Edible Edification
Atkinson discusses the controversies of art and food. He explains how cooking is a lot like building, which in many senses is a form of art. He brings up the rebuttal of many critiques that because food is eaten, that it cannot be a form of art, because they beauty that once existed simply disappears. He presents us with just how architects create a building; chefs transform something editable into beauty. Atikson shows us that food is really more then something that satisfies our taste, but can have a true aesthetic beauty.
Elizabeth Telfar expla
1 comment:
I think this is a very interesting argument that this person makes! "Food is not art because the beauty disappears right when it enters your mouth.." is very interesting, and a point I had not thought of before. However, what are we supposed to title the food that we do not eat? What about all of the creations and cakes that are made on shows such as "Food Network Challenge"... the things that are created out of food but not made to eat? Are those still not considered art just because they are created from food? I understand the argument that the author is making, but I think that he should not be so all or nothing on if food is art.
Post a Comment