[maher]

Adria has been invited to the Documenta art show in Germany so is his work science... or art....




from the Independent today:

Is food art? El Bulli chef creates a stir
By Graham Keeley in Barcelona
Published: 16 May 2007
Better known for his almost Surrealist creations in the kitchen rather than on canvas, Spain's best known chef, Ferran Adria, has created a stir after being invited to one of Europe's most influential art jamborees.

The five-yearly Documenta art show in Kassel, Germany, is one of the biggest events in the contemporary art calendar. And Adria, whose artistic output so far has extended to dishes such as codfish foam and spherical potato gnocchi with consommé of roasted potatoes, is one of only two Spaniards invited to show off his talents this year.

The chef, whose restaurant near Barcelona, El Bulli, was recently voted the best in the world for the second time, will rub shoulders with the likes of Britain's Tracey Emin.

The invitation, however, has stuck in the throat of the Spanish art establishment, which condemned it as the "banalisation of art". One critic, Jose de la Sota, writing in the daily El Pais, said: "Adria is not Picasso. Picasso did not know how to cook but he was better than Adria [at art]. What is art now? Is it something or nothing?"

The chef was unapologetic: "True, I am no Picasso, but what is art in times like these? Many people act as if I should apologise for participating. I am not going to.

"I understand there might be people who are annoyed. It's tough to see a cook get invited to this. But what is art? If they want to call what I do art, fine. If not, that's fine too," the chef said.

Roger Buergel, director of Documenta, shrugged off the controversy: "Why not? I almost always select things which seem strange to me," he said.

[Carrot Top]

Adria is a chef.

But he has successfully neutered several of the limitations of the definition of "chef".

He has done this in an individualistic way that others may try, but that he (as an individual) has succeeded in exceptionally well, so in this sense he is an artist (if the definition of an artist is that of someone who produces works that would not be mistaken for anyone else's works, at least until the techniques become widespread and copied by others).

If you look at Adria from the eyes of the art world, certainly he could be considered a performance artist, taking his "work" (which includes his manifesto or writings, his food and his concepts including the way he operates his restaurant) as a whole - if one wanted to.

And I think that in this case the art world wanted to.

Part of the reason why they wanted to is the artistic sense that he has created around his work (besides the fact that it is there, there has also been a sense created about it), another part is the aura of exclusivity that his body of work holds, the aura of exclusivity which creates a certain sort of buzz, a particular spark, that must exist for anything contending itself to be "art" to enter into the higher echelon of support system of museums.

Did Adria bring people in to the Documenta art show by being there? I bet he did.
Did his being there stimulate them in the ways that the other artists' works did? I bet it did.

And I bet it stimulated them in other ways, too - in the ways that the idea of food only can.

So my take on this is that he is a cook who became a chef. And then that he is a chef who danced right over into art in this moment of time.

To envision the idea of a cook dancing in the halls of the museum as intelligent visitors gawk, muse, hunger, and think - and think of what he cooks as "art" - well. As far as I'm concerned, he can call himself whatever he wants. That's a pretty neat little dance he's done.

This post has been edited by Carrot Top: 27 June 2007 - 10:59 AM

[docsconz]

Excellent post, Karen. Another aspect that brings him into the world of "art" is the way that he has documented his ouvre via the chronological progression of his elBulli books. I am of the opinion that what Adria does is indeed edible art. It is certainly creative - with an output that few artists in any area can match and has clearly evolved over time. I think what we have here is a convergence of the worlds of art and cuisine. The art world has broadened to include all sorts of elements not previously considered under its aegis while the culinary world has evolved into greater and greater creativity incorporating myriad elements not traditionally under its wing. Adria will not be the last culinarian so honored.

[Reefpimp]

Thanks for the thread, karen.

Long ago, (in a motorcycling magazine IIRC) I found the definition of 'artist' that resounded most poignantly with me: "He who presents the familiar in a new light."

Controversy over technique aside, Adria does do that: One certainly doesn't think of codfish as being foamy. Beyond that, he's honest about it. No food is better than another; all ingredients are weighted equally aesthetically. Everything is judged on its own merits and brought to the table tasting like itself.

