Telfer posits that the process of preparing, presenting, and consuming meals is too common, too necessary, too simple, too temporally, spatially, and sequentially insufficient to be considered as art. She defends these claims with references to the accepted practices of evaluation and classification to determine an artifact’s status as an art form or a work of art (p 20). She states food can be, and in some cases, is, an art, but it is only a minor art because it is not only simple, it is also limited by its impermanence, meaninglessness, and its inability to move us (p 26).
I found this particular reasoning constrictive, incomplete, and biased.
I agree with the idea offered in class by Ed, that the person experiencing the thing will be the one imposing the meaning of art upon it.
I think art is, by its nature, relational; and its relational nature has its origins in biology. All of our sensory perceptions are the result of signals transported through various organic mechanisms to the brain, which then interprets this data. Everyone is a unique assemblage of organic, psychological, and historical experiences. Although we may share many experiences in common, our associations are filtered through our individuation.
Art is a construct. Whether it is a social or cultural construct, each person will have a unique relationship to art. While individuals in our society may have evolved beyond the need for interpretation of particular organic sensory stimuli for survival, we cannot deny their rank as survival mechanisms for our ancestors. I am unwilling to presume that my concept of art is superior to any other person's concept of art (external judgment of a foreigner's internal experience). For these reasons, I am uncomfortable with evaluating or classifying any art as major or minor.
In response to Jacob's question, I believe that food is an art to those who experience it as such, and that often, the nature of the preparation, presentation, and consumption of food is inherently artistic.
My Question:
Can Telfer legitimately claim a disconnect between what food we eat, how and where it is grown or raised, how it is processed, transported, stored, marketed, obtained, and utilized by us, from what it tells us about the world and ourselves, as well as what it represents to us and others? (P 27
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
She need (and probably would) only argue for a specifically aesthetic "disconnect" between all of these aspects of our production and consumption of food. As you know, I'm intrigued by the ethical questions (some) dishes raise. Is there an aesthetics of ethics?
In my perception both ethics and aesthetics are formed and reinforced in sociocultural environs. I believe there is an aesthetic of ethics. Wouldn't there be an aesthetic of any social construct?
Post a Comment