"Cooking is indeed artistry. It’s a form of creativity and expression, especially the more defined you become with your cuisine. The direction you decide to take it in—your personal style—usually depends on your background and your education."

• Bradley Ogden in Culinary Artistry by Dornenburg and Page

Can cooking be an artistic process? In the sense that Dornenburg and Page suggest—that is, in terms of perception, form, and beauty—I would argue yes. These elements are key to the composition of a dish, a menu, and a cuisine. What form shall I use to add a note of acidity: fresh tomato, wine, lemon juice, vinegar? Sometimes an ingredient has several dozen variations, with crops specific to a particular region (e.g. Oaxacan chilhuacle negro). What color, what flavor is appropriate? The answers to these questions are at the discretion of the chef, whose intuition, training, and background shape the final product.

But if cooking can be artistry, is food art? Is the culinary endeavor merely an expression of form and beauty, brought about by perceptiveness? No—that is my resounding and emphatic answer.

Part of the problem with "food as art" lies with word art itself. People often assume art is physical—theatre, movies, paintings, etc. This mess is further compounded by our reliance on the internet as a form of communication. In this age of digital food photography, or "food porn" as it is occasionally called, we overemphasize the visual. The foodgawker web site exemplifies this symptom best; the page is a sea of photographs with no context whatsoever. One could argue that foodgawker is merely a portal to the larger blogging world, but the inevitable result of such a service is that the visual becomes the primary motivation behind our interest. Analyzing the recipe, the method, and the presenter’s style and critique are secondary considerations, if they enter the mind at all. I cannot count the number of times I have seen bloggers vapidly remark on photographs and say hardly a word about the actual food.

The visual is relevant. We first eat with our eyes, and hence presentation is also an aspect of the culinary experience. But it is only one aspect. For the online tourist, that may be sufficient. But for the professional chef, the home cook, or the thoughtful consumer, the visual cannot and must not be the only matter of interest. At least half the art in food is in smell, taste, and total dining experience. On the internet, you can only communicate the sum through words—which is unfortunate, as not everyone bothers reading and simultaneously thinking about what they read.

The other problem with "food as art" stems from the oft ignored and ridiculed subjects of health and environmental awareness. Food is not simply a matter of beauty or form; it is also function—our energy, vitality, and the condition of the world in which we live. Proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and nutrients fuel our bodies and enable us to continue thinking, reading, enjoying, and experiencing. Some foods are more efficient with this task. Others are simply bad at it (and bad for us) altogether. Furthermore, the environmental cost of using imported goods is sometimes worth more than their contribution—especially when local, fresh produce is plentiful and readily available. Hence, the chef’s responsibility is not only one of artistry. He or she must also balance art with human well-being—not as one obsessed with the current fad, but with practical common-sense and a willingness to challenge the limits of the culinary sphere.