I'd never refer to myself as a 'chef' so maybe I'm not qualified to even have an opinion on this; but although I agree with Chef Bourdain that cooking is not an art (it's a craft), sometimes ya gotta give credit where credit is due. Carpentry isn't an art, it's a craft: but James Krenov and Garret Hack do amazing things in cocobolo and walnut.

Can we apply the same pardigm to Blumenthal, Aschatz and Adria? How can we not?

[Mar Calpena]

Reefpimp, on Jul 10 2007, 09:16 AM, said:

I'd never refer to myself as a 'chef' so maybe I'm not qualified to even have an opinion on this; but although I agree with Chef Bourdain that cooking is not an art (it's a craft), sometimes ya gotta give credit where credit is due.  Carpentry isn't an art, it's a craft:  but James Krenov and Garret Hack do amazing things in cocobolo and walnut.

I have to agree with Bourdain on the craft/art debate. While you can point at just anything and declare it "art", as Marcel Duchamp did with his ready mades, there's at least one technical limitation to food: it must be edible. Therefore, cooking is applied or decorative art, because ultimately there's no aesthetic pleasure to be found in cooking if the preparation renders the food unedible, no matter how elevated the idea it's meant to convey.

Having said this, I think that the inclusion of Ferran Adria in Documenta should make us question what we define as art, not what we define as cooking.

[racheld]

Every time I read his name, I try to sound it out in my mind---In doc's DG piece about him, I'd say it to myself over and over as I read. It doesn't come up much in conversation, and I've never seen a program about him on TV, so I'm lost.

I've varied from Fa-Ronnn Ahhhhdria to my Southern roots: Ferron AAdreeea, like some exotic tropical plant: And how are the feranadrias doing today? Are they blooming yet?

Would someone please pronounce it for me?

[Carrot Top]

Reefpimp, on Jul 10 2007, 03:16 AM, said:

Thanks for the thread, karen.
[ . . .]
Can we apply the same pardigm to Blumenthal, Aschatz and Adria?  How can we not?

maher is the one who deserves credit for the thread, Reefpimp. I'd never start such a controversial topic.

Good question about the other guys and whether they can be thought of in the same light.

Mar Calpena, on Jul 10 2007, 04:19 AM, said:

Having said this, I think that the inclusion of Ferran Adria in Documenta should make us question what we define as art, not what we define as cooking.

Mmm. I think so too. But it's always interesting to flip a question on its end to look at the other side of it, too. It is the strong emotional content of food and the urges of chefs who aspire to what we think of as art that makes the question valid.

The answer to the question does finally shape how we eat everyday, too, in a sense. And how we think about food and ourselves and our world.

racheld, on Jul 10 2007, 08:30 AM, said:

I've varied from  Fa-Ronnn  Ahhhhdria  to my Southern roots:  Ferron AAdreeea,  like some exotic tropical plant: And how are the feranadrias doing today?  Are they blooming yet? 

Would someone please pronounce it for me?

His name is art, Rachel. Say it however you wish.

Whatever way you choose, it will sound fascinating.

This post has been edited by Carrot Top: 10 July 2007 - 07:17 AM

[mkayahara]

Mar Calpena, on Jul 10 2007, 03:19 AM, said:

I have to agree with Bourdain on the craft/art debate. While you can point at just anything and declare it "art", as Marcel Duchamp did with his ready mades, there's at least one technical limitation to food: it must be edible. Therefore, cooking is applied or decorative art, because ultimately there's no aesthetic pleasure to be found in cooking if the preparation renders the food unedible, no matter how elevated the idea it's meant to convey.

I'm not sure why you think this disqualifies food from being art. To me, that sounds like you're saying, "There's at least one technical limitation to painting: it must be visible" or "There's at least on technical limitation to music: it must be audible." Why should sight or hearing be the only senses that can be stimulated aesthetically?

That said, my personal jury's still out on the question of whether food can ever be anything more than craft. I'll get back to you if I ever have the opportunity to eat at El Bulli!

