a home chef and a chef in the top 50 restaurants in the world are not engaged in the same activity.
who said they are? what they are both doing is reproducing a recipe, though, i.e. repeating something with varying degrees of artisanship. like a CRAFT.
Larssen wrote:Better yet your 'l'art pour l'art' does not at all preclude cooking, actually it includes it, if the intention is to be artful. Food is also often used by other artists for provocative displays, but that's something else entirely.
it's something else entirely, yes, which is EXACTLY MY POINT. because then it doesn't have a use or function beyond itself, i.e. it has its own telos. this is precisely why i mentioned the word and precisely why i invoked classical aesthetic theory to help delineate the difference. food made to be eaten is not an artform. are music, sculpture, painting, novels, etc. justified beyond themselves? do they have a use? do they fulfill a basic biological function? no.
you are a dum-dum. it's like being 18 again and going over first principles. any second now you'll get onto duchamp and his readymades (a toilet can be art!) and we'll really step it up a notch. i am going to buy you a little glossary of greek terms so you can wear your learning a little better. right now you're in your father's hand-me-down longcoat and you look faintly ridiculous.
if an artist wants to put a blancmange inside a vitrine and point spotlights at it, that's up to them. i won't be attending the exhibition but, whatever.
Last edited by uziq (2020-05-23 05:03:00)