Philosophy 205: Philosophy of Food

1

Francisco Ferré

Philosophy 205: Philosophy of Food

December 13, 2016

The role of food in society is often considered to be a simple one: sustain and satiate the hunger of living beings. The question examined in this essay is whether this view of food is too narrow. Upon consideration of the qualities of food and the characteristics of art, it’s clear that food ci be art; further more, though some perspectives would categorize food as being a minor art, the necessary qualities of art and food qualities and impact demonstrate that food can also be a fine art. Certainly, the disclaimer of this argument is that food is not a fine art, minor art, or no art just because it is food, but food is, rather, categorized by its placement as artbased on the whether or not each case fulfills the qualifications of art.

In terms of the argument, the definition of art is that which is necessarily effective in-and-of itself as an effect on the spectator or individual. Art typically carries some intention from its creator (art requires a creator), is socially accepted as an art by society, and has aesthetic qualities.[1]Further more, art is unique in how it touches or affects the spectator.So long as at least two of these qualities are met and the thing “in-itself” affects the spectator then the thing may be considered art. In order to demonstrate how food can be an art one must have a definition of food for comparison.

Food is, as few could disagree with, that which is edible, flavorful, and safe to consume, as well as being given the label of “food.” This brings into consideration the usefulness of food.Food is, as Telfer suggests, possibly accessible to both qualities of being instrumental or non-instrumental.[2] This means that food can be fairly judged by either its aesthetic quality or its usefulness. An example of this would be a dinner at Olive Garden, an Italian-American restaurant; though one could find themselves engaged with the meal on a level that appreciates and values the savory white-sauce and sharp gorgonzola spread across a bed of egg-pasta, which is warm and soft in the mouth, one could also find the meal equally as enjoyable because of its usefulness in settling the pains of hunger or accommodating a low-price for high-calories. In the same way, a song may be appreciated for its rhythm and lyrics on a creative level as a pleasing sound or for its ability to facilitate public events and people. If one accepts this premise, such as Monroe explains, that food and media arts are alike in this respect then food is directly relatable and equivalent to art in this respect. [3]

Considerably, those things that bring about aesthetic qualities don’t automatically qualify as art because non-intentional objects, such as a waterfall (which has not been proven as creation) bring about aesthetic reactions by observers[4]; of course, food is the direct product of an individual creating something purposefully! Even in the case that food is found naturally it is still purposeful; in respectto this claim, one could consider an apple on a tree as being edible, but it is not quite a “food item” until it is labeled as food (i.e. “an apple”) by the society, and so it becomes interactive in that moment, a type of phenomenology of food.In as far as food requires aesthetic qualities to be art, food is, in every sense, an aesthetic. The primary senses used when analyzing food are taste and smell, and so food can be useful in being very attractive (i.e. sweet, tasty, appealing) or repulsive (i.e. expired, distasteful). This shows clearly that food has, in either positive or negative light, the qualifier of aesthetic, an unnecessary (but often enhancing quality of art) connection to art. This effect works better in demonstrating how food can be a higher art form.

Food is quite divided when considering the opinion of it as art. As is noted by Monroe there are plenty of opponents of the theory of food as art, most of which seem to ascribe to the argument of food as a failed art because of the problem of consumption.[5] Of course, this objection is not so detrimental to the discussion because of Monroe’s examination of other arts that exemplify food as brief and finite in time, such as theatre and music.[6] The important note to take is that this objection focuses on food as not being art because its inability to last forever (though some food, if preserved, may outlast some other forms of art); thankfully, this objection doesn’t address the public opinion of food as whole, which is something that can demonstrably define culture, religion, and so forth. Just consider the appeal and emotional connection that food has to people who form their identity around it. One example is the candy used in the literary classic Because of Winn-Dixie; while the candies were just a sweet food, they evoked much more than flavor sensations, causing individuals in the town to face the demons of their past and come together as a community. Considerably, food, at the least, qualifies as a socially accepted and possible emotion-evoker with the capability of inducing the same emotions as other art forms.

