Thoughts on Telfer

Professor Johnson provided today an adequate explanation as to why Telfer seemed to disregard the visual and structural aspects of food. Telfer was not concerned with how well food would work as a medium for other art forms, rather how food would do as its own form. The only aspect of food that is unique to food and no other form of art is the necessity of taste to experience it.

...and...

Edward Manak, in response to my story about my grandfather's scotch, proposed the idea that art has no intrinsic meaning to it, the meaning is imposed upon it by the person experiencing that particular piece. After some thought, I have concluded that this is a perfectly valid observation, and an extremely sympathetic reading of Telfer's severely presumptuous claim. I would have no issue with Telfer had she phrased it as such, but she did not. While she would be right in the claim that food has no inherent meaning, she claims this as evidence of food's unimportance, implying therefore that the more important arts such as painting, music, and sculpture, do have innate meaning. This, I take issue with. Either all arts have meaning of their own or none of them do...Music possesses no unique attribute, that food lacks, to imbue it with natural meaning.

Telfer made many thoughtful and logically sound arguments in favor of cookery as a form of art in its own right and I can appreciate such. Her arguments begin to deteriorate as she pursues the additional labels of simple and minor.

In class, the people who contributed the most seemed to come to a consensus that Telfer was wrong and cookery is a major art form, but what do you think? I am interested in hearing whether you think food is minor, major, or not an art form at all.