Would You Consider This Art? - Part II

I watch a lot of cooking shows with my husband because he is actually the cook in the house. I always here him saying that cooking is an art. What is your opinion on this? When I see the dishes that my husband prepares, I do believe he has a gift at it but is it considered an art?

When someone says that "blank" is an art - I always take that to mean that the process is more intuitive than mechanical. I've even heard people refer to higher math and theoretical psychics as art-forms. I see the saying as making a reference to a more shoot-from-the-hip type of experience.

We have all probably had intuitive versus mechanical experiences in cooking. I often make dinner for my wife when she is at work as she gets home quite late. She usually picks out the recipes and buys all of the ingredients. In those instances I follow the recipe exactly - measuring everything and using a timer. That is mechanical - the food still tastes great , but there is no art to it.

When I grill, however, I do tend to bring my own individual aesthetics into the process. So I often refer to the "art" of grilling a hamburger.

So in that sense, yes there is an art to cooking. If you mean "Is a well-cooked meal the same as a work of art in the Metropolitan" - now we are in difficult territory. If pressed, I would say no - only because we tend to think of "art" as a non-functional thing. There is a constraint placed on food in that it needs to be edible.

I can see how food (and cooking) could be used in the production of "art", but then I would ask - Does the art designation come from the actually cooking process or from the conceptual aspects of the piece.

Sure, but is there a difference between creativity and art? I believe that there is.

In the past, the line of demarcation was much more clear. There were certain forms that were recognized as art and other forms that were seen as something else. However, much of 20th century art was about questioning this demarcation. So now we are left with the question - where does the separation lie? It is not an easy answer.

Again, I would reiterate - "art" is not necessarily skilled or unique or pleasant. "Art" may be something that I hate or something that has no impact on me whatsoever.

I thought about that this weekend when I was at an Academy Awards Night party. These awards celebrate great achievements in cinema - the films are held up as "the best of the year". But I kept thinking - "Yes, but are these films really art? Are they really that experimental? Do they alter our perception of film? Of the human experience? Or does that even matter?"

If you get the chance, do some research on art vs. non-art. There are a number of arguments out there.

Here is an interesting site:

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/visualarts/Art-Non-Art.html

On this subject, I'll give you a personal anecdote:

Chip Kidd published a book on Batman memorabilia. In one section he shows a painting by Andy Warhol of the Batman logo. He states that out of all of the objects in that book, the Warhol is the only one that would be considered "art". He also points out that it would be great to own that painting because you could then sell it and use the money to buy all of the other Batman stuff that you REALLY want.

I agree with him completely.