[Mar Calpena]

mkayahara, on Jul 10 2007, 04:45 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you think this disqualifies food from being art. To me, that sounds like you're saying, "There's at least one technical limitation to painting: it must be visible" or "There's at least on technical limitation to music: it must be audible." Why should sight or hearing be the only senses that can be stimulated aesthetically?

That said, my personal jury's still out on the question of whether food can ever be anything more than craft. I'll get back to you if I ever have the opportunity to eat at El Bulli! 

Let me put it another way... if it kills you, it's not art (or food). It's poison. It's not stimuli to your senses. Music needn't be harmonic to exist, or painting figurative (or any of the two aesthetically pleasing, or at least in a conventional way, at that). But applied arts (aka crafts) need some sort of practical goal, whether it's creating a chair you can sit on or food that's digestable. And to me, trying to redefine Adria majestic craft as art somehow lessens it. He creates a magical effect out of existing elements (the food, the sorroundings at El Bulli, etc...) which still is edible! Its main purpose is not conveying a political agenda or a mood, although it can do all that, but ultimately it is to nourish and feed. Don't know, I've just got on let's-go-back-to-college, theoretical rambling mode!

This post has been edited by Mar Calpena: 10 July 2007 - 11:31 AM

[Mar Calpena]

Mar Calpena, on Jul 10 2007, 08:29 PM, said:

mkayahara, on Jul 10 2007, 04:45 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you think this disqualifies food from being art. To me, that sounds like you're saying, "There's at least one technical limitation to painting: it must be visible" or "There's at least on technical limitation to music: it must be audible." Why should sight or hearing be the only senses that can be stimulated aesthetically?

That said, my personal jury's still out on the question of whether food can ever be anything more than craft. I'll get back to you if I ever have the opportunity to eat at El Bulli! 

Let me put it another way... if it kills you, it's not art (or food). It's poison. It's not stimuli to your senses. Music needn't be harmonic to exist, or painting figurative (or any of the two aesthetically pleasing, or at least in a conventional way, at that). But applied arts (aka crafts) need some sort of practical goal, whether it's creating a chair you can sit on or food that's digestable. And to me, trying to redefine Adria majestic craft as art somehow lessens it. He creates a magical effect out of existing elements (the food, the sorroundings at El Bulli, etc...) which still is edible! Its main purpose is not conveying a political agenda or a mood, although it can do all that, but ultimately it is to nourish and feed. Don't know, I've just got on let's-go-back-to-college, I-don't-believe-in-postmodernism, theoretical rambling mode!

[Mar Calpena]

Hu, I've got so carried away I've posted my reply twice...

[paulraphael]

I think the question presents a false choice. If you look at curatorial standards for art over the last century, they're wide open, and highly dependent on context. The standards that a critic or historian would use to examine something as art have NOTHING to do with whether or not something is made with a medium traditionally used for handicrafts, whether it's heavily dependent on science (photography and video are more science dependent than anything Adria cooks up), whether it's permanent or fleeting (think performance art) or even whether it might kill you (guns and amo have been used in art since the Futurists invaded nearly a hundred years ago).

Someone could be a chef, a craftsman, and an artist ... or any one or two of the above, or none of the above. The standards are separate and not at all mutually exclusive.

I happen think that high cuisine is generally practiced and appreciated as an art form, in the sense that everything revolves around the expression of a chef's unique, unmistakeable vision. Craft is important, but as a means to this end.

If I were such a good craftsman in the kitchen that I could execute all of Thomas Kellers recipes to perfection, I wouldn't be rivaling his real accomplishments. It might get me a job as a worker bee under some other chef who can use my skills in service to his or her vision (and it might go over really well with my friends) but it wouldn't make me a great chef ... any more than the ability to clone Anselm Kiefer's paintings would make me a great artist.

When we call something a "craft" as opposed to an art, I think we're usually talking about making things that point back to the tradition that they come from. A woodworker making a shaker chair is honoring a particular craft tradition. The work is essentially anonymous, even if it superficially bears evidence of the craftsman's style. This is similar to a cook making an authentic risotto or sauce bordelaise.

Contrast that woodworker with a sculptor who uses the same materials and tools. She might be working within a tradition, but her goal is essentially to point beyond that tradition, to something new. The shaker chair is about the shaker tradition and about being a chair. The sculpture is likely about seeing some aspect of the world in a new way.

