The Quilts of Gee's Bend."NPR: Talk of the Nation.February 4, 2003.

Dave Monroe. “Can Food be Art? The Problem of Consumption” Food and Philosophy,

(2007): 133-144.

Eckardt, Stephanie. "The New Met Bruer Wants You to Take Candies, Not Photos."W

Magazine.March 13,2016.

Leoni-Figini, Margherita. “The Object in 20thCentury Art.” Centre Pompidou. May 2007.

Marcel Duchamp, Fountain, 1914.

Felix Gonzalez-Torrez, Untitled.

[1]Dave Monroe, “Can Food Be Art? The Problem of Consumption,” Food and Philosophy.

[2]MargheritaLeoni-Figini, “The Object in 20thCentury Art,” Centre Pompidou, May 2007.

[3]Neal Conan, "The Quilts of Gee's Bend,"NPR: Talk of the Nation,February 4, 2003.

[4]Stephanie Eckardt, "The New Met Bruer Wants You to Take Candies, Not Photos,"W Magazine, March 13,2016.