I shall tell you a tale of a piece of art I encountered over break. This Spring Break, for my birthday, I received a gift I was almost ashamed to have used. My aunt handed me a beautiful box containing several beautifully painted shapes. I smiled at her, not entirely sure I knew what I was holding. “They are from this new place by my house,” she said, “Aren’t they pretty neat? And they come in interesting flavors too!” I began to perceive that I was, indeed, holding a box of chocolates! Some could pass as candy (natural chocolate-y color with some embellishment) but some were shiny, sparkly, and had interesting colors of green, orange, red, etc. How could anyone eat these chocolates? How could they destroy this art?!

Of course, I had to eat them eventually (I have no self control with chocolates). I tried an orange Reeces©-looking piece. It tasted pretty normal – peanut butter/chocolate – and then I reached for my water! It had curry in it! Looking at the list of flavors that comes in most boxes, I noticed most of them had unusual flavors: cider caramel, lavender, Tahitian vanilla, crème brulée, etc. Some were too odd for me, others were delicious! All were beautiful!

Today, the box is empty. Food art is not meant to last as long. Which makes me wonder why this art is created at all? I know what food looks like after being chewed, being digested, and where it ends up (please excuse the toilet talk; I hope it isn’t too base a subject, and I shall not expand). What artist could put such work into their creation only to have it digested?

Is food art really art if it is created for the express purpose of being destroyed? We see all of these new cake shows that glorify cake art but we never see how it ends. Yes it is wonderful to see and it is WONDERFUL to eat, but how do we analyze it? Can food art skimp on flavor for the sake of more creative art? Or could one forgive the sloppy art if it tastes great?

I know I would have preferred more taste than looks. Plain old peanut butter and chocolate would have sufficed for me; leave the curry out of it. Yes the lavender chocolate tasted great! But it wasn’t the prettiest to look at – nothing more than a chocolate square with purple on top. Does aesthetic compromise flavor and vice versa? Can one exist without the other? Then why does food art exist? If art is to be created and appreciated, shouldn’t it be preserved?

I personally don’t believe that food art is worth the time and money. On my plate, I prefer a tasty meal over an artistic showcase. I would never eat the Mona Lisa, nor would I be able to eat most food art. This is not to say that people should stop making food art. Let them have their talent and create how they will, but I will not be eating it. The Cake Boss is my guilty pleasure, but I watch it to watch art, not to watch food.