[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ck/ - Food & Cooking

View post   
File: 46 KB, 569x571, URAGH.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3934625 No.3934625 [Reply] [Original]

Is cooking a science or an art?

>> No.3934628

both

/thread

>> No.3934627

Both.

>> No.3934629

it's not so black and white, because there is a certain scientific aspect to cooking, but i'd say it falls much closer to "art" in the cooking-art spectrum

>> No.3934631

science is art

>> No.3934633
File: 59 KB, 465x619, areyouawizard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3934633

>>3934631

>> No.3934640

neither. it is a mimicry of medicine, which is a science.

>> No.3934641

If you grab a recipie from a book or online and follow it 100%, then your cooking is a science no matter how bad or good it turns out. However if you make a dish based on expierence that is appealing to the senses (taste/touch((texture))/sight/smell ((maybe sound?))) with as much possible thought and care put into all of them then it can be called art.

>> No.3934649

>>3934641
I get what you are saying, but by that logic someone who paints a colour-by-numbers picture is doing some science, because they are following a pre-planned set of rules.

The chef who wrote the recipe might have added some artistic flair, like extra colour or flavour, so you would be replicating that.

The science is the heat/temperature/volumes/quantities needed. The art is how you put those together and present it. Same as music: the science of music is the physics of sound, electricity and ratios in pitch frequencies/tuning etc. The art is how you compose those raw ingredients.

>> No.3934650

Both.

>> No.3934662

Cooking is...its like, a lifestyle maaaan.

>> No.3934666

Producing edible, enjoyable food is a systematic process that has enough room for variation to be given an "artistic" flair and still work. So yeah, both.

>> No.3934677

It is engineering.

>> No.3934685

by definition, sciences use the scientific method.
and arts are the conscious placement of objects to evoke emotional response.
cooking is neither.

>> No.3934690

cooking is applying heat to organic matter to make it easier to digest.

>> No.3934691

>>3934685
Culinary arts, in particularly baking and confectionary, require using the scientific methods particularly applied to chemistry.
Cooked foods, of any kind, definitely trigger emotional response in people.
It is both.

>> No.3934694

>>3934691
you can cite specific examples where cooking can be considered an art or science by definition. But it is not necessary and most of the time it is neither.

What does it matter? Cooking is essential and awesome all by itself.

>> No.3934703

>>3934694
It matters because it's the topic of the thread.
Also, if you have ever either apprenticed or taken classes in baking or confectionery, you would know that people in that area are extremely scientific in their approach, so to some people, it's very necessary. Just because your opinion is that it's not, doesn't make it so.

>> No.3934707

>>3934625
Science and art are the same because life is science and art! If your not a Grinch.

>> No.3934710

>>3934703
>It matters because it's the topic of the thread.
fair enough.

>Also, if you have ever either apprenticed or taken classes in baking or confectionery, you would know that people in that area are extremely scientific in their approach, so to some people, it's very necessary.
Yes, then cooking is also a science. But cooking isn't a science. If I ask you "Is ice cream chocolate"? I would say, not necessarily, and it usually isn't. Even if there was no such thing as chocolate, all other variables held constant, ice cream would still exist.

>Just because your opinion is that it's not, doesn't make it so.
It's not my opinion. Words like art and science have definitions, and other fields are either necessarily an art or a science, or they are not. Cooking is not. Same as construction work is not an art or a science. Words have specific meanings. Otherwise, they'd be meaningless.

>> No.3934712

>>3934710
*Yes, then cooking is also a science. But cooking isn't a science. If I ask you "Is ice cream chocolate"? You would say, not necessarily, and it usually isn't. Even if there was no such thing as chocolate, all other variables held constant, ice cream would still exist.

>> No.3934713

>>3934710
The chain of your words are pretty meaningless, actually. It IS your opinion, while the direct links to both science and art in the culinary fields are fact, and can be traced.

>> No.3934714

>>3934710
>Yes, then cooking is also a science. But cooking isn't a science. If I ask you "Is ice cream chocolate"? I would say, not necessarily, and it usually isn't. Even if there was no such thing as chocolate, all other variables held constant, ice cream would still exist.

