Food as art

Foodas art

Foodas art

Thereis a great level of debate that revolves around whether food or drinkcan be used as a form of art in any given circumstance. Some peoplemaintain that food cannot be used as a form of art while others arefor the idea that it can be used, but for just to a very smallextent. This argument stems majorly from the bearing that peoplederive from the basic description of art and works of art. The majorborne of contention emanates from the differences that lie in thedefinition of what these two terms imply among people.

Whetherfood is a work of art notwithstanding, it is important to incorporatethe general understanding of art so as to gain our view on thedifferent perspectives that people have concerning the issue. Thereis the general element of classifying sense. This helps to show thatitems are made specifically for aesthetic value (Strycker, 2016).Regarding these elements, those who are for the idea that food is awork of art maintain that the general intention that people havewhile preparing food is that it may have some form of appeal to thepeople who shall consume it. The aim for appeal is even shown in theway food is sometimes served, especially in most established hotelsand restaurants. The fact that just the appearance of given types offoods motivates people to consume them plays a huge role in makingfood a great form of art in its sense. They indicate that some levelof creativity is often incorporated into cooking and preparation ofrecipes, thereby making food a form of art. Some people are usuallymore skilled at preparing different flavors than others (TheHuffington Post, 2016). Those who are against the idea maintain thebelief that food is prepared to kill hunger and for the generalsweetness of it, but not for the aesthetic appeal. They maintain thatfood is consumable and not just something that will be put in someplace and be admired, as works of art normally are. They alsoindicate that cooking is not art, but rather, a craft. This isbecause it can easily be learnt, in contrast, comparison to variousworks of art which are normally innate and cannot just be learnt bypeople. They also state that works of art go a long way incommunicating a deep message, something that is normally missing infood. There is no strong link between food and some form of a messagethat could be attached to it, as some forms of art are.

Peoplewho view that food is just a very minor art form provide a veryimportant explanation. They state that there are various actions thatare normally taken to ensure that art continues being valued (&quotFoodas art: it looks almost too good to eat&quot, 2012). One of them isthrough the general encouragement by the government throughsupporting events that are art-oriented. Another measure is througheducation as well as putting social pressures on people who areinvolved. These people, therefore, poke a hole on how these measurescan be put to show the value of food if it were to be regarded as aform of art. They maintain that even if all these actions are not putup to enhance the value of food, people will still look for it sincethey need food for day-to-day survival. These people also have theview that food cannot evoke great emotions among people as comparedto what other forms of art normally do. The effect of food in termsof its general appeal and making people get interested in it is notas large as would be considered for most other forms of art.

Inrelation to food bearing some form of artistic characteristics,nevertheless, these people point to some aspects (Jones, 2014). Forinstance, they maintain that the process of eating food involves morethan just one sense. This is also very common when it comes tosavoring other works of art. The general interrelation between tasteand the visual representation of food cannot go unnoticed. This isbecause the two elements bear a great significance on influencingother people to eat and enjoy it in the first place. These peoplealso maintain that among the major aspects that could make food beregarded as a form of art is the cultural representation that it doeshave. Just as some types of music and dances are associated with somegroups of people, it is also true that some foods are more associatedwith some people as compared to others. For instance, oats arenormally used as a form of breakfast in the US as compared to Norway.This means that food can be used to show the way of life of a givengroup of people.

Thereis also another reason some people believe that food is a form ofart. This is the basic element that it allows people to havedifferent approaches to eating. It is highly common to find out thatcertain food is normally roasted in a certain area and still boiledin another setting. The general outcome of both approaches is mostoften good, only that the choice taken usually depends on thepreference that the people have regarding the same (Jones, 2014).This is the same as with other forms of art where both the artist andthe people viewing the piece of art are allowed to have divergentviews regarding the piece in question. It is such is such kind ofversatility that relates to the works of art as well as the approachto food that makes them interesting. Such kind of argument forms avery big basis of looking in to the views proposed by people who areof the idea that food is a form of art.

Generally,I do have the same belief that food is a form of art. This is becauseof the kind of input that people normally put into it so as to ensurethat it is appealing. Chefs go a long way to carry out research inseveral types of foods so that they could ensure that they providerecipes that elicit a great level of satisfaction among the peoplewho consume such foods. The great effort that is put up to generateappeal can only be compared to the aesthetic value that most works ofart normally have (Riley, 2015). In retrospect, an opponent mightprovide a reply to this effect and state that the reason why chefsare so much interested in coming up with great recipes is so thatpeople could enjoy the food once and have a high likelihood of comingback for such foods another time and this does not have anything todo with aesthetic appeal or any artistic premise. I would then defendmy position on this by indicating that the general reason why chefscome up with recipes in the first place is so that it could provide agiven view about their identity. Most chefs are normally interestedin ensuring that they are easily identifiable with the food that theydo prepare. Such foods act as their ambassadors. They also aim tosell their idea to other people so that they could help in spreadingthe creation that they have come up with other people.

Inconclusion, the debate regarding whether is a form of art provides ahuge centre stage for ensuring that there is a great appreciation ofart. Through knowing that food is a form of art, we are able to savorit with great interest because of the effect that it does bear. Itgoes a long way at ensuring that people show their artistic prowessthrough coming up unique recipes that provide a long story inrelation to their origin. The use effect that food has in showing theidentity of people can also not be understated. It is expected thatpeople will keep on providing a large input towards ensuring thatfood is seen as more than just something that ‘heals’ hunger.


Foodas art: it looks almost too good to eat.(2012). TheGuardian.Retrieved 12 March 2016, from

Jones,J. (2014). Whycooking was the original artform – and is still the most universal.TheGuardian.Retrieved 12 March 2016, from

Riley,G. (2015).&nbspFoodin Art: From prehistory to the Renaissance.

Strycker,J. (2016). FromPalate to Palette: Can Food be Art? | Createquity..[online] Createquity. Available at:[Accessed 12 Mar. 2016].

TheHuffington Post. (2016). IsFood Art?.[online] Available at:[Accessed 12 Mar. 2016].