Cooking is not art

Mike G wrote: I find it pretty pretentious to have to a statement of Chef's art read to me beforehand--

I love food and wine. I've spent countless dollars eating at great restaurants all over America and Europe. It's one of the passions of my life, but it kills me whenever people compare it to great art or truly important work.

I may get slammed for this, but cooking is not art. Winemakers are not "geniuses." Yes, a chef or winemaker can be very talented, innovative and even revolutionary. Yes, they often can justify very steep prices for their cooking or wine--but at the end of the day that's simply what it is--A PLATE OF FOOD OR A GLASS OF BEVERAGE. A great piece of art will still be hanging in the Art Institute or the Louvre a century from now. Even the best meal is ultimately nothing more than tomorrow mornings...well you get the picture.

We are not talking about people in a lab at Harvard trying to cure cancer. We are not talking about people out at Fermilab working on string theory. We are not talking about diplomats trying to end a war. We are not talking about great artists who will be studied for centuries.

In other words, many people in the food and wine business need to get over themselves. They are not doing anything transcendent in the larger scheme of things. They are in a service business, providing a rather basic (no matter how expensive and hyped) and utterly transitory product.

Moderator split from Terragusto thread

LTHForum.com: We are not talking about people out at Fermilab working on string theory.

Damn straight.

Sam Harmon wrote:I may get slammed for this, but cooking is not art. Winemakers are not "geniuses." Yes, a chef or winemaker can be very talented, innovative and even revolutionary. Yes, they often can justify very steep prices for their cooking or wine--but at the end of the day that's simply what it is--A PLATE OF FOOD OR A GLASS OF BEVERAGE. A great piece of art will still be hanging in the Art Institute or the Louvre a century from now. Even the best meal is ultimately nothing more than tomorrow mornings...well you get the picture.

In other words, many people in the food and wine business need to get over themselves. They are not doing anything transcendent in the larger scheme of things. They are in a service business, providing a rather basic (no matter how expensive and hyped) and utterly transitory product.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I'm not sure I follow the logic here. Food cannot be an artistic process simply because of its practical and temporary nature?

A brilliant stage performance by an actor is no less temporary. A beautifully designed building by a famous architect is no less practical. We may not study the physical food produced by great chefs of the past, but we certainly study their recipes and their work still influences dishes created centuries later.

I don't disagree that many chefs have delusions of grandeur when it comes to their own importance. But to strike great food off the list of arts seems, to me, to be working with a very narrow definition of art, and one that your examples certainly don't support.

Dmnkly wrote:

Sam Harmon wrote:I may get slammed for this, but cooking is not art. Winemakers are not "geniuses." Yes, a chef or winemaker can be very talented, innovative and even revolutionary. Yes, they often can justify very steep prices for their cooking or wine--but at the end of the day that's simply what it is--A PLATE OF FOOD OR A GLASS OF BEVERAGE. A great piece of art will still be hanging in the Art Institute or the Louvre a century from now. Even the best meal is ultimately nothing more than tomorrow mornings...well you get the picture.

In other words, many people in the food and wine business need to get over themselves. They are not doing anything transcendent in the larger scheme of things. They are in a service business, providing a rather basic (no matter how expensive and hyped) and utterly transitory product.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I'm not sure I follow the logic here. Food cannot be an artistic process simply because of its practical and temporary nature?

A brilliant stage performance by an actor is no less temporary. A beautifully designed building by a famous architect is no less practical. We may not study the physical food produced by great chefs of the past, but we certainly study their recipes and their work still influences dishes created centuries later.

I don't disagree that many chefs have delusions of grandeur when it comes to their own importance. But to strike great food off the list of arts seems, to me, to be working with a very narrow definition of art, and one that your examples certainly don't support.

You beat me to it!

The very transience of food-on-plate is but one of a chef's possible artistic qualifiers.

Oddly, I'm going to mention a book that I had read well over a year ago for the second time in as many days.

For a great read on whether or not Food or cooking can be art read "Soul if a Chef" by Michael Ruhlman.

JLenart wrote:Oddly, I'm going to mention a book that I had read well over a year ago for the second time in as many days.