You're getting your subsets the wrong way around there. If you asked "is chocolate a form of ice cream?" you answer "yes". If you ask "is dissection a form of cutting up a corpse?" you say "yes". If you say "is cooking a science?" you say yes.

You shouldn't judge a set by its weakest example as you do when saying "most cooking isn't artistic". By that rationale, if someone fills up their colon with paint and farts on a canvas, then "painting is not art", because what they did was a painting, and not artistic.

I just finished a strong beer and I don't know if this makes sense btw but it does to me.

>> No.3934716
File: 244 KB, 600x800, rochefort10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3934716

>>3934714
(The beer was a Rochefort 10, for anyone who's interested.)

>> No.3934719

>>3934713
I don't understand.
Performing scientific research involves application of the scientific method.
If a field does not necessarily require application of the scientific method, then it is not necessarily a science.

If you do not apply the scientific method when you cook a grilled cheese sandwich, then you do not perform scientific research every time you cook a grilled cheese sandwich, then cooking isn't a science. If you are a culinary chemist, then you may, and in that case your cooking can be considered a science.

But cooking, in a general cannot be considered a science.
Of course, everything involves science, but when we perform a task, it's not necessarily scientific research.
Otherwise, the word 'science' would loose all utility because it could be applied to virtually everything. I could clean toilets and claim it is an art and a science because someone once tested the best cleaning solution for the toilet, or someone once made surreal art of cleaning toilets. But neither the research nor the art are necessary for the field of cleaning toilets to exist, and most of the time, I'm just cleaning a toilet.

>> No.3934723

Cooking is an art unless you're using the scientific method when you cook. Which I doubt. There's science involved, just like there's science involved when someone paints or draws or makes music (optics for pigment color, vibration and oscillation and harmonics for sound) but they're not doing science because they're not applying the method.

>> No.3934725

>>3934719
There are thousands of people who are exactly that, culinary chemists, and there have been throughout history. YOU personally may not apply scientific method when you cook, but there are people who do, every day, and for profit (and pleasure). You are imposing your personal experiences and opinion on an entire field, which under any terms is incorrect. Also, you benefit from these people, both the scientists and the artists in the culinary field, every single day, whether you realize it or not.

>> No.3934726

>>3934625
cooking is an art in that you can change things and reinterpret things in numerous ways and have it come out fantastic.
baking is a science in that if you fuck one thing up, you will almost certainly have a severely inferior product

>> No.3934730

>>3934725
>There are thousands of people who are exactly that, culinary chemists, and there have been throughout history.

The number may be one or a billion, that is irrelevant. You're expanding the definition of science to be too general when you apply it to cooking. But I guess where the precise line is drawn is at least in a small sense subjective.

>You are imposing your personal experiences and opinion on an entire field, which under any terms is incorrect.
No, I recognize that sometimes cooking involves scientific research. But it usually does not.

>> No.3934731

>>3934726
But that doesn't make it science, because as a few people have said, you're not following the scientific method when you bake, just directions. By that logic anything where you get bad results by not following directions adequately would be a science. Unless you're doing experiments to test hypotheses when you cook, you're not doing science. That said, there ARE people that do science some of the time when they cook (people like culinary chemists and whatnot) but if you're just cooking at home I really doubt that you're doing science.

>> No.3934732

>>3934685
you just described cooking, especially baking.

>> No.3934743

Cooking is an art. Baking is a science

>> No.3934746

It's both. For science, imagine if you mapped out a particular person's taste buds to determine what would evoke the best pleasure via taste. You'd then use science to create that perfect flavor for that person. Even if you're not doing it like that, you still use measurements, cooking temperatures, knowledge of how certain foods work, as well as nutritional knowledge to create meals that are suitable for anyone.

Creating food without paying attention to these, while still making something delicious, edible, and with dazzle, all based on one's own skill and preference is art.

But the real question is what ISN'T science or art? Everything works the way it does because of the various laws of physics, while what is and isn't art is subjective. Therefore, science is everything, and art CAN be anything.

