According to Kuehn (2005), food is a form of art, since in most cases it forms good presentation such as a table decor is a short-lived and unexpected phenomenon that is able to bring out an inner impression of those involved. This occurs even when those involved do not have a clue of the anticipated taste or aroma.
The main question is whether food is art in the current social settings or can be fine art. There is need to develop the aesthetic nature in food before teaching people the art in it. In line with Kuehn (2005), definition of artwork has a primal basis on classification therefore; it might be something for use such as ornaments of exhibits.
There are various creative skills and transience utilized in food production, but in line with Ridley and Neil (2002) writing, there is lack of endurance in the work of cuisine.
Another critic posed by this writing is the meaning of taste and taste of meaning. The mimetic nature of food and outcome after preparations may be present two very different themes, which makes the assertions that considering food as an art is a mistake even before assessment of possible existence of aesthetic pleasures.
The rejection of food as art due to visual characteristics is due the coarse idea that aesthetic art forms must possess some unique aesthetic and relevant properties. If it is possible to analyze the use of food accrue through their usage, some types would have unique constant usage for instance, cereals are associable to breakfast.
According to Ridley and Neil (2002), another reason to disagree with the acclamation that there is art in food is the fact that people engages with food on a daily basis.
It is possible to measure and enlighten people on their aesthetic experiences through analysis of possibility to have aesthetic in food and drink. Particular ceremonial use of food also helps to define their meaning, for example, the turkey is a meal associable to a historical event called thanksgiving feast.
According to Ridley and Neil (2002), despite the wide consideration of view in support of food aesthetics, the rejection of food as art is due to lack of ritual settings that can provide most of the properties in support of aesthetic nature.
Unlike aesthetic nature or properties of other artworks, the accrue meaning of food exceeds its quality. Finally, the rejection is due to the fact the historically people do not treat food as fine art.
According to Korsmeyer (2002), today there are various new inventions concerning the art of packaging and preservation of food such as fruits. Packaging requires decorative appearance in the aim of attracting customers.
The visual aesthetic reactions are thus achievable through admiration. In most instances, the wines and gourmet connoisseur presents some reasonable quantities of aesthetic satisfactions. The support of art in foods is also present in the analysis of aesthetic reactions that distinguish the link between smell and taste.
Common personal reactions to foodstuffs form the reading (2002), are concern with fashion, nourishment and association to respectable regimes such as political elite.
Aesthetic characteristics of food make the consumer to have personal awareness and ability to notice content vividly. General judgement of art in food can combine the vivid, non-influential and purposeful reactions to produce impartiality.
In relation to Korsmeyer’s writing (2002), preference is a major influence to personal judgement. This is an indication that foods and drinks contribute to the arousal of aesthetic reactions. The negative reactions against food as work of art are due to various objections from different artists such as an indication that, not all objects that are able to facilitate aesthetic reactions are artworks.
Various complexities are involved in definition of an artwork in either classification or evaluation or natural and fabricated objects. Even the natural objects are termed man-made since human actions are involved in some aspects such as labelling and placing them strategically in a gallery. In this case, an artwork must merit some aesthetic considerations (Korsmeyer, 2002).
Aesthetic reaction is an artistic or visual impression based on the appearance of objects or the sound of things for personal or individual inner feelings and not for the benefit of something else or others.
Reaction to the flavour of food due to flavour and textural effect can be termed as an aesthetic response, but when the reaction is due to pleasurable combination of high-fibre and low-calorie ingredients, the reaction is not synthetic. It is presentation of quick flash of forked lightning, which is very hard to capture in its analytical form or attention (Ridley and Neill, 2002).
Anaesthetic reaction is thus a pleasurable response to something amazing or an intrigue. According to Ridley and Neill (2002), in some situations, food is or can be art but if the implementations are temporary, it lacks formal expressive meaning.
Food is thus a simple form of art, since it is difficult to have a fine discrimination between tastes and smell as it is with the visual and auditory senses. It is also difficult to combine sense of smell and taste in a complicated technique. Due to these limitations, it is rationally difficult to renounce aesthetic pleasures in foods or drinks over the favour given to major arts.
Korsmeyer, C. (2002). Delightful, Delicious, Disgusting. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 60.3: 217-25
Kuehn, G. (2005). How Can Food Be Art? The Aesthetics of Everyday Life. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Print.
Ridley, A. And Neill, A. (2002). Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates, 2nd Edition. Kentacky, KY: Routledge Publishers. Print