For a great read on whether or not Food or cooking can be art read "Soul if a Chef" by Michael Ruhlman.

Might want to double check that title...

Is cooking an art? Well, this is largely dependent on one's definitions of both of those terms, but I think it could be reasonably asserted without too much dispute that "cooking" is a "craft," and just as the great pretensions of those who deem themselves "artists" are often unjustified as their work later descends into the realms of kitsch, failed experiments, or just plain obscurity, those "artisans" who practiced "crafts" occasionally find themselves vaulted into one pantheon or another.

The point? Categorically declaring that "cooking" can NOT be an art (without some sort of restrictive definition of the term) is not a point that I'd want to argue despite my own despair at the pretension of many of those who declare otherwise.

On the other hand, if you agree with Oscar Wilde that "All art is quite useless," you might be right.

I believe that in the right hands, food can be art. However, far more often than not, it only pretends to be. In either case, ideally, it is the diner -- not the chef -- who should make the determination.

=R=

Sam Harmon wrote:
A great piece of art will still be hanging in the Art Institute or the Louvre a century from now.

Have you ever had the opportunity to see a Tibetan sand mandala? A chalk drawing or pavement drawing on the side walk ( Julian Beever is a good example of this) or even bridal Mehendi henna tattoos are beautiful ornate, and after time will fade away.These are beautiful works of art and they are entirely temporary. They are studied as an art form and just as something to be appreciated. I think that Art is subjective, whether or not a chef considers themselves an artist is really no mind to me, as long as what I'm experiencing is something wonderful or beautiful.

Clearly art is subjective. I remember an exhibit a few years ago at the Museum of Contemporary Art. It was a stack of about 1,000 sheets of white 11"x14" paper, on t he floor, with a sign above saying "take one." Clearly, a curator there felt it was art that deserved to be shown in a relatively major museum.

Many food preparations I've seen are far more worthy of being called art, IMHO. Especially because food typically involves many more of the senses. Has anyone ever smelled or tasted the Mona Lisa?

nr706 wrote:Many food preparations I've seen are far more worthy of being called art, IMHO. Especially because food typically involves many more of the senses. Has anyone ever smelled or tasted the Mona Lisa?

Well... not the painting of her, anyway.

Dmnkly wrote:
A brilliant stage performance by an actor is no less temporary. A beautifully designed building by a famous architect is no less practical.

What about sand sculptures? Don't forget about the poor sand sculptures! One rogue wave or a blast of wind and they are lost to the ages. Oh, the humanity!

Technically art is defined as a non-utilitarian object or activity. In other words an empty ceramic vase that has been painted by Picasso, sitting on a pedestal is art. Put a bouquet of flowers and a quart of water in that same vase and it ceases to be art. By that definition, a plate of food not meant to be eaten; only seen and appreciated for its sensory impact, is art. Take a fork and knife to that same plate of food and that's all it is; a plate of food.

Keep in mind that this definition does not determine whether a non-utilitarian object or activity is good art; only that it fulfills the requirement to exist as art.

Buddy

BuddyRoadhouse wrote:Technically art is defined as a non-utilitarian object or activity. In other words an empty ceramic vase that has been painted by Picasso, sitting on a pedestal is art. Put a bouquet of flowers and a quart of water in that same vase and it ceases to be art. By that definition, a plate of food not meant to be eaten; only seen and appreciated for its sensory impact, is art. Take a fork and knife to that same plate of food and that's all it is; a plate of food.

Keep in mind that this definition does not determine whether a non-utilitarian object or activity is good art; only that it fulfills the requirement to exist as art.

Buddy

Interesting from a rhetorical standpoint, Buddy, but I hardly think that's a universal definition of art, nor do I think it's one that most people actually subscribe to (I suspect the number of people who believe that a Picasso-painted vase ceases to be art the moment you put flowers in it is exceedingly small).

I'm not putting it out there as a definition of art but rather as a requirement that an object or activity must fulfill in order for it to be considered art. The full definition of art and what makes it good or bad goes well beyond the non-utilitarian standard and can indeed be very subjective.

As for the number of people who accept that requirement, you are probably right, it is a very small quantity. That doesn't make the requirement any more right or wrong. Without falling into any of the obvious traps, the support that any idea recieves does not necessarily validate it.

