The Art v Craft Question

Whether or not what a chef does can be considered art has been a topic of great discussion. Books like Culinary Artistry, Rulman's trilogy, and Becoming a Chef (to name a few) deal with this issue (especially if not directly) and cooks and chefs can often be heard talking about it. Maybe the conversation is more about the difference between craft and art than about whether or not cooking is one or other, but for me all art begins with craft. Picasso first learned techniques, practiced point of view, perspective, scaling, lighting, and all the other elements and effects of visual art. For any artist, the craft of a chosen medium must be learned, practiced and struggled with. The difference between craft and art has nothing to do with medium. An artist can work with paint, metal, wood, clay, fabric, food, music, words and any other material; this doesn't make them an artist. In fact it seems certain forms (painting and sculpture particularly) are demanded less of, or maybe we don't understand enough to demand more. It is much harder to be called a literary artist than a visual artist and for some reason almost all musicians are considered artists?. With art education disappearing all across the country and the word art being debased left and right through phrases like the art of leadership, the art of law, etc.. It isn't surprising that there is some confusion about art, even the art world’s sometime declaration that art is what you make of it causes more problems than it solves. Art isn't just a technique, medium or thought process in the end art is a culmination and transcendence of many things from the techniques and craft to the process and ideas behind the concept. Art is a way of communicating a personal view point. It communicates a specific way of seeing the world. It is based in practice and study of techniques, processes and mediums. Trial and error is as inherent in art as it is in any creative act. I think what really marks the difference is through the act of creation an artist can transcend the craft to comment on some greater human condition, some human universal. The ability to connect with an audience, bring them into your world for a moment, showing the audience something strange and familiar. Can this be done with food? What some seem to think, that food and cooking is outside the realm of art, doesn't take into account the full scope of the profession. This doesn't mean that all chefs or cooks are artists, it just means that the possibility of artistry exists within the scope of the profession. There are some who are without a doubt artists. The chefs that invite us into a world, were service, décor, food and atmosphere come together to create a united experience, for that is all cooking is, providing an experience no matter how momentary that can touch a person in ways that can be remembered for ever. A chef can change a persons thoughts on what food is and can be, we can have a conversation with a person by serving them well prepared and thoughtful food in a well prepared and thoughtful setting with well prepared and thoughtful service that suggests another way of thinking about eating and cooking and the importance and impact of these acts on our lives and society, and this culmination is artistry. It begins with craft and technique. Being able to properly cook and serve food is a feat all it's own that should be applauded (it takes years of practice and study to do such a simple thing). The transcendence into something other should be celebrated. In the end I think it wise not only to recognize craft but to recognize and applauded artistry within any endeavor. Artistry comes from hard work and practice, it comes from failure and success, and in the end it is an experience all its own. This doesn't mean that all cooks and chefs should strive for artistry, craftsmanship is hard enough, but it does mean that when we experience artistry in any form it should be applauded and recognized as such.