In these senses, I think people like Keller and Adria are more like the scultptor than the woodworker.

Mar Calpena, on Jul 10 2007, 01:29 PM, said:

mkayahara, on Jul 10 2007, 04:45 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you think this disqualifies food from being art. To me, that sounds like you're saying, "There's at least one technical limitation to painting: it must be visible" or "There's at least on technical limitation to music: it must be audible." Why should sight or hearing be the only senses that can be stimulated aesthetically?

That said, my personal jury's still out on the question of whether food can ever be anything more than craft. I'll get back to you if I ever have the opportunity to eat at El Bulli! 

Let me put it another way... if it kills you, it's not art (or food). It's poison. It's not stimuli to your senses. Music needn't be harmonic to exist, or painting figurative (or any of the two aesthetically pleasing, or at least in a conventional way, at that). But applied arts (aka crafts) need some sort of practical goal, whether it's creating a chair you can sit on or food that's digestable. And to me, trying to redefine Adria majestic craft as art somehow lessens it. He creates a magical effect out of existing elements (the food, the sorroundings at El Bulli, etc...) which still is edible! Its main purpose is not conveying a political agenda or a mood, although it can do all that, but ultimately it is to nourish and feed. Don't know, I've just got on let's-go-back-to-college, theoretical rambling mode!

This post has been edited by paulraphael: 28 July 2007 - 09:02 AM

[docsconz]

paulraphael, on Jul 27 2007, 04:29 PM, said:

I think the question presents a false choice. If you look at curatorial standards for art over the last century, they're wide open, and highly dependent on context. The standards that a critic or historian would use to examine something as art have NOTHING to do with whether or not something made with a medium traditionally used for handicrafts, whether it's heavily dependent on science (photography and video are more science dependent than anything Adria cooks up), whether its permanent or fleeting (think performance art) or even whether something might kill you (guns and amo have been used in art since the Futurists invaded nearly a hundred years ago).

Someone could be a chef, a craftsman, and an artist ... or any one or two of the above, or none of the above. The standards are separate and not at all mutually exclusive.

I happen think that high cuisine is generally practiced and appreciated as an art form, in the sense that everything revolves around the expression of a chef's unique, unmistakeable vision. Craft is important, but as a means to this end.

If I were such a good craftsman in the kitchen that I could execute all of Thomas Kellers recipes to perfection, I wouldn't be rivaling his real accomplishments. It might get me a job as a worker bee under some other chef who can use my skills in service of his or her vision (and it might go over really well with my friends) but it wouldn't make me a great chef ... any more than the ability to clone Anselm Kiefer's paintings would make me a great artist.

When we call something a "craft" as opposed to an art, I think we're usually talking about making things that point back to the tradition that they come from. A woodworker making a shaker chair is honoring a particular craft tradition. The work is essentially anonymous, even if it superficially bears evidence of the craftsman's style. This is similar to a cook making an authentic risotto or sauce bordelaise.

Contrast that woodworker with a sculptor who uses the same materials and tools. She might be working within a tradition, but her goal is essentially to point beyond that tradition, to something new. The shaker chair is about the shaker tradition and about being a chair. The sculpture is likely to be about seeing some aspect of  the world in a new way.

In these senses, I think people like Keller and Adria are more like the scultptor than the woodworker.

Mar Calpena, on Jul 10 2007, 01:29 PM, said:

mkayahara, on Jul 10 2007, 04:45 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you think this disqualifies food from being art. To me, that sounds like you're saying, "There's at least one technical limitation to painting: it must be visible" or "There's at least on technical limitation to music: it must be audible." Why should sight or hearing be the only senses that can be stimulated aesthetically?

That said, my personal jury's still out on the question of whether food can ever be anything more than craft. I'll get back to you if I ever have the opportunity to eat at El Bulli! 

