Many people consider food (or cooking at least) to be an art form, myself included. However, some argue that food may be artistic but not an art. Why? Well, the author says that "no chef can claim the freedom of mind that artists won in the Renaissance". In other words, chefs have to cater to customers and subsequently cannot have the same sort of artistic freedom that "traditional" artists hold. Wouldn't that also mean that if an artist creates something on request, that would not be art? To add to that, there is no rule that cooking has to be edible. This is a bit radical, but nothing is stopping a chef from cooking up poison to their heart's desire—they just don't serve it to anyone (we hope).
Further, cooking (or the culinary arts) is excluded from the seven traditional arts (being architecture, sculpture, painting, literature, music, performing, and film). Despite this, many claim that cooking is art; this article shows the opinions of chefs, artists, food critics, and more. There are a myriad of opinions here, but there are several themes that can be pulled from it.
First, there is a distinction between food and cooking. This is reasonable as food is the medium and cooking is the process. The interesting thing is that in this article, the question is "is food art?" rather than "is cooking art?". Some go on to posit that food is art, while some say that food itself isn't, while cooking is. This creates the idea of whether or not food, without manipulation, can be art. For instance, is a banana art? (Evidently the one taped on the wall was, but let's not get into that.) If approached from the angle that food is the medium, it is no more art than an untouched slab of marble would be. Then again, modern art such as Equivalent VIII by Carl Andre has been placed in a museum. Granted, there has been some manipulation there, but consider putting 100 bananas in the formation of a rectangle—is that art? There is a similar idea to be considered here. Personally, I don't want to go too far into this idea of modern art and medium, but it's undoubtable that there is a lot to consider in this area.
For simplicity's sake, I'm going to run with the idea that cooking is an art and not go into the "raw" food side. From the same article, some of the commenters make a point of craft versus art. This is also a complex issue. Perhaps the first creation of the dish is art while the replications afterward are effectively craft. Would that mean that chefs go back and forth between being artisans and artists? Perhaps. Modernly, however, a lot of things considered to be "crafts" at the time of creation (or when first studied) are now seen as art. Consider most pottery pieces. Often, they were created to function as something—perhaps to hold water or food—but due to the patterns incised or painted on, they are referred to as "art". Perhaps the term art is used more loosely, or perhaps there is something more integral to the pottery itself that allows it to be considered art despite its usage. Considering this, cooking being an art form is not impossible.
Admittedly, I've touched on the idea of craft versus art a bit, but I agree with Dave Arnold: “[The question] ‘Is food art?’ usually boils down to a craft-versus-art argument. I avoid these conversations at all costs.” It's such a complex idea that one could write several books on it and still have more to discuss.
Avoiding those muddy waters, I would like to finish with a simple but (hopefully) interesting aspect of cooking being or not being an art. Some of the commenters from the article mention expression of feeling and communication. From this angle, I think of Leo Tolstoy and Sigmund Freud and what they have to say about art.
In "Art as The Communication of Feeling", Tolstoy argues that art is a "condition of human life" and something that effectively transmits feeling from the creator to the receiver. Once the two people experience the same emotion, it is art. In that sense, it is arguable that cooking can be an art form. Perhaps the emotion has to be simple: the chef wants to represent joy and thus uses "positive" and "rich" ingredients such as chocolate, and then the dish transmits that joyful feeling to the customer. Of course, cooking is far from literature, for example; it is much easier in writing. Say an author is feeling sad and writes something about pain. It would not be terribly hard for the reader to feel the same way, at least to some extent. However, it could be said that the difficulty of working with food increases its merit, though that certainly is a subjective assessment.
Freud, on the other hand, in "Creative Writers and Day-Dreaming", tries to assert that writers are effectively doing the same thing that they did as children at play. They create a world and rearrange things within it. Chefs are effectively doing so, granted in a vastly different medium. They use certain components and try to make them work together in a cohesive world that, further, often creates a story. Maybe the story is just "I was inspired by such-and-such" or the story could be even deeper.
Essentially, cooking can, in some cases, be an art form given these ideas. It's worth approaching the concept from different angles, especially because there are so many different opinions on the subject.
