aesthesis

The fat of the land

I recently finished a book called The Supper of the Lamb: A Culinary Reflection by Robert Farrar Capon. (you can find out more about it here). Capon and I don’t agree on every point but there is one thing that we are in full accord about.

Fat is not evil.

Capon and I however are fairly lonely in our opinion. I think it would be fair to say that most adults in the US believe that fat in food is to be avoided at all costs. You can get low or no fat substitutes for just about anything. Butter is seen as a spike in the culinary tree.

Capon and I turn to the same source to support our conclusion. God through Isaac promised Jacob “Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine:”. Fatness, if it were bad wouldn’t be part of a blessing. Rather, it would be used as a curse (“the fat of the land be upon you for this thing” evil, or the converse, “I will maintain the skinniness of your waist all your days” or “the carbs shall not collect upon thee neither shall the calories be stored up in your hips”).

There must be an aesthetic principle here somewhere. Although the aesthetics of food cannot be considered a major player in philosophic circles, it is gaining in interest (Google it and see for yourself). The issue of fat brings two ideas to mind.

First, the historical context of fat as a symbol. It’s clear from the Biblical passage that the people of that time thought of fat as a good thing but fat today is an evil to be avoided.

If you made the same dish of mashed potatoes with a big melted lump of butter crowning the mound and served it to the average person today, they would likely shun it. The negative connotations of fat would cause them to judge the whole dish negatively. They reject good potatoes because they contain bad fat (or carbohydrates but that’s off topic).

This reaction is understandable in certain situations. We should all eat responsibly. For instance, if you know that there is arsenic mixed with the potatoes then you should reject the whole dish rather than try to eat around the bad parts. On the other hand, the fact that some contemporary painters insist on wasting their audience’s time by creating infantile works of art is not a good reason to write off the art world as a whole and call for a return to academic realism (This site calls for just that).

What is worth aesthetic interest here is how butter, the symbol of an invisible concept of fat) has become a negative factor despite the innate pleasure derived from it. People love to eat butter when they don’t know they are doing so. Cream sauces and croissants (good ones) are full of it and people gobble them down. But if you told most people, it’s the fat that make that croissant flaky and delicious they would likely slink away glumly.

Certain symbols are so powerful in a society that even a minor reduction in their presence is seen as good. Put “20% less fat” on a label (that’s 4 pats of butter instead of 5) and you are assured of monetary success. If a government official says 20% less money will be wasted he is hailed as a hero. The symbol of a-little-waste-averted gives a candidate a wholly positive aesthetic to the voting public. People still want the benefits of government spending just like they want the beneficial taste of butter but it makes them feel good to know that they are choosing a little less of what their favorite vice.

Some times an art work is received positively just because it reduces the amount of a negative philosophy compared to its contemporaries. Later, as a work is re-evaluated, that reduction doesn’t seem so important and opinion turns against the work. Some of G. B. Shaw’s plays are like this. He was a leader of the fight for women’s rights in his day but some of the ideas he posited in his plays are looked upon today as dated. His ideas about what women had the right to do was different from what activists today believe.

It’s wise to note that neither that essential value of butter nor of women’s liberty to act in society has changed. Only the definition that contemporary culture places on these terms has changed. The change in definition of butter from a tasty goodness to dangerous fat carrier hasn’t changed the butter itself. The effect of butter has not changed.

Only the appreciation of fat has changed with time. The appreciation has changed. Education affects appreciation but adjusting definitions. Cezanne’s work was not appreciated fully until the people were educated as to his definition of art. Once that definition was grasped the works came alive. The paints hadn’t changed, just the expectation.

Modified definitions however seldom precede the artworks that they encompass. The definition of art that helped people to appreciate Cezanne’s paintings could not have been formulated without his experimental works to guide it.

There is a circular bent to this argument. Possibly though, the aesthetic side of the definition of art (not the physical definition) is a handle by which we grasp art rather than a tool with which we make art. Few great dramatic theorists were also great playwrights.

Maybe art is two mental states connected by an action and an object. Foundational concept, experiment/experience, and altered perception based on impact. This would be the case for artist and audience. An artist couldn’t begin without a foundational concept, they could not proceed without eventually trying something, and they would not know they were done until their perception of the art object had been changed.

A viewer would have no chance of enjoying a work without a foundational concept that was somehow tangential to the art object they were to view, they could not compare the work and their concept with out experiencing the work, and depending on the nature of the comparison their perception of the object would change.

An artist might decide that a cream sauce would be the best way to express the joy of life that they feel. They might, then, begin to test their premise by constructing one (like this one) using butter et. al. As they got closer to finishing the sauce they might taste it to see if it getting across just the message they wanted to communicate before presenting it to whomever they wanted to communicate to.

People may immediately enjoy the flavor of butter or the vibrancy of Cezanne’s colors but once they have been prepared for the butter experience they might appreciate it more fully. It’s only after people see the gift that butter is that they get a hint at its value. Butter as the evidence of a fruitful earth brings with it more enjoyment than churned, salted milk fat.

Second, and even more interesting … well, maybe later.

Posted by jwaggone at June 17, 2004 09:08 AM