At the risk of sounding like a name dropper, the notion that art must be non-utilitarian was passed on to me by an old college professor of mine, Harry Bouras. Harry was himself a painter and sculptor of some note, having his works displayed at some of the world's most prestigious art museums and galleries including the Art Institute here in Chicago. He also was the host of an arts criticism program aired on Sunday nights on WFMT.

I reckon this is gonna sound snooty, but until someone with comparable credits can give me a reasonable argument otherwise, I'm sticking with the non-utilitarian concept in deciding what is and what isn't art.

Buddy

To the OP:

Your art theory is your opinion. I won't even argue that.

what i really take issue with is the "importance" issue you have. So what if chef's aren't Harvard scientists curing cancer? who said they were? Who said that everyone had to be a physicist at Fermilab?

I just don't get why you point it out. What could your point possibly be?

Your point of view seems to be condescending. I admire people that take their work extremely seriously. People who take pride in their end product and feel as if it's their duty to fulfill their job on earth the best they can. Shame on anyone who doesn't think that's equally as important as a physicist at fermilab.

The problem is people think that they need to assign honor. There's more honor in a cabinet maker who cares about his craft and customer service than a medical doctor who can't remember why he got into medicine.

I'm a medic - i've saved lives. I've saved a baby's life. How about that cliché? My job is no more "important" in this world than the people who come down your alley every week and pick up your trash. The sooner you realize that the better this world will be.

/rant

nr706 wrote:Clearly art is subjective. I remember an exhibit a few years ago at the Museum of Contemporary Art. It was a stack of about 1,000 sheets of white 11"x14" paper, on t he floor, with a sign above saying "take one." Clearly, a curator there felt it was art that deserved to be shown in a relatively major museum.

Many food preparations I've seen are far more worthy of being called art, IMHO. Especially because food typically involves many more of the senses. Has anyone ever smelled or tasted the Mona Lisa?

That was a Felix Gonzalez-Torres piece. A major AIDS worker/timebased multimedia installation artist, he made work *specifically* addressing the disease's attritional erasures and *universally* consumable as absence, loss, negative space. He died of AIDS in 1996.

obligatory food connection: he created a series of installations(one of which is in the MCA's collection) of piles of shiny, metallic candies...the viewer/participant takes as much as they want, the heap dwindles, and is replenished by the gallery


he's fucking amazing


---
confidential to Sam Harmon: one might approach a less arse-y, archaic, and pedantic understanding of fine art by starting with wikipedia's short entry on Gonzalez-Torres and following links from there




and btw: the fricking Mona Lisa(whatever) will in time fade as well

Christopher Gordon wrote:and btw: the fricking Mona Lisa(whatever) will in time fade as well

They already have - they are long gone. None of those paintings are original anymore. Light and time has taken such a toll, that all paintings of that age have been touched up so many times that they arent the originals. Think: Michael Jackson.

Just to play the devil's advocate here..

When I was in college at Columbia I had a professor explain that until the Romantic period, the definition of art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. If you wanted to use that definition you'd have to ask yourself whether you feel that Chef's are skilled, or masters of their profession.

While googling around there are quite a few definitions of art out there, interestingly, there is this one:

Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas.

It poses an interesting perspective on whether you feel that you've had a meal that's done this for you. Personally I can think of a few that have done this for me.

Tolstoy wrote a whole essay trying to define what art is/was. For centuries people have continued to debate what art is, how to define art, through these debates some things have become more accepted as forms of art. Only time will tell how food will be accepted or not accepted as a defined form of art.

Actually, time has:

think the royal cuisine of nineteenth century Thailand

think the king-state gastronomy of centuries-old Indonesia(I'm in the middle of Oseland's Cradle of Flavor for history and reference)

ETC.

I'm sure countless are the non-Western cultures that one might objectively-consider having reached fine culinary art whether through resonances in the political, religious, and social spheres or just garden variety genius

it's a moot point

And, well...how is it that no one's mentioned the obvious: Escoffier, Careme, or pick your ancient Roman feast cookery guide

---

but, my favorite gastronomic aesthetics quote must come from the always incisive Gibby Haynes of the Butthole Surfers: "the only connection I have with the word ART is it's the last three letters in the word FART"

BuddyRoadhouse wrote:I'm not putting it out there as a definition of art but rather as a requirement that an object or activity must fulfill in order for it to be considered art. The full definition of art and what makes it good or bad goes well beyond the non-utilitarian standard and can indeed be very subjective.

