Relational Narratives of Food in Design and Architecture Exhibitions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This article spotlights a fascinating topic: how exhibitions represent food and cooking and what hospitality can offer efforts to nurture public engagement. That said, at this point the spotlight cannot stay still. It keeps moving from left stage to right, which is to say that there is a lot going and the article needs a stronger thread to bring everything together and to connect the diverse sections. In addition, it is very quote-heavy. Opening each section with a couple of quotes distracts from amplifying the author’s own voice and, therefore, arguments.

 

The article very much fits the aims of the journal as well as this “Narratives and Aesthetics of Cooking: Culinary Humanities” special issue. It responds directly to one of the three domains the call outlines regarding the relationship between cooking and art. By spotlighting the entanglements between cooking and art and how the two overlap, what they share, and how they contrast, the issue aims to “enrich the debate about food and art” and to detach “it from the naivete of some journalistic discourse and from a too often trivial ordinary conversation, that today plays a powerful role in the media.” That said, this article requires a more specific focus to strengthen its arguments and original contributions to such a meaty topic.

 

“Which narratives about food and cooking is fostered in exhibitions?” it asks. The title suggests the article will look at both art and design exhibitions: a massive undertaking since art and design, although in close contact with each other, have distinct histories and discourses. Perhaps the paper would benefit from focusing on one instead of mentioning both (which it essentially ends up doing with its examples). It details three artworks by Joseph Beuys. However, it reveals nothing about where and when and how these works have been exhibited. From my understanding, the paper intends to focus on exhibitions rather than artworks and artistic practices per se and so it would benefit from including and analyzing these details.

 

This section— 2. “Food, Art Narratives and Aesthetics: Leveling Art to the Level of Cooking”— opens with a scene from the film The Square. Although it is an amusing hook, it does not obviously introduce “some intrenched commonplaces about the hierarchy between food and art” (3). The questions this paragraph then introduces do not feel connected to the movie scene with which it opens. The scene is about the opening of a buffet. Was this buffet a work of art? Or part of an exhibition? An exhibition featuring food would do a better job at opening this section.

 

But more importantly, the article does not give any examples of art exhibitions. Instead all of its examples are of design and architecture exhibitions, which although they might feature artists are not the same as shows framed as art exhibitions. An exhibition featuring food at, say, the Tate Modern would be in dialogue with a different institutional framework than at a “decorative and applied arts” museum like the Victoria & Albert. My first suggestion would be then to clarify which kinds of exhibitions the article analyzes instead of “art and design exhibitions” at large.

Also, the Herkes Için Mimarlık, according to their website, are not an “art non-profit collective” but an architecture one (“Architecture For All Association NGO”).

 

Returning to the title, “Relational Narratives” made me think of “relational aesthetics” and, more importantly, the art practice of Rirkrit Tiravanija and pad thai (1990)—the first work in which he cooked for exhibition visitors at an art gallery. Relational aesthetics also goes hand-in-hand with new institutionalism, a point that the paper’s mention of new museology should consider. And before Beuys’ 1977 Kartoffelernte (Potato Harvest) action, Gordon Matta-Clark opened the artist-run restaurant FOOD (1971–1974) in New York together with Carol Gooden and Tina Girouard. What might this example bring to the article’s research questions? Also, considering the title flags “narratives of food” the article itself could say more about such narratives.

 

Section 2.1., which zooms in on the exhibition Food: Bigger than the Plate, mentions kitchens as one of the topics that the exhibition introduced. The author then writes that

"There is a rich history of how creative professionals, particularly architects and designers, have been imagining the kitchen of the future in exhibition settings and world fairs.” Here a specific time period would be useful. Since when? The earliest example the author then provides is Alison and Peter Smithson’s “House of the Future” in London in 1956. An important example I would encourage the author to also consider is the Frankfurt Kitchen from 1926 (https://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2010/counter_space/the_frankfurt_kitchen/ and https://www.nasjonalmuseet.no/en/stories/explore-the-collection/a-kitchen-for-the-modern-woman/) and its ongoing cultural legacy, as illustrated by Liam Gillick’s project for the German Pavilion at the Venice Biennale in 2009.

 

I was enchanted by the many points the article brings together, especially those regarding hospitality and its intersections with curation, the ecology of exhibitions, and response-ability. However, I find the writing style rather dense. In addition, adding geography to the title will further clarify its focus. European exhibitions? Exhibitions in Italy and the UK? The introduction reads more like a roadmap than it does a preview to the topic and so the author could use this space to not just let readers know what the article will discuss but, more importantly, why.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

The article would benefit from a close reading by a native English speaker (remedying distracting typos like sparkling when sparking is meant, as well as when the word should be flour rather than flower, changing chapters to sections, and clarifying confusing terms like “art and design territory” and “the contamination of art spaces” and “the unapproachable aura of exhibitions”). Also, active rather than passive language will sharpen the writing and a few of the clunky paragraphs would benefit from some trimming.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.  After peer reviewing hundreds of manuscripts over the last several years, I am honored to share with you that this is one of the few papers that I found captivating, thought-provoking, and well-written.  In reviewing this work, I carefully read and reread this manuscript twice across a span of 10 days, setting the manuscript aside, and allowing myself considerable rest and reflection before writing a conclusive review.  As an aesthetic researcher myself, particularly in culinary arts, I must say, that this is a very compelling and philosophically rich piece.  The manuscript is a joy to read.  My comments are minor but also crucial.  I hope they help the author move forward. 

