Mammon Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 (edited) Does food count as art? From the "model-building" discussion in the OPAR one can say that food is recreated and representing of part of the world, you present the good tastes as opposed to the bad. There is also the issue of the senses, sculptors, books, paintings and music all apply to sight and sound, but what about taste and smell? Art should be enjoyable from those senses right? I think food can be appreciated for more then just sustenance. A lot of science and culture goes into preparing food now that it definitely transcends just pure sustenance. The abundance we have at out fingertip right now is a tribute to capitalism; one that is made even more prominent this time of year during the holidays. So guys, what are your Objectivist thoughts on food? Edit: 1000th post! Edited November 27, 2008 by Mammon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinDW78 Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 Does food count as art? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarrisan Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 I'm not so sure... I mean, what are the main differences between a masterful statue and a masterful dish (Besides the fact that one of them is going to last far longer)? I think if you approached it in the right way, it could be art. I'd like to see some more thoughts on this subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensch Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 Food is not art, but it can be represented artfully. The term art relates to fine art itself, architecture, sculpture, painting, drawing, writing… And there are the sub categories as well, the use of artistic techniques and elements is required for those, as in decorations, wallpaper, clothing, designing of objects, photography and so on. It goes all the way down to putting a decal onto a coffee cup, where it barely even connects to the term art. But it is much easier for an artist to present food in a pleasing way, for the same principles of color combinations, devisions of shapes and all the other aspects that make a piece of art a visual pleasure are applied. I am an avid baker and cook, and I certainly use all my visual skills when serving the food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackInMind Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 The preparation and presentation of food can certainly be considered art. If anyone's ever seen a really masterfully created plate of sushi, thats a great example. Theres a huge emphasis on presentation and aesthetics in making sushi. A good chef is creative, so I don't see why that creativity is lessened by the fact that the medium being used is edible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01503 Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 It can be considered very pretty, and aesthetically pleasing, but art is only "art" when it is created, "ars gratia artis". Art for the sake of art. A painting or a statue for example. It has no purpose but, well, being art. Sushi and other foods are not art because their primary role is to be food. To eat them. If you used food as a medium for creating art, and it was meant to be put on display, that might be different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensch Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 The preparation and presentation of food can certainly be considered art. If anyone's ever seen a really masterfully created plate of sushi, thats a great example. Theres a huge emphasis on presentation and aesthetics in making sushi. A good chef is creative, so I don't see why that creativity is lessened by the fact that the medium being used is edible Art expresses the metaphysical values that the creator of a piece of art holds. Art is an expression of the artist's sense of life, he recreates his most important values with a work, he concretizes those values in order to convey them. Food can be artistically presented as a bunch of flowers can, a draped piece of cloth can, but it is not art. The presentation can be wonderful and pleasing, but that is all, there is no profound expression in sushi. Sushi is not metaphysically significant. It is food no matter how it is presented. The concept of art has been hijacked by today's "experts". Any dribble and any kind of arrangement of objects is proclaimed art, and I guess when there is a nihilist philosophy underlying a work, anything goes. This has led to a wide spread confusion about what art really means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMartins Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 The rational chef will make recipies of the ideal food, as it could be and ought to be. The theme of his recipies will be "the role of food in man's existence". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athena glaukopis Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 (edited) It can be considered very pretty, and aesthetically pleasing, but art is only "art" when it is created, "ars gratia artis". Art for the sake of art. A painting or a statue for example. It has no purpose but, well, being art. Sushi and other foods are not art because their primary role is to be food. To eat them. If you used food as a medium for creating art, and it was meant to be put on display, that might be different. This is pretty much what I would have said. This is also why architecture is not art. Edited November 27, 2008 by athena glaukopis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinDW78 Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 Art is a recreation of reality via an artist's philosphical value-judgements. Except for things like ice sculptures or those things they make on Food Network Challenge, I don't think the definition can apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted November 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Huge Disclaimer! Do not read the following until this is understood! -- Socratic Method Is Being Applied! -- Okay, for those saying food isn't art because you can eat it. What if an extra-dimensional being came along and used sources of art as sustenance? Things like paintings and sculptors? Would that make our art, not art anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01503 Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Would that constitute a TILF? (Tree I'd like to...) Huge Disclaimer! Do not read the following until this is understood! -- Socratic Method Is Being Applied! -- Okay, for those saying food isn't art because you can eat it. What if an extra-dimensional being came along and used sources of art as sustenance? Things like paintings and sculptors? Would that make our art, not art anymore? It is not the purpose that you use it for, it is the intended purpose that the artist created it for. For example, if a robber comes into my house, and a small statue is next to me, and I pick up that statue and beat the crap out of the robber with it, it does not stop