As for the number of people who accept that requirement, you are probably right, it is a very small quantity. That doesn't make the requirement any more right or wrong. Without falling into any of the obvious traps, the support that any idea recieves does not necessarily validate it.

I stand corrected on the first count, and absolutely agree on the second.

That said, regardless of Mr. Bouras' scholarly and/or artistic qualifications, it seems to me that any definition of art that immediately disregards things like fine Japanese paper, the Taj Mahal and a '57 Cadillac without even the slightest consideration for the creative process that gave them life is a rather cynical and unfortunate one.

Neither I nor, I believe, the late Mr. Bouras meant to denegrate, dismiss, or belittle any of those forms of expression by saying they are not art. The fact that they do not fill the non-utilitarian requirement to qualify as art does not take away from their beauty or the talent required to create them.

The issue is hinted at in djenks post above where he states, "The problem is people think that they need to assign honor." You assume that by calling something "art" you are assigning it some higher state of being than if it merely exists as a beautiful object. Likewise, by insisting that a beautiful object or building cannot strictly be considered art, I am not taking away from its inherent aesthetic qualities.

To put it into food terms (I understand this is a food forum, isn't it?), you can call a cheeseburger a "chopped steak avec fromage Americain" (clearly I did no research at all on my French spelling or grammar) and it's still gonna be a cheeseburger. And I wouldn't have it any other way. In fact I would get far more enjoyment from a good ol' cheeseburger than that other Frenchie thing, so why try to turn it into something it isn't.

This is fun. We should have these discussions more often.

Buddy

BuddyRoadhouse wrote:Neither I nor, I believe, the late Mr. Bouras meant to denegrate, dismiss, or belittle any of those forms of expression by saying they are not art. The fact that they do not fill the non-utilitarian requirement to qualify as art does not take away from their beauty or the talent required to create them.

The issue is hinted at in djenks post above where he states, "The problem is people think that they need to assign honor." You assume that by calling something "art" you are assigning it some higher state of being than if it merely exists as a beautiful object. Likewise, by insisting that a beautiful object or building cannot strictly be considered art, I am not taking away from its inherent aesthetic qualities.

Not to imply that I ever meant to lump you and the OP together, but I believe he (and most others who claim "that's not art") did, in fact, mean to assign honor

I understand what you are saying, and I feel as though to continue along these lines would be to argue semantics. If we share the same level of appreciation (and I suspect we do), does it matter whether or not we call it "art"? But it seems to me that the definition of which you speak considers art a product, not a process, which is an idea I can't say I find appealing. To use a definition that distances art from the human spirit that creates it is, I think, to deny its very meaning.

My post regarding "honor" has to do with the OP claiming basically that Chefs should shut up and stay in the kitchen because what they are doing - in the grand scheme of things - is not important because they aren't Harvard grads curing cancer.

Thats what my post was responding to. I didn't acknowledge the art comment because my personal opinion on what constitutes art is very far from his - enough to the point where i'm probably just gonna let it rest.

I did, however, think he was out of line by calling someone's passion, trade, and ultimately their public service as "not doing anything transcendent in the larger scheme of things."

Dmnkly wrote:

BuddyRoadhouse wrote:Neither I nor, I believe, the late Mr. Bouras meant to denegrate, dismiss, or belittle any of those forms of expression by saying they are not art. The fact that they do not fill the non-utilitarian requirement to qualify as art does not take away from their beauty or the talent required to create them.

The issue is hinted at in djenks post above where he states, "The problem is people think that they need to assign honor." You assume that by calling something "art" you are assigning it some higher state of being than if it merely exists as a beautiful object. Likewise, by insisting that a beautiful object or building cannot strictly be considered art, I am not taking away from its inherent aesthetic qualities.

Not to imply that I ever meant to lump you and the OP together, but I believe he (and most others who claim "that's not art") did, in fact, mean to assign honor

I did not assume that you were lumping me together with the OP and took no offense at your comments.