These considerations are important in supporting food as both a possible minor art and possible fine art, but a major concern remains from critics in concern with how art and food have been defined. Certainly, the opponents of food as an art form are justifiable in saying the following: By calling food “a possible art” the argument begins to open a proverbial can-of-worms as to what may be called art, so that by stating “art only need evoke passions in society, have purpose, and sustain some kind of aesthetic to attain a response from the spectator” the argument allows almost anything to be art. Considering this issue objectively, art is function much like currency; if there is more considered art in rotation then all art because comparably less valuable, even in its own respect. Though a painting or song may still be valued in itself there can suddenly be ten more just like them that less unique in their experience and, thusly, a lesser art. Considering food, respectively, this would mean that every time a food item is made or created there is less of a value in what it does, so every food art created devalues food as an art until it is barley art at all, depreciating in value constantly!

While it’s a good point to note that the specifics of the definition may seem rather broad for qualifying an art form, the term “art” and the quality that carries it don’t depreciate because of the actions of other people, even if it is an attempt to copy or mimic the existing art form. As is agreed in the objection, art objects are still valued in-and-of their own selves, so the uniqueness of art cannot depreciate if it was created and/or defined properly [as an art] in the first place. In terms of food, a recipe, though perhaps created and followed closely to elicit the appropriate taste, has constant changes being made to it, small changes that redefine the taste, smell, texture, and even purpose of the food. When this occurs the food as both a substance and art changes dramatically. Let it be noted that the objection stands strong in its point of some foods whose effort and intention are objectively less, such as the one who calls the apple an art; since there are so many apples more alike to that one its value, as an art, is much less than a creamy, lemon-custard pie baked with cinnamon and cherry-flavoring made in an Austrian bakery.

Food is most certainly an art in as far as it is intended to be, and more especially when it is unique and effective and obtaining a reaction from those who experience it (whether it’s a positive or negative one). Concerning the major objection, it’s important to note that art functions as a large spectrum rather than a dichotomy of black-and-white discernment. With this in mind, the question of food as art almost becomes irrelevant, as the focus of art becomes more about distinguishing the superior food art from the inferior. As is appropriate, one could wonder very well why this should matter so strongly to them. In concerns with art, one could argue that it gives reason to living and life, and so it would only make sense to search for an answer to the question of “what qualifies as art?” in terms of a necessary part of every being’s daily life: food. Perhaps looking at food in a new light (as an art form) will also persuade the public and society to examine their food more critically in thought, which, ironically, is the very basic function of art in the first place.

Bibliography

Telfer, Elizabeth. “Food as Art.” Arguing About Art; Contemporary Philosophical Debates. Copyright Clearance Center.Routledge, 2002. E-Book

Monroe, Dave. “Can Food Be Art? The Problem of Consumption.” Food & Philosophy: Eat Drink, and Be Merry.Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. November 2008

Grayling, A.C. “Art: whether you love it or hate it, the purpose is to elicit a response.” Times Higher Education-World University Rankings. Last modified October 8, 2009.

I Pledge Cisco Ferré

[1]Telfer, Elizabeth. “Food as Art.” Arguing About Art; Contemporary Philosophical Debates. Copyright Clearance Center. Routledge, 2002. E-Book, 12-13

[2]Telfer, Elizabeth. “Food as Art.” Arguing About Art; Contemporary Philosophical Debates. Copyright Clearance Center. Routledge, 2002. E-Book, 10

[3]Monroe, Dave. “Can Food Be Art? The Problem of Consumption.” Food & Philosophy: Eat Drink, and Be Merry. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. November 2008, 136

[4]Telfer, Elizabeth. “Food as Art.” Arguing About Art; Contemporary Philosophical Debates. Copyright Clearance Center. Routledge, 2002. E-Book, 12

[5]Monroe, Dave. “Can Food Be Art? The Problem of Consumption.” Food & Philosophy: Eat Drink, and Be Merry. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. November 2008, 134

[6]Monroe, Dave. “Can Food Be Art? The Problem of Consumption.” Food & Philosophy: Eat Drink, and Be Merry. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. November 2008, 135