 

2.  While the manuscript is a rich read, I find the opening “introduction” section overly descriptive and lacking a warrant for inquiry.  What is really missing is a problem statement and an explicit statement that informs readers of the paper’s purpose.  The philosophical gap in the introduction should also be fleshed out.  As it stands, the introduction really reads like a “table of contents” which should not be the case.  Perhaps the authors could repurpose some passages from section 2 into section 1.  In addition, I would recommend ending section 1 with a clear and explicit purpose statement, including the author’s analytical goals.  I strongly recommend the authors to consider this point.

3.  The authors also fail to define several key terms that inform their theoretical lens.  I would strongly recommend the authors to invest in some definitional matters, particularly in the introduction.  

 

4.  Some choices of words are also very questionable, which forced me to pause and guess what the authors claims are.  Consider rephrasing “contamination” in Line 40 and Line 679.  The word only appeared twice in this paper, and I feel that it disrupted my reading flow.  It is hard to guess what the author means.  Which again, goes back to my earlier point, several terms deserve proper conceptual definitions.  An optional comment is to consider recasting the word “think” (Line 104) for “problematize, critique, or unpack.”  I feel that this would lend more power to the author’s assertion.

 

5. The analysis is a joy to read.  Critical thinking is the phrase of the moment, and a staple of philosophical thought. This deserves praise.  I would invite the author to expand on his/her positionality, aesthetic stance, and experience from the UK and Italy.  I feel that the author’s reflexive self is rather “quiet” in this paper, showing only 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 brings into the inquiry.  As it stands the brief statement in Line 53-55 is insufficient. 

 

6. I feel that the following three studies would really benefit the authors’ inquiry, particularly from the author’s relational-aesthetics standpoint.  All three studies took a Deweyan perspective on the aesthetic experience, which aligns well with the author’s relational view.  Dewey, after all, advocates against the dichotomy of high/low art and for the relational quality it brings in uniting people’s worldviews together. Glenn Kuehn’s (2005, 2012) study really takes into account the unique aesthetic qualities of the food appreciation experience.  His critique about “the environment” would also serve the present manuscript’s analysis well.  Kai-Sean Lee’s (2022) take on culinary aesthetics is a rather unique one that would benefit the present manuscript’s relational vantage point.  Lee considers cooking and eating as a “world-traveling” phenomenon that unites people aesthetically.  I highly recommend both scholar’s lenses be incorporated in the analysis of the paper.  The three citations are as followed:

·         Kuehn, G. (2005). How can food be art? In A. Light & J. M. Smith (Eds.), The aesthetics of everyday life (pp. 194-212). New York, NY: Columbia University 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.                

 

7.  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.  From Sections 2.2. onwards, I find some paragraphs rather poorly written, heavy, and lacking narrative flow.  Some arguments don’t carry reader-friendliness and some paragraphs stretched too long (see e.g., Line 306-351 which stretched over 45 lines long!)  Stronger and concise lead-in sentences for each paragraph would also help.  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. 

 

8.  It was an honor to have read this manuscript. The manuscript allows for critical conversations regarding the components of the arguments set forth herein. The manuscript adds to the literature and may be used in areas of gastronomy and the arts.  I wish the authors the best of luck in the review process.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

n\a

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting paper which builds very detailed narratives of food in art. The paper addresses the question of how food is manifested in art, which is relevant in food studies. The topic is original and adds an innovative perspective to previous research. The paper is well structured. In the introduction, the author states that the paper “reflects my own experience of living, working and studying between the countryside and the city”. The author should include a paragraph about autoethnography as a research method which will improve the implications of the paper. Also, the author should include some pictures in section 2. While the conclusion is consistent with the results, and the author addresses the research question, the author should expand theoretical and practical implications and opportunities for future research. The language is clear and easy to read.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am most pleased to see how the author has responded to my comments and suggestions. The article’s arguments now really sing. The title, together with its subtitle, better previews what the article spotlights. The introduction is now much more inviting (although it could perhaps start with a snappier sentence or even question). I also find the overall flow of the paper to be much stronger. Congratulations to the author for their hard work!

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Just some minor notes:

Line 197: Is “primary cite of exchange” (Greenberg et al.) correct or should this be site?

Line 213: The comma after accessibility and before can should be deleted.

Line 214: Instead of “the commercial fashion system” I would suggest “commercial fashion” or “the commercial fashion industry.”

Line 293: I would suggest deleting “in the scene” since it is not necessary.

Line 311: Same here, the sentence does not need “artist” in front of Joseph Beuys since the previous sentence makes this clear.

Line 332: I would suggest changing “across the ocean” to “across the Atlantic.”

Line 356/357: Add “has been” to “said so far.”

Line 357: I would suggest changing “to place labels” to simply “labeling” to be more direct.

Line 380: I don’t think this first sentence is necessary and believe the paragraph would be stronger without it.  

Line 518: Change “immigrant people” to “immigrants.”

Line 620: “soon later” is confusing.

Line 621: I think this sentence would be stronger without “incredibly.”

Line 681: “Western indigenous” is not quite clear to me.

Line 740: Delete “that of.”

Line 812: Add “the” to before “Biennale.”