>> No.3934748

>>3934743
Yup. And preserving and brewing are both sciences too.

>> No.3934752

>>3934730
Unfortunately, I have to leave and go run some errands, but I have to reiterate how completely WRONG you are. I'm sorry you're too stubborn to understand the points being made, but you are indeed very much mistaken and misinformed. If this thread is still around later, I'll take this back up with you, because you need some education in this area.

>> No.3934760

>>3934752
I'm sorry if I misunderstood.
I'm sure if it's obvious enough just how wrong I am, others will point out the flaws in the comment you referenced in your post.

To everyone else reading, I urge you to assist me in pointing out what about my views are incorrect, so I don't make a fool out of myself!

>> No.3934767

Excuse me, I'll return in 2 minutes, I just have to go take a massive science or I think I'm gonna explode.

>> No.3934768

>>3934752
>I'm right you're wrong
>gotta go

lol

>> No.3934769

>>3934730

Actually, the definition of science is very simple, yet broad: using experiments to find the answers to questions. The scientific method is creating a hypothesis, then experimenting on that hypothesis and learning based on the results of the experiment. Using the conclusions of those experiments is using science.

In the case of cooking this can be direct, for example: suppose I want to make a new sauce. I try out my recipe (hypothesis) and see how it tastes. If it tastes good, I make it again. If it I fuck it up, I don't make it again. Either case is an example of applying the scientific method.

...even if you don't do any "experiments" on your own you are still using others conclusions from said experiments. For example, if you follow a recipe then you are trusting their results to tell you how long to cook for or how much ingredient to use.

>> No.3934771

>>3934769
I have a question. Is not everything considered "science"? Because this universe follows certain laws that are impossible to go against, so would that not be science? Or is science only the study of these laws, and not the laws themselves?

>> No.3934773

>>3934771
We use words to express ideas.
When a word can apply to anything, it becomes meaningless, so sometimes we limit the scope of words to their intended use.

>> No.3934774

>>3934760
Well, assuming you are also this guy:
>>3934710
I pointed out one way you were going wrong, here:
>>3934714
but you didn't reply.

One thing you keep doing is saying that because most cooking doesn't use a scientific method, cooking is not scientific. But if that was true then some scientific studies use flawed scientific methods too. And going by that, science would not be science either, which is obviously wrong.

Anyway, it is still blatantly science and art, but it's nice that we can have such a big thread filled with false dichotomies on a sunday evening.

>> No.3934775

>>3934769
lol no.

>> No.3934778

>>3934773
Man, I have to get into etymology.

>> No.3934781

>>3934773
poster here.
I guess the answer is that it is somewhat subjective if cooking can be considered a science.

>> No.3934788

As with most things in life, it depends on how the subject is approached.

For example, an artisan diamond cutter will be going by instinct and experience on where to make the right cuts and angles, yet the scientist watching him will be able to observe and explain the scientific reasons as to why his actions make sense.

>> No.3934790

>>3934773
Exactly, which is why I clearly stated the definition of the scientific method (hypothesis->testing->conclusions) and how it applies to cooking.

>> No.3934791

>>3934774
admittedly I presented a poor example but I believe my logic was still fundamentally sound.

let my give you a more sound example. consider the following analogy:
cleaning windows with windex is to chemistry as cooking is to science.
Cooking is applied science but cooking isn't necessarily a science most of the time.
If this debate is going to be fruitful we'll have to agree in a common definition of what criteria a field has to meet before it can be considered a science.

>>3934775
very convincing, lol.

>> No.3934795

>>3934781
I have a feeling that if everyone was a master in etymology, there would be way less misunderstandings. Not everyone understands certain words the same way. You have to examine words to really understand their full connotations. Like "be" means "to exist as", but we don't really think of that way. It's just the simple word "be". And even then, that's a really simple example, and there aren't really multiple meanings to it.

I always considered "science" as how the universe works. To me, it's just a short way of saying how everything works. I never considered it as "the study of how the everything works". One is Thing A, the other is the study of Thing A. Two entirely different meanings, yet they are often used interchangeably by the English-speaking population.

