Ai Weiwei’s Sunflower Seeds exhibition. In this exhibition food, sunflower seeds, took on meaning. Drawing reference to China’s mass production methods and its’ pandering to Western companies. Through this meaning the sunflower seeds became recognised as art.
Growing up I was always told my older brother was really good at one thing, and he knew it. Leaving school at 16 he trained as a chef and has gone on to become the Arrogant Chef. I hope to convince both you, and my brother, that cooking is merely a craft and not an art.
In defining art, some argue it has to be overvalued, others discuss the necessity for symbolism or neat presentation. What stands out to me is arts subjectivity.
This is apparent in a modern art gallery. In Ai Weiwei’s Sunflower Seeds exhibition (TOP) the food is art because it has been subjectively agreed that it is art. Weetbix, in Siliga Setoga’s performance art, was an analogy for assimilation into a culture whilst keeping one’s own. However, Hargreaves replaced Weetbix with kiwifruit in his map of New Zealand.1 Siliga explained the message in his work and through this we gained appreciation of it. It became art because it had meaning; however, to Siliga the work was always art. Thus, art is subjective.
Are chefs artists?
Simon Wilson negated this, and placed chefs alongside craftsmen. Just because a chef is involved in a creative process it does not make him an artist. Siliga and Ai used food to convey a message; whereas chefs create dishes to be eaten not analysed. Rather like a craftsmen using tools to build, a chef uses food to create a dish, not art.
So my brother can rest easy; if he thinks he is an artist good for him, I don’t.
Just because a chef is involved in a creative process doesn’t make them an artist. However, the chef may perhaps think they are artists. One is subjective.
1. Hargreaves, Henry. “Playing with food.” In Kai and culture: Food stories from Aotearoa, edited by Emma Johnson, 72-78. Wellington: Freerange Press, 2017.
Firstly, I’m a big Ai Weiwei fan too 🙂 I often think about cultural snobbery and the binary between “real art” and “fake art”. I used to also think that art only gained “real art” status if either the artist or the viewer could imbue it with a sort of meaning or message. “High art” or “true art” has historically needed to be virtuous and noble and a prophet that guides us to a higher understanding of ourselves and reality. However now I think this is a very outdated perception of art and relies on those old enlightenment ideas of always being a person of reason and virtue.
I’m a big fan of the theme of “camp” which idolises meaningless or trite “low culture” as being art. Art doesn’t have to be noble, all it has to be is a work of passion. I think cooking can be art even if it means nothing because it involves a process of truth and passion. Also, cooking is traditionally considered “low culture”, done by women or lower class workers. At one point in history, painting was also considered “non-art” and only done by unnamed craftsmen. Maybe the times are changing…
This was a really interesting comment!
I completely agree that art doesn’t need to have a meaning, one step into a modern art gallery is proof enough. However when it comes to food I thought that it needed to have meanin to become art or to me it just remains nicely arranged food…
Thanks for commenting!
To create something and put it on a plate for people to enjoy, how is that not art? There is aesthetic appreciation in food, and beauty can be found with your other senses too. If the issue with food as art is in its lack of meaning, then maybe look to the chefs themselves. There’s always a story behind a human creation, and creators are always going to be connected to their work. There’s a reason the word ‘art’ is in ‘artisan’.
Hi Kaylin!
I enjoyed reading your comment and I had also thought about the word artisan and was going to add into my post but unfortunately I ran outta words…
I agree that there can be a story behind human appreciation and that the presentation of something can be aesthetically pleasing however, to me, this doesn’t constitute art.
The difference I see with chefs is that I’ve labelled them craftsmen so the purpose of their work isn’t to be displayed and admired it is to be eaten. This draws parallels with other craftsmen like carpenters or builders; what they produce has a utility or purpose to be functional. Artists don’t have to conform or make work that taste good. Chefs, on the other hand, need to make edible food. Once a chef starts to use food to make art they became are no longer a chef and are an artist like Siliga Setoga or Ai Weiwei.
Thanks for reading and commenting!
I see your point, but I still consider craftsmen to be artists! Many artists use craft skills in their art, so why can’t it be other way around too? Even going off your example of builders: they contribute to the construction of architecture, which is an artform. Even ugly buildings like the general library have some artistic value, because art can be ugly. Then again, art is mostly dependent on context. I think we just have different views on how far context can take us in defining art haha
This is a really interesting and intriguing post. I think food in most cases often walks that fine line between ‘art’ and ‘not art’ depending both on the context that food is in, and who you ask. Therefore I think, as you stated, it’s really important to bring up the concept of subjectivity in relation to art, as I think it is this that really makes art, art. Without constant debates over how we want to define art, we wouldn’t be able to consider the ways in which we categorise things or come to understand these somewhat ambiguous objects as either one thing or another. To me, therefore, I think the beauty in art comes from the inherent emotional enjoyment we can get out of it – something we do see in food – rather than from a purely theoretical or analytical perspective, as is often the case with a painting or sculpture.
Hi acro253!
I completely agree that food walks that fine line between art and not art. One thing I didn’t add in my post but was an interesting point raised by Simon was that perhaps one should use a spectrum to place chefs between craftsmen and artists. This highlights that maybe chefs aren’t either one or the other.
Anyway thanks for commenting!
Although your blog is with slight tongue-in-cheek, I think it is a thoughtful approach to what we consider ‘art’ today.
Art by definition is the expression of creativity and imagination, a craft is an activity involving skills by hand. However, the reality is that everything is a creative process – are construction, law, medicine all arts?
Art is subjective. Art seems to be viewed as anything that make you feel. This loose categorisation raises the question, where do we draw the line, or is there even a line? Further, why is art held in a divine light?
I do disagree when you say, ‘cooking is merely a craft’, as it suggests crafts are inferior to arts. Perhaps we should be appreciating other skillsets, rather than classifying everything remotely emotive, as art.