Is cooking an art?

[Wilfrid]

No need to answer all the arguments here in detail, as to a large extent they miss my main point (and I take the blame for not being clear enough).  Macrosan thinks some thing art galleries exhibit are not really art.  Fair enough.  Steve stipulates that if something disappears through use, it's not an art work, and indeed that the aesthetic value of purported art works is compromised by the need for them to serve another purpose (by the way, is an art work compromised if it is created purely to fulfil a commission and not out of any "urge" of the artist?).

My main point is that the stipulations being advanced are arbitrary (which is not the same as wrong).  A Guggenheim curator might say that the motorbikes displayed surpassed their functionality and should be regarded as full asthetic objects.  Steve would disagree.  I don't feel strongly either way.  But by what criteria do we decide who is right and who is wrong?  And is it necessarily the case that someone is right and someone is wrong, or is "art" a concept with fuzzy boundaries?

By the way, it would be a good idea to get away from the "visual arts" model, as if cooking is an art form, there's no reason it should have any more in common with paintings and sculptures than they do with music, dance or literature.  Incidentally, if you think about which organs of taste are delighted by cooking, it's hardly surprising that it "disappears" (although of course, the concepts/recipes don't).  I don't know why this is an automatic disqualification from being an art work.

[stefanyb]

Even though I could continue to argue about the relative merits, or lack thereof, of all your arguments, and am dead serious about my position, here is a thought I had that is on the lighter side.

The way in which to view culinary pursuits that would fit the mold of artistic production would be with regard to transformation (a very necessary aspect of the artistic endeavor).  The final product would transform itself from food to you know what via the human alimentary canal.   Now thats art.

[Wilfrid]

It certainly is, and has formed part of a number of installations and performance pieces already!

[Steve Plotnicki]

"My main point is that the stipulations being advanced are arbitrary (which is not the same as wrong).  A Guggenheim curator might say that the motorbikes displayed surpassed their functionality and should be regarded as full asthetic objects."

Wilfrid-But they aren't arbitrary. For them to be arbitrary, what is art and what isn't is in the eyes of the beholder. That's wrong. Art is a statement made by an artist. That is why a dead cow isn't art but a dead cow put between two plates of glass is. The latter contains the the artist's statement and the former is just nature.

This distinction doesn't change because something was manufactured like a suit or a motorcycle. When Armani makes a suit, his statement is that it's functional, not that it's aesthetic. Now a suit with three arms and legs, that would be art because the intent would be aesthetic, not functional. Unless you would wear that?

I think there is a subtle distinction here that looms large which is, a curator can't be the person to put glass around an Armani suit and call it art. Only an artist can do that. And even if you took Armani suits and set them up in the most artistic display, that wouldn't be art. That's what window dressers do.  And the difference is what they are expressing. A suit with three legs, made for display between two sheets of glass expresses something about life. While a suit on a mannequin in Barney's window expresses something about the functionality of the suit.

[macrosan]

Art is a statement made by an artist

I understand that point, Steve, and it certainly is a very commonly held definition. My point is that it's not a useful definition of the word because it denies any objectivity, and that in turn makes it impossible to discuss whether or not something is art, and that in turn diminishes that process which I call art. In short, it places Beethoven in the same field of human endeavour and aspiration as Tracey Emin, and I think that's a shame.

I believe that an objective definition of the word "art" is not only possible, and desirable, but also that the majority of English speaking people already have such a general definition.

And please tell us what "A suit with three legs, made for display between two sheets of glass" expresses about life. I'm all agog  :wow:

[tony h]

apologies

[macrosan]

I just don't trust museums

I am curious to know what it would take to gain your trust?.

I actually said "I don't trust museums ... to be guardians of the English language", in this case to define what is meant by the word "art". I repeat that what I see the Tate Gallery doing confirms my view that they are willing to redefine the word on a regular basis in order to court notoriety, and therefore revenue. I would have no problem if they got someone to drop a pile of bricks in their forecourt, and then said to the public "Come and see these bricks, guys, because they happen to have fallen in a really interesting configuration, the light plays on them in an amazing way when the sun is low, and the whole thing is really attractive". But to say "Come and see this because this is art" is pure attention-seeking. People pay to see it not because they think it's art, but because they want to see what the Tate is calling art.