Dmnkly wrote:I understand what you are saying, and I feel as though to continue along these lines would be to argue semantics. If we share the same level of appreciation (and I suspect we do), does it matter whether or not we call it "art"? But it seems to me that the definition of which you speak considers art a product, not a process, which is an idea I can't say I find appealing. To use a definition that distances art from the human spirit that creates it is, I think, to deny its very meaning.

Ultimately, art is a product despite the pejorative nature of that word. Remember, my non-utilitarian requirement merely means that an object or activity meets the minimum base point to be considered a work of art. It does not make any quality judgments on that work.

In fact, you are absolutely correct in bringing up the human spirit. The level of connection to the human spirit that creates a specific piece of art is what determines whether it is good or bad. Art should be an expression and an extension of self. It should let us in on the mind and spirit of its creator. Not every piece of art achieves that goal.

When my daughter, abe froeman was in high school, she became deeply immersed in photography. We talked at length about what makes up a good photograph and what defines good and bad art. I told her, "Anyone can take a pretty picture, and that's okay; a pretty picture is a pretty picture. A really good photograph tells you something about its subject. A great photograph tells you something about its subject and the person taking the photograph."

We're in complete agreement about the nature and the involvement of the human spirit in creating art. My point is that there is a very objective set of rules defining what art is. However, there is a very different set of rules used to determine whether that art is good or bad.

Buddy

Normally I'd just brush this off as another opinion...but that hurt a bit. It's called 'Culinary Arts' when you sign up for school as a future chef because IT IS AN ART. Sure some meals aren't as great as others but aren't some art pieces just some other art piece? Is art that far apart from food because food can wilter, die, or be eaten? Food is art, it is. I'd even take a step further and say food is MORE than art. Art you can only look at, food you can eat too. Grant Achatz of Alinea paints a plate with not only his great visions but his amazing palate.

And please, be detailed when you have a rebutle to this comment. I'm not trying to be a jerk...I just don't agree with your comment.

BuddyRoadhouse wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:

BuddyRoadhouse wrote:Neither I nor, I believe, the late Mr. Bouras meant to denegrate, dismiss, or belittle any of those forms of expression by saying they are not art. The fact that they do not fill the non-utilitarian requirement to qualify as art does not take away from their beauty or the talent required to create them.

The issue is hinted at in djenks post above where he states, "The problem is people think that they need to assign honor." You assume that by calling something "art" you are assigning it some higher state of being than if it merely exists as a beautiful object. Likewise, by insisting that a beautiful object or building cannot strictly be considered art, I am not taking away from its inherent aesthetic qualities.

Not to imply that I ever meant to lump you and the OP together, but I believe he (and most others who claim "that's not art") did, in fact, mean to assign honor

I did not assume that you were lumping me together with the OP and took no offense at your comments.

Dmnkly wrote:I understand what you are saying, and I feel as though to continue along these lines would be to argue semantics. If we share the same level of appreciation (and I suspect we do), does it matter whether or not we call it "art"? But it seems to me that the definition of which you speak considers art a product, not a process, which is an idea I can't say I find appealing. To use a definition that distances art from the human spirit that creates it is, I think, to deny its very meaning.

Ultimately, art is a product despite the pejorative nature of that word. Remember, my non-utilitarian requirement merely means that an object or activity meets the minimum base point to be considered a work of art. It does not make any quality judgments on that work.

In fact, you are absolutely correct in bringing up the human spirit. The level of connection to the human spirit that creates a specific piece of art is what determines whether it is good or bad. Art should be an expression and an extension of self. It should let us in on the mind and spirit of its creator. Not every piece of art achieves that goal.

When my daughter, abe froeman was in high school, she became deeply immersed in photography. We talked at length about what makes up a good photograph and what defines good and bad art. I told her, "Anyone can take a pretty picture, and that's okay; a pretty picture is a pretty picture. A really good photograph tells you something about its subject. A great photograph tells you something about its subject and the person taking the photograph."

We're in complete agreement about the nature and the involvement of the human spirit in creating art. My point is that there is a very objective set of rules defining what art is. However, there is a very different set of rules used to determine whether that art is good or bad.

