Has food replaced art?

Author and essayist William Deresiewicz argues that food and foodie-ism has replaced art in American culture in a recent New York Times opinion piece. As someone who is deeply involved in both the foodie and the art world, I have mixed feelings about the article.

First, it must be said that Deresiewicz neatly shuts down the argument that "food IS art." He points out that food has no narrative, and is unable to evoke more than a small handful of emotions. Food may be intrinsic to the human experience, but it doesn't reflect on the human experience, nor does it tell us anything important about it. "An apple is not a story," he says, "even if we can tell a story about it."

That being said, Deresiewicz's bafflement at the rise of foodie culture is palpable. It carries more than a whiff of "You kids get off my lawn!" Intellectual pastimes are not a zero sum game, and I think it's a mistake to assume that, because people are more interested in food and less interested in art, there's a direct relationship there. People are more interested in a lot of things now than they were 50 years ago. Like who's going to win American Idol, or the Kardashians.

I also think it's a mistake to look back (as Deresiewicz does) on the 50s as a golden era when everyone discussed high art over the dinner table. Art existed then as it does now; some people were interested and others were not, just like now.

Truly GOOD food is still something of a novelty in America, as Deresiewicz (who has to explain to his students that "my peers did not talk about food all the time when we were her age") is clearly aware. If food has reached the level of national obsession, well, so was McCarthyism in the 50s. It's not as if, if you took away food, people would start appreciate paintings instead.

Image courtesy of Flickr/Jessica Wilson (jek in the box)