Let me put it another way... if it kills you, it's not art (or food). It's poison. It's not stimuli to your senses. Music needn't be harmonic to exist, or painting figurative (or any of the two aesthetically pleasing, or at least in a conventional way, at that). But applied arts (aka crafts) need some sort of practical goal, whether it's creating a chair you can sit on or food that's digestable. And to me, trying to redefine Adria majestic craft as art somehow lessens it. He creates a magical effect out of existing elements (the food, the sorroundings at El Bulli, etc...) which still is edible! Its main purpose is not conveying a political agenda or a mood, although it can do all that, but ultimately it is to nourish and feed. Don't know, I've just got on let's-go-back-to-college, theoretical rambling mode!

Superb post. I think you nailed on the head why Adria and other chefs are indeed artists and not just craftsmen. A craftsman is someone who can follow a recipe or make a known dish very well. An artist is someone who is original and creative within a particular context, whatever the medium. Of course not everyone must like or appreciate the art of any given artist or agree whether one should be considered a great artist. IMO, not only is Adria an artist, he is also a great artist. I think the same can certainly be said of Grant Achatz and a number of others. I am not sufficiently personally familiar with the work of Blumenthal to apply the statement to him.

[victornet]

It is clear that Adria's work comes out of a tradition/medium of use (i.e. nourishment). This is one of the elements of a discussion that makes some people think of seating (rather than pure pleasure) when they see George Nakashima furniture or imagine teacups when viewing a non-utilitarian ceramic sculpture by Ken Price. Use value has often been used as an element of viewing photography or video as somehow less of an art than painting. I think this tired logic has less currency each year. Whether art has a lot of high craft value/artisanship (think Matisse's painting) or little interest in craft but high 'conceptual' value (Lawrence Wiener's wall drawings for example) it can be either successful art or unsuccessful art. Adria's achivement is on the highest level of giving the diner a new, enriching experience (I finally ate at El Bulli in May) - pretty much my definition of art.


There is always room for arguments about medium/use/intention (There is currently a very grey line dividing 'time based art' from 'theater'), but I'm more interested in how many angels Adria can balance on the end of a pin.

[Carrot Top]

Yesterday after reading paulraphael's post (ha, ha, I just hit the wrong keys and wrote "poem" by mistake ) the questions of whether art is something that can be made for mass consumption or not started bothering me. As in: the idea of an individual work such as a painting - if it were copied for more than one person to hang in their home, then would only the original work be art or would all of the pieces be art (allowing that the initial piece was considered art to begin with ).

For this is the situation (aside from the conceptual part) that Adria or any other chef's work faces in being considering as within the realm of art. The concept must be consistently executed over and over again for the mass production of plates coming from the kitchen for diners. Of course Warhohl addressed this question with his silkscreens and stretched the idea of pop art in the answer that was received, but the question does still remain in more traditional forms of art.

The other question is interesting, too, that victornet raises about time art and theatre.

My feeling has always been that the work of a chef as displayed in a restaurant of a certain level and sort is the closest thing one can find to theatre. Audience-interactive theatre, to be sure.

Adria, with a strong hand as creative composer/performer, has less of this interactive reliance than most who may strive towards the realm of art within restaurant/chef as his work (or food) is standing there shimmering, unassailable in concept from wherever one stands within the workplace, the theatre, the restaurant, the studio, the living museum. He has written a circle around his work with his writings (as the writings head towards places philosophic) and what his work does, it does in a way that those who love it love it with passion, in its very real incarnations that can be tasted, seem, smelled, felt, heard, devoured.

I think he must be an excellent chess-player, too.

This post has been edited by Carrot Top: 28 July 2007 - 07:33 AM

[John Whiting]

The barrier between art and cuisine was smashed a good seventy-five years ago. Marinetti's La Cucina Futurista (Futurist Cookbook) is full of "performance art" recipes and culinary events which go far beyond Adria's relatively restrained whimsical experiments.

This post has been edited by John Whiting: 28 July 2007 - 08:21 AM

[Carrot Top]

John Whiting, on Jul 28 2007, 11:21 AM, said:

The barrier between art and cuisine was smashed a good seventy-five years ago. Marinetti's La Cucina Futurista (Futurist Cookbook) is full of "performance art" recipes and culinary events which go far beyond Adria's relatively restrained whimsical experiments.