becoming art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackInMind Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Art expresses the metaphysical values that the creator of a piece of art holds. Art is an expression of the artist's sense of life, he recreates his most important values with a work, he concretizes those values in order to convey them. Theres a lot of things that take a great amount of skill/creativity/crafting that aren't expressly a medium of fine art (paintings, sculpture, etc.) but exhibit an artistic quality about them, because it engages the creative process. At this point, is it a question of "art" being an incorrect word to describe the things I'm talking about? Also, somewhat related but also a little off topic, could athletics be considered an art form? Martial Arts has the word right in the name, and bodybuilding has also been called an art as well (as Ahnold says in Pumping Iron "we're sculptors but with our own bodies instead of clay"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01503 Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Theres a lot of things that take a great amount of skill/creativity/crafting that aren't expressly a medium of fine art (paintings, sculpture, etc.) but exhibit an artistic quality about them, because it engages the creative process. At this point, is it a question of "art" being an incorrect word to describe the things I'm talking about? Also, somewhat related but also a little off topic, could athletics be considered an art form? Martial Arts has the word right in the name, and bodybuilding has also been called an art as well (as Ahnold says in Pumping Iron "we're sculptors but with our own bodies instead of clay"). If the only purpose of body building is aesthetics, then I'd say it's art. Although I am not sure. As much as I love martial arts, and I really do (I've been an aficionado for years), I cannot in all good conscious say that it is an "art". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenure Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 I think this is an equivocation between an 'art' or skill, and 'Art' as a stand-alone, end-in-itself. Cooking requires a lot of skill and its something you deeply appreciate, done well, but it does not exist to tell a story in and of itself. It's food and it's there to be eaten. Unless your goal is to make inedible food, which just looks good, in which case you're not a good chef, since the purpose of a chef is to make edible food. You might be making wax apples, and that's interior decoration, but even that is utilitarian and not Art. And no - if an alien sucked down the collected works of Shakespeare for lunch, that wouldn't make it any less Art, since its intended purpose was not to be food. Noone imagined this alien would ever appear, and even if he did, it wasn't created for him. It was created to exist for itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackInMind Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 If the only purpose of body building is aesthetics, then I'd say it's art. Although I am not sure. It is purely aesthetic. Bodybuilders don't do what they do for strength, but for how it looks. I do really recommend the movie Pumping Iron, its a great look at the sport/art, and its inspiring to me to see guys like Arnold and Lou Ferrigno who have as much dedication and drive towards their goals as they do. Tenure - I understand the difference now. I was making the mistake of equating a skill/craft with artwork. So I guess its fair to say that anything that is Art takes skill and creativity but not everything that takes skill and creativity is art? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensch Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 (edited) I was making the mistake of equating a skill/craft with artwork. So I guess its fair to say that anything that is Art takes skill and creativity but not everything that takes skill and creativity is art? That is true. There are many a kraft that require a high level of skill, but they are not art, they can be artistic though, using the same standards of execution but without the underpinnings of the metaphysical value judgments that an artist applies to his work. A good example for a kraft is a picture frame that is exquisitely done to enhance an artwork. The term art has been really hijacked in order to elevate a lot of skillfully done objects., because art is a word that means "high level" to many people. I have met many krafts-people that felt insulted when called crafts person and not artist. They felt slighted because of this misunderstanding of the concept of art. Edited November 28, 2008 by Mensch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01503 Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 It is purely aesthetic. Bodybuilders don't do what they do for strength, but for how it looks. I do really recommend the movie Pumping Iron, its a great look at the sport/art, and its inspiring to me to see guys like Arnold and Lou Ferrigno who have as much dedication and drive towards their goals as they do. When I said "I am not sure" I meant that I was not sure it was art. I knew it was purely for aesthetic purposes. I have seen that movie; my dad was an amateur bodybuilder obsessed with The Ahnold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 The rational chef will make recipies of the ideal food, as it could be and ought to be. The theme of his recipies will be "the role of food in man's existence". Hmmmm, I wonder if that's what Andy Warhol was doing when he painted that can of Campbell's Soup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensch Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 Hmmmm, I wonder if that's what Andy Warhol was doing when he painted that can of Campbell's Soup. That is funny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonrobt Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 (edited) The original notion of art, in the Greek, was 'skill of mind in making' [bowra, The Greek Experience]... by that standard, it was then accepted that cooking was or could be an art, as was much of fine craftmanship... it was not until within the past couple hundred years that there was an attempt to consider 'art' as 'fine art', for contemplative purpose - even as there are levels of art, and separating it from 'crafts', which was utilitarian... further, the original view had art meaning as much the 'other' use of the word, aesthetics [tho that word was not coined until about the same time 'fine art' came into being] - and thus both meanings are used to day under the same word 'art'... with the consequence of much confusion all around... Edited April 11, 2009 by anonrobt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 According to Ayn Rand "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments." Most dishes do not meet this criteria, but some do: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cooking-cute/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.