Maybe I'm over-sensitive to the Tate in particular, because it happens to house my most favorite art collection in the world (the Turner collection) and it angers me to see people whom I view as unworthy being the guardians of such a collection  

BLH, I am not suggesting for a moment that my view applies to all museums (and galleries). I intrinsically do trust them, until they do something to lose my trust. Of course a museum exhibits things other than art, and clearly my objection applies only if they "pretend" something is art when it isn't (in my view).

[tony h]

Lets' face to modern art isn't easy - you have to work hard at it and often requires researching the artist which isn’t always possible and almost never so in the gallery itself.  Even after that it doesn't always deliver.  

At lot of "traditional" art can be appreciated a various levels - from the superficial "its pretty" or "that's well painted" to whatever level of depth you want.  You can walk around an old master museum have a very enjoyable time just looking (note - I'm not trying to imply that you appreciate is superficial).  Its just that a lot of modern art isn't simple - particularly instillations.  I run past these in galleries partly because I don’t understand them but mainly because they bore me.  I feelt the same with minimalism.  

Even after finding out what's going on I am often left with - is that it - feeling.  Modern art galleries like the Tate could help matters more by making educational help text more available in galleries but that's always a hot issue in any organisation.  Even poor souls like Tracy Emin (I can’t believe I'm about to defend her) when you starting to look into what she's doing -  its quite interesting.  It doesn’t make me like her work more but I do have a little more respect for her.

I often get the feeling people judge without investigating (I do it myself).

[stefanyb]

I often get the feeling people judge without investigating (I do it myself).

Now here's a sentiment I can embrace.  I would also add "without allowing for consideration of the history of art and of the body of art critical writings".

You know what they say about opinions.

[tony h]

I've been thinking about bricks a lot recently.  “Is a pile of bricks art?” – is this the right question to ask?  It doesn’t lead anywhere interesting and seems too confrontational to provide any real insight into what’s going on.  It seems to me to be the kind of question that a non-practicing artist would make.  What was the artist thinking, what process or evolution took place that brought the artist to this point, what influence has this had on other works/artists - these lead somewhere more interesting.  The “is that art” has no context.  

Curiously – the Tate’s bricks (Carl Andre’s Equivalence VIII) has permeated our culture in a way that virtually no other work of art has over, say, the last 30-40 years.  Whether its good or bad thats quite an impressive achievement for any work of art.

[John Whiting]

For better or for worse, art schools provide much less formal training than they used to. Life drawing, still life, drawing articulated skeletons – these are skills which, in many academies, are no longer considered necessary. Other more technological studies are likely to take their place.

The result is that artists are liable to leave college with a narrower range of formal skills and concepts to ultilize – or to revolt against! It is virtually inevitable that art should become more and more conceptual, offering an idea – usually as encapsulated as a TV ad – rather than a worked-out process. Since the audience they are addressing has been educated primarily by TV ads, this makes for instant communication. The medium has become the message even more universally and fundamentally than Marshall McLuhan might have foreseen. Thus a pile of bricks is as pregnant with significance as a bar of soap or a can of beans.

[Robert Schonfeld]

A fascinating, polite discussion. Rare.

I've been in the arts as a photographer, dealer and curator for more than forty years, and in each of those years, it's safe to say, this topic has come up, not infrequently over meals.

Would it be of any help to add that in my personal experience, there is not a clear line of demarcation between art and craft; that there is some of the one in the other almost all the time. Food and eating can be artful. Sculpture, to pick just one medium, may contain elements of craft. I would talk about the degree to which a chef invokes artistry, or the degree to which a painter is craftsmanlike, but I wouldn't disallow the description of either as primarily artist or craftsman without a highly specific analysis.

