“Edible Aesthetics”: Blurring Boundaries between Pastry and Art
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is clear in its aims and gentle in its tone. I enjoyed reading it and felt like one point smoothly rolled into the next. However, its contribution to the literature is not currently apparent—a point I would suggest that the author further highlights—and it omits some important points that are worth mentioning. In other words, the author needs to more clearly state what this article contributes and why this is important.
The first endnote acknowledges that the terms pastry and confectionery are distinct and yet this article uses them interchangeably. I actually found this fascinating and believe it is a point that belongs in the body of the text. I say this because “art” and “artistic expression” are also distinct terms that the paper blurs into one.
Additionally, the paper has two main parts that feel rather separate from one another. The three examples of pièce montées, cake design, and Japanese wagashi that tailgate the paper’s more detailed first section should be in a closer dialogue with each other. I also believe that the paper could benefit from some light rearranging. For example, some of the historical details about dessert (as well as a consideration of the different contexts in which pastries appear, such as breakfast, tea or after-dinner, for example) would be useful to have earlier.
I was surprised that gender did not come up at all. Considering that in contemporary fine dining, savoury dishes have been gendered male and pastry chefs female—and, therefore, sometimes coded as the lesser of the two—this could have a role in pastry’s status as a "marginal" genre. Historically, this was of course not always the case and so it would be useful to at least mention this point.
Similarly, the history of sugar in Europe is entangled with the history of slavery, a crucial point in terms of how it went from a luxury to an everyday staple. Kara Walker’s important 2014 installation ‘A Subtlety’ evokes this history. Also, the paper discusses pastry as an example of a food luxury, one that is decorative, which leaves me wondering about the evolving relationship between sugar and calories and price, which is to say value. I would also be curious to read more about the relationship between sweets and celebratory occasions and what this means in terms of discussions about art and the everyday.
I would also love to see the distinction between “eating” and “tasting” (line 102) expanded, since I believe this is an important point for sweet foods as a genre.
The author writes that “In the conventional paradigm of aesthetics, artistic creations endure over time; conversely, food is transitory, subject to decay and eventual disappearance” (lines 152 –153). However, many contemporary art practices challenge this claim, such as performance art and the dematerialization of the art object in general since the post-war period.
Regarding the title, the term “edible beauty” appears twice in the article (lines 331 and 430). I would suggest further unpacking this term in addition to returning to it in the final discussion. Are pastries, by default, beautiful? And is art? (Obviously not.) The dessert genre at large contains many “ugly delicious” examples.
Also, I don’t think the subtitle needs the article nor the word “on” and would perhaps suggest trimming it to “Blurring Boundaries Between Pastry and Art.”
I would also like to see the conclusion further developed. Right now it feels almost like the paper stops without ending. The introduction maps out how the author aims to “establish a correlation between pastry and distinct artist domains such as sculpture, architecture, design and performance.” However, the conclusion does not adequately realise this aim. For instance, the term performance only appears in the 3.4 subtitle. Here it could be worthwhile to also consider contemporary artists who work with food such as Laila Gohar (and her work with cake), Manger Manger (her work with jelly), and Joseph Marr (his work with sugar).
Also, it could be fruitful to consider topics such as repetition and multiples (so beyond the concept of a single “unique” work of art). Furthermore, the paper occasionally correlates art with beauty, which warrants unpacking.
The discussion about dessert and temporality is especially intriguing (starting on line 164) and I would love to read more about sweets, perishability, and fragility. Same goes with the notion of “exhibition food” (line 373).
Concerning additional literature, Pierre Hermé’s ‘The Architecture of Taste’ (published by Sternberg Press) would be worth looking at, as well as critical scholarship about the history of sugar.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article is about food aesthetics. Many works have been published in this area. The following is my questions and comments on this article. I hope it will help you improve this paper.
(1) In the history of Western philosophy, what is the deeper reason for not considering food as the object of art?
(2) What is the essence of everyday aesthetics? What is the relationship between everyday aesthetics and food aesthetics?
(3) You quote Saito's work in this article. Saito not only pays attention to food aesthetics but also garden aesthetics. In fact, there is a deep philosophical reason for this attention. You may read Confucianism's works because it has deep influence on everyday aesthetics.
(4) What is the historical background for everyday aesthetics?
(5) In terms of aesthetic values, as society develops, those values change. You may address the ultimate philosophical reason for the changing aesthetic attitude for food.
