Eating as an art?

Tolstoy's outlook on what makes a successful work of art is that it communicates to the audience the same emotions which the artist held when creating the work. Surely this can clearly be seen in obvious works of art like painting, sculpture, dance, theatre, etc.--I'm not saying it necessarily is true, but it hard to debate that the majority of viewers of art come away from these pieces with some kind of sentiment, regardless of whether they hated or loved the work. But what about when it comes to something like eating? Is eating an art? What is communicated with eating? As Tolstoy states, "Just as people who think that the aim and purpose of food is pleasure cannot perceive the true meaning of eating, so people who think that the aim of art is pleasure cannot know its meaning and purpose...people understand that the meaning of eating is the nourishment of the body only when they cease to consider pleasure the aim of this activity." To Tolstoy, the art of eating lies not in the pleasure one gets from a delicious meal, but the nourishment one's body is fulfilled by. 

 

On one hand, it is somewhat of a marvel, an art, to think of how the body transforms the food that enters our mouths into nourishment. On the other hand, though, this seems to be a bit of a stretch in my opinion to see art in this light. Inevitably nourishment is key to our subsistence, but what makes eating an art form to me is the aesthetics which lie behind its presentation, character, and flavor. Sure, one could eat just any dish of meat for protein--and in Tolstoy's opinion, this would be art; but what if one had the choice to have the best dish of sauteed chicken in a mouthwatering Madeira wine sauce tossed with Penne Pasta and parmesan? To me, the second sounds a bit more enticing--makes me want to see, smell, and taste it in all of the plate's sensory satisfaction--and I think it is this pleasure we get from a given artwork that fully makes us appreciate it and results in a successful work of art. 

With such TV shows as Travel channel's Bizarre Foods and Man v. Food or Iron Chef and Ace of Cakes on Food Network (an entire network dedicated to what thousands of viewers see as an art form), undoubtedly, society is seeing eating as more and more of an art form nowadays. 

 

Looking to Edward Behr's magazine The Art of Eating (http://www.artofeating.com/about.htm), a couple of standards which make eating more than just simple bodily nourishment are 1) tradition--"We look for the logic of geography, methods, and culture that make good food good — that give character and the finest flavor...We seek the most accomplished artisans to understand their methods. Their best products, rare as many are, still set the standards of excellence" 2) a sense of place--"The best food and wine have a sense of place that comes from soil, climate, tradition, and all the local influences that as a group exist nowhere else."

 

I think these two principles could even be applied to just about any form of art (of course varied a bit in their definitions) and what makes it good. Beauty is not necessary for someone to like art, but meaning.  With tradition, it is true that we look to the most accomplished artisans to understand their methods; if an artist isn't trying to learn and perfect an accomplished artist's skills, he is likely attempting to rebel against those methods--yet with both cases he has sought education from an accomplished predecessor. When it comes to a sense of place, i think the key phrase is to produce something "that as a group exist[s] nowhere else"--most works of art attempt to be creative and innovative (unless they follow the principle of tradition, of course) and artists look to draw in audiences based off of this shared sense of place, self, society. 

 

So, either way, yes, eating can surely be seen as an intricate art form. Does it, however, always have to communicate a shared message, a shared emotion, between artisan and indulger in order for it to be considered true and successful art?