But how many people would agree that "The Futurist Cookbook" remained as a living part of either the canon of art or of the canon of cuisine I wonder, John.

Many people in both fields have never even heard of it.

Perhaps this is a problem inherent in crossing boundaries - in being a bastard one can be left behind or discarded when the "serious scholars" define the canons.

[John Whiting]

Futurism and Dada have had a pervasive influence that goes far beyond those who are still conscious of it. I would find it difficult to believe that Adria, as well informed as he is, did not know about the book, or had even read it. The Futurist movement in Italy went back a good quarter century before the Cookbook and represented a decisive shift in Europe from romanticism to a passion for speed, science and technology. Acknowledged or unacknowledged, it is an integral part of the heritage of the McGee-influenced molecular gastronomists.

This post has been edited by John Whiting: 28 July 2007 - 08:54 AM

[Carrot Top]

You make an excellent point.

There are two things going on (at least ) here - the doing of a thing and then whether that thing gets acknowledged both in present time and in the future, and what ways the thing gets acknowledgement.

The initial post noted that by inclusion in this art show, Adria had been acknowledged as an artist.

Will his name and work remain in the canon of art, acknowledged in the future?

........................................

It would be interesting to do a fine-toothed comparison of what Marinetti did and how he did it as opposed to what Adria is doing and how he is doing it.

Marinetti was not a chef, as is Adria so his work did not spring from the kitchen exactly, which is where Adria's does.

Quote

In the 1920's and 1930's the term Futurism was loosely used to describe a wide variety of aggressively modern styles in art and literature. The Italian poet Filippo Tommaso Marinetti coined the term in 1909 for a movement founded and led by himself.
Futurism was the first deliberately organized, self-conscious art movement of the twentieth century.

Quote

In 1932 the Italian Futurist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti proposed a revolution in food. He dined his way from Milan to Paris to Budapest, staging eye-catching demonstrations with his talks.

It's been a very long time since I read "The Futurist Cookbook". I remember it as being rather awe-inspiring.

[paulraphael]

Carrot Top, on Jul 28 2007, 11:38 AM, said:

Will his name and work remain in the canon of art, acknowledged in the future?

Always a big question, and one we'll have to wait to find out. But I think this question is about how great and influential an artist he is, in the eyes of history ... which is different from the simple question of whether or not he's an artist.

I think it's a mistake to make "artist" some kind of grand judgement, or even a compliment. It's just a description. You can be a good or bad artist, just as you can be a good or bad plumber. If you're working toward giving form to some kind of vision, then in my book you're an artist.

So maybe your vision is myopic, you're craft incompetent, your food inedible. You could be in the wrong line of work ... but you're still working at art.

[Carrot Top]

paulraphael, on Jul 28 2007, 01:11 PM, said:

So maybe your vision is myopic, you're craft incompetent, your food inedible. You could be in the wrong line of work ... but you're still working at art.

Having been among the art world for some years where vision, craft and edibility ( ) are all important to those seeking to be accepted and/or have their works sold . . . and having been a chef where vision, craft, and edibility meant that you earned the title or not, I can't see my way to what you describe above except as a philosophic comment that is useful to the performer but not useful at all to those he/she is performing for.

[John Whiting]

We've reached a point in the evolution of art where virtually anyone who calls himself an artist is an artist. Or in the case of Adria, when someone else who is an authority calls him an artist. It's not a question of whether it's good or bad, but merely of intention. Two good quotes:

Quote

"Art is whatever you can get away with." Marshall McLuhan

Quote

"We don't have any art; we just try to do everything as well as we can." a Balinese to John Cage

[Carrot Top]

Ah. Everyone is an authority, like on the internet, huh?

Useful in terms of outsider art, certainly.

But I still think there are strong bastions drawn from inside to define, include or exclude.

And Adria made it past those bastions (and even did it in his lifetime ) That, to me, says "something".

This post has been edited by Carrot Top: 28 July 2007 - 10:37 AM

[paulraphael]

Carrot Top, on Jul 28 2007, 12:18 PM, said:

Having been among the art world for some years where vision, craft and edibility ( ) are all important to those seeking to be accepted and/or have their works sold . . . and having been a chef where vision, craft, and edibility meant that you earned the title or not, I can't see my way to what you describe above except as a philosophic comment that is useful to the performer but not useful at all to those he/she is performing for. 