Buddy

allow me to direct your attention to:

"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"-Walter Benjamin

I'm not sure who you're talking to Jay, but since I'm the first to see your post I'll go ahead and respond. First off, I don't think you're being a jerk, and I hope you don't feel that way about me or anyone else in this thread. We're having a discussion. We're expressing ideas; some pretty high-minded ones at that. So far no one has called anyone any bad names so we're way ahead of the game.

Just because they call it "art" doesn't make it so. There are lots of things that are referred to as an art or art form; everything from warfare to motorcycle maintenance. In fact those sorts of references are the very thing that has obscured and adulterated the meaning of the word "art".

I'm not commenting on the quality of the meal. It doesn't matter if it's a twelve course meal at Charlie Trotter's or a slab of ribs from Lem's. Food is utile; it serves a purpose. True art must serve no other purpose than to exist as art. That's what makes it art. Period.

And, as stated in an earlier post, just as I do not consider "fine Japanese paper, the Taj Mahal [or] a '57 Cadillac" to be art, it doesn't take anything away from my appreciation for these things or the talent required to create them. All of these things (and food too) are great! They're wonderful, beautiful objects and I have great admiration and respect for the people who made them. But unless that Japanese paper was never meant to be written or drawn upon, only appreciated for its inherent beauty; the Taj Mahal was only built to be gazed upon and never meant to serve as an ornate and elegant tomb, and that '57 Cadillac was only meant to sit and be admired for its aesthetic beauty and never driven to pick up a bag of groceries, they ain't art!

Food, presumably, is meant to be eaten. It provides sustenance and fuel for our bodies. It has a purpose. It is utile. Therefore, by its very nature it cannot be art. The fact that a fantastically creative person can whip up a meal that dazzles the senses and feeds the soul as well as the belly does not change the fact that the ultimate and inalterable purpose of that meal is to nurture and feed us more in a biological/physiological way than in a spiritual manner. Granted a truly great meal can do both, but once that meal is consumed, it ceases to be art, and not just in the obvious sense of the concept. It has served a purpose. It is not art.

Once again, I think there is too much importance being put on the word "art". People seem to think that by defining something as being art it somehow makes it better, perhaps more essential than what it is. Not true at all. In fact, the fewer things we label as art, the more important real art becomes.

I'm not sure why folks feel a need to raise the level of importance of food or anything else that is mistakenly called art. Art is just a thing. There's good and bad art. Just because an object meets the objective qualifications for being called art, doesn't make it any good.

I'm puzzled as to why a great meal or a great chef can't be appreciated within the confines of their own arena; why they have to magically transcend the boundaries of gastronome and somehow become part of some imagined higher level of existence.

Jay, if in fact you are a chef or are on your way to becoming a chef, I bow down to you for your accomplishments and commitment to creating great and beautiful meals. If you need to believe that what you are doing falls within the definition of art, then so be it. I believe otherwise. However, that does not change my level of admiration for you, the food you create, or the goals to which you aspire.

I'm afraid this dead horse has been summarily whipped and it's not likely that anyone on any side of the issue is going to give an inch. I love good food. I doff my hat to anyone who devotes their life, heart, and soul to the creation of same. But I'm simply not going to acknowledge that food or it's manufacture, no matter how creative, innovative, or soul stirring it may be, is art.

Excellent discussion folks. Thanks to all who weighed in. If you have anything else to say, it will be without my further input. Unless of course somebody adds something really thought provoking and juicy. Then I might jump back in.

G'night,

Buddy

BuddyRoadhouse wrote:I'm not sure who you're talking to Jay, but since I'm the first to see your post I'll go ahead and respond. First off, I don't think you're being a jerk, and I hope you don't feel that way about me or anyone else in this thread. We're having a discussion. We're expressing ideas; some pretty high-minded ones at that. So far no one has called anyone any bad names so we're way ahead of the game.

Just because they call it "art" doesn't make it so. There are lots of things that are referred to as an art or art form; everything from warfare to motorcycle maintenance. In fact those sorts of references are the very thing that has obscured and adulterated the meaning of the word "art".

