I am not one to recommend Netflix content, but The Hyper Hardboiled Gourmet Report did something to me that few shows do. I was humbled, frightened, shocked, and seduced by the tragic life stories they profiled, all from the point of view of food.
Food is one of my favorite entry points for aesthetics precisely because it is the lowest common denominator for all species. Here it is framing politics, not in that awful, didactic way I’ve come to really hate, but in a matter of fact way, like a dynamic Dutch still life.
I’ve always believed that food–how we think about it, the role it plays in our lives–is the last strain of pure aesthetics left in this country.
No one ever asks what food means. Why? because it doesn’t mean anything. It is too trivial. It is just there, on your plate. It is delicious, or it isn’t. You desire to know how it was made, or you don’t. You don’t eat expecting the experience to make you a better person. You’re not better than me if you like this meal over another.
The only real question food demands that you answer is the one Walter Pater suggested we ask about all art: What effect does this have on me? and Why? And the answer for me is usually: heartburn, because I eat too fast.
Now, the flip side of this food talk comes when writers like Mallory Ortberg talk about food in books. For example, her article “Every Meal in Wuthering Heights, In Order of Sadness” is just the kind of lovingly meaningless literary chatter I like. Here:
Almost Not Crying Long Enough To Have A Bite Of Goose
“I waited behind her chair, and was pained to behold Catherine, with dry eyes and an indifferent air, commence cutting up the wing of a goose before her. ‘An unfeeling child,’ I thought to myself; ‘how lightly she dismisses her old playmate’s troubles. I could not have imagined her to be so selfish.’ She lifted a mouthful to her lips: then she set it down again: her cheeks flushed, and the tears gushed over them. She slipped her fork to the floor, and hastily dived under the cloth to conceal her emotion.”
Even to use the word “Aesthetic” in casual conversation is a sure way to alienate your audience. It is a foreign, archaic word, like “metaphysics” or “quotidian” or “stoic.” It’s not just that our vocabulary has narrowed. We have become a practical people. Functionality, objectivity, measurability are the words of the day. And really why not? Beauty (it is supposed) will not save the ozone layer, or make the computer faster, or improve your SAT scores. Art is not science. Science got us to the moon. And thus, the virtue in having aesthetic concerns or of being as “aesthete” is lost to us. That is, except in the domain of food. And there it is very much alive.
Recent Posts
- Coming Soon…
- A Prayer for the Panther
- Meme Level 10
- “You Can Have Daughters and Accost Women without Remorse.”
- The Sun is a god. Isn’t that obvious?
- Worth Listening: Carl Jung’s “The Undiscovered Self”
- We’ve Got to Fulfill the Book
- No (Wo)Man is An Island
- Self-Reliance
- A City and A Tower
- Monday is no time for Rumination
- The Gas Line
- The Genius of an Age
- Replace the Word “God” with “Monday.”
- A Time for Garrison Keillor
Tags
advice aesthetics Animation Art Books Carl Jung Corpse Flower Covid-19 Descartes Donald Trump Facebook Fear Fiction Film food Hemingway Investing John Berger Johns Hopkins Jordan Peterson Literacy literary Literature New York Pennsylvania Philosophy Poetry Politics Psychology Publishing Reading Reddit Robert Frost Saul Zaentz Science Fiction Screenwriting Story SXSW Tao Te Ching Teaching techniques unwritten Virtual reality writing YouTube