It's useful in helping you understand WHAT is being performed and HOW to look at it. The point is really a simple one: whether or not you're a an artist is a completely different question from whether or not you're a good one.

The idea that you have to be good to be an artist makes the definition a confusing one. Good at what?

A carpenter is someone who makes stuff out of wood. A cook is someone who prepares food. We don't expect some level of genius from anyone before we bestow these titles on them; we just expect them to show up at work. And we know that some of them will be a lot better at what they do than others.

It's just confusing to have a whole different type of definition for artists. Why shouldn't an artist just be someone who endeavors to make art? Some will do it with great genius and some will fail. Let them all be artists. Save all the philosophy and the critical apparatus to decide whose art is most significant, and for whom, and for what reason.

[Carrot Top]

Agreed that it is confusing, Paul. Anything worthwhile and above the basics of existence often is.

And each of us will have our own ways of approach to answering these questions for ourselves.

I can see your point but it is a softer worldview than mine. It is less demanding.

And in some way you are focused on looking at the player as individual, I think, whereas I am focused on looking at the player within the playing field.

It is nice to think of everyone who works at art as being an artist, and it is true, too.

But only a small percentage of that art will be graded as momentous and important or even "valid" by those who judge from within the milieu . And those people who judge are those who are considered the most expert, the most knowledgeable about their own milieu. And that critical analysis and acceptance or not will generally provide financial and community support for the work that they grade.

I hand it to Adria for having passed these critical tests at least in one instance. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future both with his work and with those with similar intent or shape in their work. Will others be invited into the 'art world'? Why or why not?

A fascinating saga.

Quote

Why shouldn't an artist just be someone who endeavors to make art? Some will do it with great genius and some will fail. Let them all be artists. Save all the philosophy and the critical apparatus to decide whose art is most significant, and for whom, and for what reason.

According to this you wrote above, Adria in your opinion is an artist because he endeavors to make art? Nothing more nothing less?

Would any or all other cooks or chefs who endeavor to make art be equal to him in terms of being an artist then?

The critical apparatus is being used no matter whether it is separating or including in any category . . . whether that category is the one of "what one is" or whether it is in terms of "how well one does it". Apply the mind to something and one has already applied the critical apparatus in some fashion. (And to offer advice which says:

Quote

Let them all be artists

and

Quote

Save all the philosophy and the critical apparatus to decide

etc etc. is merely using rhetoric to give force to the suggestion that everyone should follow what your own critical decisions have been in this case. )

............................................

P.S. All in all I am not sure who is the better artist, when stretching the term to include many things: Adria? Or the organizers of the show for the museum who ended up being provided with food prepared by him without even having to obtain reservations for el Bulli. How often does Adria do "home visits" such as this I wonder? An excellent piece of performance art done by the organizers. So quietly and without fanfare for their skills, too.

This post has been edited by Carrot Top: 28 July 2007 - 09:29 PM

[paulraphael]

Carrot Top, on Jul 28 2007, 01:39 PM, said:

I can see your point but it is a softer worldview than mine. It is less demanding.

I don't know about that. It's really just the difference between the classical idea of an artist, which is based on a normative definition, and the modern idea, which is based on a descriptive one. The modern idiom is broadly inclusive as far as what is art/who is an artist, but it's no less rigorous regarding what is great art/who is a great artist.

Quote

But only a small percentage of that art will be graded as momentous and important or even "valid" by those who judge from within the milieu.

Absolutely true regarding momentous and important. But I haven't seen a serious curator or critic try to wield the idea of validity in a very long time. The 20th century taught people they'd likely put their foot in their mouth when making proclamations about that!

Quote

According to this you wrote above, Adria in your opinion is an artist because he endeavors to make art? Nothing more nothing less?

Yes.

But what makes him a great artist, or an influential artist, or an important artist, if he is indeed any of the above, is a whole separate conversation. That's where the critical aparatus and the historical perspective come to play.