Ultimately, I think cooking is an art form. It's a creative process, and it also requires talent and skill. Even though it is not a permanent art form like sculptures, some art's value is contingent on its fleeting, short-lived life—take street art or some ritualistic sand art. Independent of one's personal opinion, it's undeniable that cooking can be considered art.
Special thanks to my awesome friend Karin for giving me this idea!
Further, cooking (or the culinary arts) is excluded from the seven traditional arts (being architecture, sculpture, painting, literature, music, performing, and film). Despite this, many claim that cooking is art; this article shows the opinions of chefs, artists, food critics, and more. There are a myriad of opinions here, but there are several themes that can be pulled from it.
First, there is a distinction between food and cooking. This is reasonable as food is the medium and cooking is the process. The interesting thing is that in this article, the question is "is food art?" rather than "is cooking art?". Some go on to posit that food is art, while some say that food itself isn't, while cooking is. This creates the idea of whether or not food, without manipulation, can be art. For instance, is a banana art? (Evidently the one taped on the wall was, but let's not get into that.) If approached from the angle that food is the medium, it is no more art than an untouched slab of marble would be. Then again, modern art such as Equivalent VIII by Carl Andre has been placed in a museum. Granted, there has been some manipulation there, but consider putting 100 bananas in the formation of a rectangle—is that art? There is a similar idea to be considered here. Personally, I don't want to go too far into this idea of modern art and medium, but it's undoubtable that there is a lot to consider in this area.
For simplicity's sake, I'm going to run with the idea that cooking is an art and not go into the "raw" food side. From the same article, some of the commenters make a point of craft versus art. This is also a complex issue. Perhaps the first creation of the dish is art while the replications afterward are effectively craft. Would that mean that chefs go back and forth between being artisans and artists? Perhaps. Modernly, however, a lot of things considered to be "crafts" at the time of creation (or when first studied) are now seen as art. Consider most pottery pieces. Often, they were created to function as something—perhaps to hold water or food—but due to the patterns incised or painted on, they are referred to as "art". Perhaps the term art is used more loosely, or perhaps there is something more integral to the pottery itself that allows it to be considered art despite its usage. Considering this, cooking being an art form is not impossible.
Admittedly, I've touched on the idea of craft versus art a bit, but I agree with Dave Arnold: “[The question] ‘Is food art?’ usually boils down to a craft-versus-art argument. I avoid these conversations at all costs.” It's such a complex idea that one could write several books on it and still have more to discuss.
Avoiding those muddy waters, I would like to finish with a simple but (hopefully) interesting aspect of cooking being or not being an art. Some of the commenters from the article mention expression of feeling and communication. From this angle, I think of Leo Tolstoy and Sigmund Freud and what they have to say about art.
In "Art as The Communication of Feeling", Tolstoy argues that art is a "condition of human life" and something that effectively transmits feeling from the creator to the receiver. Once the two people experience the same emotion, it is art. In that sense, it is arguable that cooking can be an art form. Perhaps the emotion has to be simple: the chef wants to represent joy and thus uses "positive" and "rich" ingredients such as chocolate, and then the dish transmits that joyful feeling to the customer. Of course, cooking is far from literature, for example; it is much easier in writing. Say an author is feeling sad and writes something about pain. It would not be terribly hard for the reader to feel the same way, at least to some extent. However, it could be said that the difficulty of working with food increases its merit, though that certainly is a subjective assessment.
Freud, on the other hand, in "Creative Writers and Day-Dreaming", tries to assert that writers are effectively doing the same thing that they did as children at play. They create a world and rearrange things within it. Chefs are effectively doing so, granted in a vastly different medium. They use certain components and try to make them work together in a cohesive world that, further, often creates a story. Maybe the story is just "I was inspired by such-and-such" or the story could be even deeper.
Essentially, cooking can, in some cases, be an art form given these ideas. It's worth approaching the concept from different angles, especially because there are so many different opinions on the subject.
Ultimately, I think cooking is an art form. It's a creative process, and it also requires talent and skill. Even though it is not a permanent art form like sculptures, some art's value is contingent on its fleeting, short-lived life—take street art or some ritualistic sand art. Independent of one's personal opinion, it's undeniable that cooking can be considered art.
Special thanks to my awesome friend Karin for giving me this idea!
Comments
Post a Comment