What is art again? (1 Viewer)

"Who the hell invented the sandwich? They oughta write a book about him."
I know that's from Barfly, but I had to interject my geekdom....the sandwich was named for the Earl of Sandwich, who was a compulsive gambler, and wanted a meal he could eat with one hand and not have to leave the gambling table. the other hand was left free to wager, hold his cards, etc. I'm not sure on the dates.

EDIT: the internet says around 1762. I WILL NOT QUESTION THE INTERNET! EVER! ;)
No. Sandwiches cannot be Art. But they can permit it, be responsible for it. They are solid, mobile, efficient fuel cells. A "meal" that will not kill the flow, sustenance that will not distract, vital nourishing that can accompany the creative act. God bless the sandwich.
I'm not sure eggsactly what you just said, but after digesting, I agree, er, with reservation. A sandwich can't be art. Unless, of course, it is 4am, and the only thing left in the fridge are cold cuts. Some potato bread. Condiments. Pickles. Chips. Soda. Well, at that time of the morning, look the fuck out. As my most creative talents are on full display. And what is created may be better than anything I've ever created in my life. The triple decker is always an early (late?) morning favorite. Three pieces of bread, and the kitchen sink in betwixt all slices. My stomach, being a grumbling judge, vociferously agrees. ;)
I'm sure a chef thinks of his best meals as works of art in their own right? Why can't foods be art? If *insert famous artist here* threw some lunchmeat on a canvas and threw some red paint on top of it, would that be art?
You must have x-ray eyes 'cause most sandwiches Rubens painted are hidden in his models' stomachs. He invented the hidden sandwich art form.
Often copied, but I'm going for Rubens like you.
Then of course we have the Reuben Sandwich , with which I have had several artful encounters....

Last edited by a moderator:
"There is one indubitable indication distinguishing real art from its counterfeit, namely, the infectiousness of art. If a man, without exercising effort and without altering his standpoint on reading, hearing, or seeing another man's work, experiences a mental condition which unites him with that man and with other people who also partake of that work of art, then the object evoking that condition is a work of art. And however poetical, realistic, effectful, or interesting a work may be, it is not a work of art if it does not evoke that feeling (quite distinct from all other feelings) of joy and of spiritual union with another (the author) and with others (those who are also infected by it)." Leo Tolstoy, What is Art?

“When someone else's truth is the same as your truth, and he seems to be saying it just for you, that's great.” - Charles Bukowski, Ham On Rye

Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

Users who are viewing this thread