>> No.3934800

>>3934795
>I never considered it as "the study of how the everything works".
Well, that is actually what science is.

Your misunderstanding is what causes the pseudo-deification of scientific endeavors by ignorant people.

>> No.3934805

>>3934800

This is /ck/, where science is a synonym for "the undefined feelings behind what I personally believe".

Welcome to 4chan. Also Penn & Teller.

>> No.3934830

>>3934805
>This is /ck/, where science is a synonym for "the undefined feelings behind what I personally believe".
haha true

>> No.3934862

Art is creative expression. What were you expressing the last time you prepared an omelette? Or were you more focused on how it would taste, a *practical* concern.

>> No.3934871

cooking is beautiful science for hungry people. :p

>> No.3934872

>>3934862

Taste is a sense. Appealing to a sense of taste is art just like a sculpture or painting appeals to our eyes, or music appeals to our ears.

Cooking for practical concern would be ignoring the senses while concentrating on cost, effort, and nutrition.

>> No.3934874

>>3934862
You have to think creatively in order to combine certain flavors in order to make something taste delicious. And who doesn't want their food to look nice? I'm not talking about professional plating or anything, but getting an omelette to look nice is just as important to the meal as taste is (unless you're one of those people who thinks that as long as the food's made quick and tastes good it doesn't matter what it looks like)

>> No.3934917

In the broadest sense? Cooking is both a science and an art.

Understanding nutrition, seasonal changes on ingredient availability, body structure of the animal you are preparing (different cuts of meat), chemical processes are all hard science.

It is also an art (does it appeal to you?) This is where the subjectivity of cooking comes in. Granted, there are blurry areas where it can be counted as qualitative observations such as "Out of 100 people, X found that ingredient Y goes with Z"

I take science in the most basic form as understanding "Who, what, when, where, why and how"

>> No.3934941

>>3934872

"A man cannot be wise enough to be a great artist without being wise enough to wish to be a philosopher. A man cannot have the energy to produce good art without having the energy to wish to pass beyond it. A small artist is content with art; a great artist is content with nothing except everything."

Painting and sculpture and music, if they are to be called art, have an intellectual as well as a sensual appeal.

>>3934874

I agree that cooking can be creative, but that is only half of the equation (expression being the other half).

>> No.3934984

>>3934941
I agree, but the way you talked about focusing on the practical side of cooking made it sound like artistic expression is worth slightly less than practicality. They should be equal.

>> No.3934989

>>3934984
that's subjective

>> No.3935001

>>3934989
Balance is required in everything you do. One without the other is ok, but together they have the potential to be great.

>> No.3935002

>>3934791
That is certainly one of the most idiotic analogies I've ever heard.
You are basing YOUR OPINION on your own and/or known skill level. You're doing it wrong.
God, I hate people.

>> No.3935021

>>3935002
your reasoing is the most retarded thing ever concieved by a human mind.
It's just your opinion, everything you say! all opinions!
Fuck this gay Earth!

>> No.3935028

>>3935021
Your mirrored reaction doesn't make it any less true. Arguing about something that has provable facts based on your own ignorant opinions is STUPID and you should just shut the fuck up.

>> No.3935036

just throwing this out there not yet having read the thread due to the coincidence: i was just thinking about this as i prepared some food... i wondered something along the lines of
>maybe it's whether you're cooking for yourself or others that makes cooking an art vs science

>> No.3935044

>>3935036
NO.

Science is the study of reality. Unless you are cooking for the purpose of researching the nature of reality, you are not doing science.

Art is the organization of objects for the purpose of evoking an emotional response from those who observe it.

Cooking is neither art nor science because it doesn't necessarily involve either of these. Culinary chemists may apply science to the field of cooking but they are cooking and doing science. The cooking itself isn't a science. These two are to be distinguished. One is not a subset of the other.

>> No.3935073

>>3934984

Like that anon above said, value is subjective. What I wanted to get at is that we typically make food for sustenance and pleasure, whereas we typically make art to express abstract ideas and emotions.