I'm not commenting on the quality of the meal. It doesn't matter if it's a twelve course meal at Charlie Trotter's or a slab of ribs from Lem's. Food is utile; it serves a purpose. True art must serve no other purpose than to exist as art. That's what makes it art. Period.

And, as stated in an earlier post, just as I do not consider "fine Japanese paper, the Taj Mahal [or] a '57 Cadillac" to be art, it doesn't take anything away from my appreciation for these things or the talent required to create them. All of these things (and food too) are great! They're wonderful, beautiful objects and I have great admiration and respect for the people who made them. But unless that Japanese paper was never meant to be written or drawn upon, only appreciated for its inherent beauty; the Taj Mahal was only built to be gazed upon and never meant to serve as an ornate and elegant tomb, and that '57 Cadillac was only meant to sit and be admired for its aesthetic beauty and never driven to pick up a bag of groceries, they ain't art!

Food, presumably, is meant to be eaten. It provides sustenance and fuel for our bodies. It has a purpose. It is utile. Therefore, by its very nature it cannot be art. The fact that a fantastically creative person can whip up a meal that dazzles the senses and feeds the soul as well as the belly does not change the fact that the ultimate and inalterable purpose of that meal is to nurture and feed us more in a biological/physiological way than in a spiritual manner. Granted a truly great meal can do both, but once that meal is consumed, it ceases to be art, and not just in the obvious sense of the concept. It has served a purpose. It is not art.

Once again, I think there is too much importance being put on the word "art". People seem to think that by defining something as being art it somehow makes it better, perhaps more essential than what it is. Not true at all. In fact, the fewer things we label as art, the more important real art becomes.

I'm not sure why folks feel a need to raise the level of importance of food or anything else that is mistakenly called art. Art is just a thing. There's good and bad art. Just because an object meets the objective qualifications for being called art, doesn't make it any good.

I'm puzzled as to why a great meal or a great chef can't be appreciated within the confines of their own arena; why they have to magically transcend the boundaries of gastronome and somehow become part of some imagined higher level of existence.

Jay, if in fact you are a chef or are on your way to becoming a chef, I bow down to you for your accomplishments and commitment to creating great and beautiful meals. If you need to believe that what you are doing falls within the definition of art, then so be it. I believe otherwise. However, that does not change my level of admiration for you, the food you create, or the goals to which you aspire.

I'm afraid this dead horse has been summarily whipped and it's not likely that anyone on any side of the issue is going to give an inch. I love good food. I doff my hat to anyone who devotes their life, heart, and soul to the creation of same. But I'm simply not going to acknowledge that food or it's manufacture, no matter how creative, innovative, or soul stirring it may be, is art.

Excellent discussion folks. Thanks to all who weighed in. If you have anything else to say, it will be without my further input. Unless of course somebody adds something really thought provoking and juicy. Then I might jump back in.

G'night,

Buddy

I have to say that I'm glad you posted this. Based on your post and the few definitions given earlier in the post I'd have to say that food is better than art. If it can't be labeled as art...label it as 'better than art' because it can be eaten too.

I'll agree to disagree... (not sure if that quote work here...but it sounds good )

ps: to Buddy...I recently graduated from Kendall College and on my way to pursuing the field.

Well, that was quick. Christopher, I was not familiar with Walter Benjamin's work, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", so I did a little googling. It's getting late and I'm losing focus so I'm going to assume you brought Mr. Benjamin's work to my attention in reference to my mention of photography as an art form.

I used that incident only as a personal example of applying the subjective standards for judging good and bad art. Also so I could mention that I have a daughter who calls herself "abe froeman". A father couldn't be prouder.

The fact is that that criteria, at least in my mind, and in the estimation of many others, applies to all art forms. Painting and drawing, sculpture, musical composition, all the way up through film making and holography can be judged on those same concepts: Pretty pictures/sculptures/musical exercises are nice but ultimately empty experiences. These same mediums, when telling us something about their subject can be considered to be good art. And finally when the work of art in question tells us not only about its subject but also its creator, that then is a great work of art.

If I have misunderstood your intention or Mr. Benjamin's meaning, I hope you'll allow for the late hour and my fading consciousness and clarify in the morning.

Buddy