(6) It will be best if the author can address the Western philosophical traditions and the nelect of treating food as the object of art。
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. In reviewing this work, I carefully read and reread this manuscript twice across a span of 3 days, setting the manuscript aside, and allowing myself considerable rest and reflection before writing a conclusive review. I hope you find my review constructive in improving your work.
2. I find the introduction section rather poor. The author(s)' contextualization of aesthetics within the realm of pastry seems rather faint. What is really missing is an explicit problem statement that informs readers of the paper’s purpose. The philosophical gap needs to be fleshed out. I understand that the author(s) did this (to some extent) in section 2, but the introduction doesn’t show it at all, and hence failed to set a stage. The problem and purpose statements need to be properly fleshed out. As it reads, the opening “introduction” lacks a warrant for inquiry.
3. The article very much fits the aims of the journal as well as the special issue titled “Narratives and Aesthetics of Cooking: Culinary Humanities.” It responds directly to one of the three domains the call outlines regarding the relationship between cooking and art. However, the research questions of “does the realm of pastry qualify as a distinct manifestation of artistic beauty?” and “can confectionery be endowed with a distinctive expressive value?” seem very broad and lacking problematization. Not to mention, both questions are closed-ended, not allowing for the fluidity of creative analysis. That said, this article requires a more specific focus to strengthen its arguments and original contributions to such a meaty topic.
4. One serious criticism I have relates to the author’s readability. I encourage the author to revise the writing particularly in helping the reader follow the author’s trains of thought. I struggle at times to understand the purpose of the essay, what was truly analyzed conceptually and philosophically? From the get-go, I find some paragraphs rather empty, without consummating to a progressive argument. Stronger and concise lead-in sentences for each paragraph would also help. Not to mention, some investments in “definitional matters” are strongly recommended too. The paper is a rich read, but it can be overwhelming for the reader. I strongly advise the author to invest in some rhyme and reason.
5. I would encourage the authors to include a section, or a paragraph or two, to flesh out properly the "conceptual/philosophical methods" involved in this piece, explaining explicitly how the author(s) came about the theorization. As the manuscript reads now, the authors fail to elaborate on the thinking and processes that underpin their conceptions. Although conceptual inquiries can be rather abstract in nature, the author(s) need to communicate how they translated their abstraction into a comprehendible framework. Perhaps the author(s) can take up a reflexive style in explicating their conceptual methods: reflexivity is after all core to conceptual inquiry, as it is the researcher, regardless of his/her/their epistemological stance, who asserts and defines the conceptual grounds of their claims.
6. Piggybacking off my previous point, I would also like to invite the author to expand on his/her/their positionality, aesthetic stance, and experience; I feel that the author's reflexive self is rather "quiet" in this paper, showing barely a brief cameo without sufficient interrogation and accountability to the analysis. In other words, I encourage the authors to unpack the value-laden qualities he/she/they brings into the inquiry. Integrating this in the conceptual methods section might seem the most logical.
7. I was really hopeful for this paper but remained disappointed by its content. I remain unconvinced as to why this piece should be disseminated to the public. The overly broad research questions did not do the author(s)’ work justice. In other words, so what? I encourage the author(s) to step back, reflect, before revising this inquiry. To end on a good note, there are parts of the analysis that are joy to read. Writing a conceptual paper is not easy and requires courage and I would like to thank the authors for the honor to have an intellectual dialogue in this review process. That being said: I wish the authors the best of luck.
8. Below are also some studies/books/perspectives that I strongly encourage the authors to weave in. they concern in large parts, the domains of aesthetics, pastry, and the question of “is food art?”
Dornenburg, A., & Page, K. (1996). Culinary artistry. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Engisch, P. (2022). Modeling culinary value. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 80(2), 177-188.
Hermé, P. (2015). The architecture of taste. Berlin: Sternberg Press.
Kuehn, G. (2012). Tasting the world: Environmental aesthetics and food as art. Contemporary Pragmatism, 9(1), 85-98.
Lee, K.-S. (2022). Culinary aesthetics: World-traveling with culinary arts. Annals of Tourism Research, 97, 103487.
Lee, K.-S., Blum, D., Miao, L., & Tomas, S. R. (2020). The creative minds of extraordinary pastry chefs: An integrated theory of aesthetic expressions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(9), 3015-3034.
N/A
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for addressing my comments with such meticulousness and care. Specifically, I appreciate the introduction, which weaves in good arguments and reflexivity. I find the paper engaging and ready to be evaluated by the editor-in-chief.
n/a