Quote

... is merely using rhetoric to give force to the suggestion that everyone should follow what your own critical decisions have been in this case.  ) 

Not my critical decisions; just some observations on how the curatorial and critical worlds have evolved in the last hundred years.

Quote

P.S. All in all I am not sure who is the better artist, when stretching the term to include many things: Adria? Or the organizers of the show for the museum who ended up being provided with food prepared by him without even having to obtain reservations for el Bulli. How often does Adria do "home visits" such as this I wonder? An excellent piece of performance art done by the organizers. So quietly and without fanfare for their skills, too. 

Ha! now you've leapfrogged my argument with a postmodern one--the idea that the artist just provides the raw material and the critic/curator creates the Big Idea. If your conspiracy theory is true, these curators are the most clever I've heard of ... I'm much more impressed by an ingeniously procured free meal than by thousands of words of artspeak ... :)

[Carrot Top]

I wrote a very long response to your post, Paul, then tried to edit it and then realized that there was some sort of circular logic going on in your posts that was inescapable. Momentarily, anyway.

It will be interesting to hear more commentary on all this.

This post has been edited by Carrot Top: 29 July 2007 - 12:38 AM

[victornet]

"I don't know about that. It's really just the difference between the classical idea of an artist, which is based on a normative definition, and the modern idea, which is based on a descriptive one. The modern idiom is broadly inclusive as far as what is art/who is an artist, but it's no less rigorous regarding what is great art/who is a great artist."

- I think Paul really hit it on the head here. The old idea of artist depended on a hierarchy of media. So that a talentless weekend watercolorist was easily recognized as an 'artist' while great artists using photography a century ago were considered craftsmen. Many photographers still prefer being called photographers, rather than artists, because they (at least consciously) identify more with their medium than the more abstract concept of art. In this they may be mindful of predecessors such as Atget who managed to do just great without proclaiming themselves artists. This brings us back to the artist's intention, which clearly is a questionable determinant of the status of art.


The issue here is not really whether cooking can be art. For me there is no room for debate - Adria's creation is very fine art. But so is Opera, and it is rarely shown at Documenta or the Biennials, etc. There are a lot of arts. I think the debate here is whether the "artworld" will try to claim chefs the way it has claimed photographers, video artists, etc.

This post has been edited by victornet: 29 July 2007 - 06:01 AM

[docsconz]

Carrot Top, on Jul 29 2007, 02:34 AM, said:

I wrote a very long response to your post, Paul, then tried to edit it and then realized that there was some sort of circular logic going on in your posts that was inescapable. Momentarily, anyway. 

It will be interesting to hear more commentary on all this.   

I don't see anything circular about his argument at all. There are simply two definitions at play. One is what constitutes an "artist" and the other is what constitutes a "great artist." For the former, all anyone needs to be called an artist is to call oneself one or to be called one. It is not a particularly special designation in and of itself and its only significance is one of intent. The latter definition is much more significant because it is what confers meaning on being an artist. I obviously feel that Adria fits the latter definition as well as the former.

[docsconz]

victornet, on Jul 29 2007, 09:00 AM, said:

"I don't know about that. It's really just the difference between the classical idea of an artist, which is based on a normative definition, and the modern idea, which is based on a descriptive one. The modern idiom is broadly inclusive as far as what is art/who is an artist, but it's no less rigorous regarding what is great art/who is a great artist."

- I think Paul really hit it on the head here. The old idea of artist depended on a hierarchy of media. So that a talentless weekend watercolorist was easily recognized as an 'artist' while great artists using photography a century ago were considered craftsmen. Many photographers still prefer being called photographers, rather than artists, because they (at least consciously) identify more with their medium than the more abstract concept of art. In this they may be mindful of predecessors such as Atget who managed to do just great without proclaiming themselves artists. This brings us back to the artist's intention, which clearly is a questionable determinant of the status of art.


The issue here is not really whether cooking can be art. For me there is no room for debate - Adria's creation is very fine art. But so is Opera, and it is rarely shown at Documenta or the Biennials, etc. There are a lot of arts. I think the debate here is whether the "artworld" will try to claim chefs the way it has claimed photographers, video artists, etc.

I agree.