And just in case no one has yet taken exception, my own experience is that the art world (loosely defined) tends to reserve "artist" for the so-called "fine arts", eg, painting, music, etc., and "craft" for everything else, no doubt largely to keep their own club small.

[John Whiting]

A fascinating, polite discussion. Rare.

And re your contribution I would add the rarely appropriate adjective, civil.

[macrosan]

And I also think that civility etc improves the intellectual process of the argument, and certainly makes it more likely to reach a conclusion  

On the art/craft issue, I am totally at one with Robert. For me, an artist must be a craftsman in order to create art. That's why a stick figure drawn by a 5 year old is not art, and that's why a pile of bricks might well not be art.

Intellectual or emotional intent on the part of the artist, or response on the part of the 'recipient',  is not enough in itself to define art.

Similarly, craft alone is not enough. Craft alone can generate beautiful design but I distinguish that from art.

I am not averse to all modern art. I found that display a few years ago in the Tate, made from rice, appealing, and I would certainly not deny its right to be called art (though I'm not entirely certain) and I feel the same about the work of the lady who created inside-out houses (gosh, my memory is going very fast).

I'm happy with the sub-definition of "fine arts" because I think that's a useful distinction which actually enables new art forms to gain credence.

Never forgetting the original question of this thread    it seems to me that most people's definition of art actually does allow that cooking may indeed be an art. Not all of the time, and not within the capabilities of all chefs. But it is valid, it seems to me, for a chef to put that creative artistic endeavour into a dish, beyond what is necessary just to cook an 'interesting' dish, and for him to do that for a purely aesthetic purpose with the objective of creating an aesthetic response from the diner. And if he uses his learned craft to do that, then indeed he has created art, however ephemeral.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Martin et al.-I do not think that art can be created by the people looking at it. Yes they can interpert it, but they can't create the art. That is where objectivity comes to a screeching halt.

When the Brooklyn Museum had their Sensation show, I took my family to see it. Now we all stood in front of the picture causing the controversy (I forget the name), and one of my 13 year old sons was smart enough to say, "if the artist called it something else, no one would know." And he couldn't have been more correct. The painting the elephant dung surrounded didn't look the the Virgin Mary, it was just called that. It could have been called Woman in a Field with Dung. But look at the difference changing the name is to your perception. So "art," is the aesthetic experience the artist wants you to experience.  And taking that back to the original question, that is where the line is drawn. When I go into a BMW showroom to look at motorcycles, th designer isn't asking me to only view it aesthectically.

[Tonyfinch]

and one of my 13 year old sons was smart enough to say,

Steve,sorry to be personal for a moment but how many 13 year old sons do you have?

[tony h]

Steve

I'm not really a fan of Chris Ofili's work - I find it too decorative for my taste.  I also haven't spent much time contemplating his work but I thought it was intersting to challenge the notion that the iconic figure, Mary, is white.  She was, after all, middle eastern which hardley refelcts the consitently milky white skin she's developed over the years.  

That she is always dress in blue robes derives from the expense of the paint - artist would save their most expensive colour for the most important figure.  That's why ther are very few blue skies in very early works - either the couldn't find the pigment or couldn't afford it.  

As for the elephant dung - beats me.

[tony h]

A fascinating, polite discussion. Rare.

Its only because I'm very new to eGullet - but I am studying Simon R's entries very carefully

[macrosan]

A fascinating, polite discussion. Rare.

Its only because I'm very new to eGullet - but I am studying Simon R's entries very carefully

I assume you mean Simon M, BLH.

Steve, I don't understand your last post. It is self-evident that art can't be created by people looking at it. No-one suggested they could. Why does that fact preclude objectivity?

And on your example at the Brooklyn Museum, do you not accept that the published title of a 'work of art' is part of the work? Why should the artist not be "allowed" to tell you what he wants you to see?

Finally, when you said "When I go into a BMW showroom to look at motorcycles, the designer isn't asking me to only view it aesthectically" you defeated the central theme of your own argument. The key word is "only", so you acknowledge that he is inter alia indeed asking you to view it aesthetically. And you now seem to accept that gives it artistic content. Which it has.