On a Collaborative Culinary Frame

Imagine seeing a table with a neatly presented bowl of salad on it. Would you grab a fork and start picking the pieces or would you pause for a moment wondering if you are about to destroy a piece of art? Though the aim is to eat the salad, one might still take a moment to appreciate how it looks and smells. Such observations on the artistic dimension of food have marked important milestones in exploring the philosophical aspect of food in art and aesthetics. (John 2021; Liners 2021; Borghini 2021; Andina and Barbero 2018) Building on Krishenblatt-Gimblett’s idea of food as performance, our approach is to position food as a “participatory art.” From carefully cutting the greens, measuring ingredients, to using spices, all refer to aesthetically turning every act into an interactive sensory experience.Taking insights from performance theory and non-human performativity has strengthened this study.1 The ideas of Banes and Lepecki (2007), Conquergood (2002), and Whittall (2018) outline the intersection of performance theory with food’s interactive nature. These readings give directions on how food, as an artistic performance, could be cocreated. According to Piras (2021), “participatory gastronomy” sheds light on food as a metamorphic site where multiple dimensions including ethical, aesthetic, and relational angles intersect.Food has played an important role in artistic and performative spaces. Rirkrit Tiravanija’s immersive dining setups redefined the conventional way of observing/understanding art practices, considering cooking and dining as interactive art forms. The idea complements Bourriaud’s (1990) concept of relational aesthetics and highlights how an artist encourages the viewers to contribute and participate in the meaning-making process, leaving the art open-ended. Similarly, every piece of culinary experience is an open-ended artwork, which derives meaning out of each cocreator. Through this relational lens, both food and the consumer could share an interdependent relationship, not merely existing within the subject versus object dynamics.Following Bourriaud’s lead, the relational balance between the creator and the participant, inviting attention to the idea that food as an art needs us all. The idea, rooted in relational philosophy, where meaning is derived more from active interaction than isolation. As Levinas and Buber note, the significance of ethical accountability in human interactions, such as participatory gastronomy, redefines food into an active point of exchange where creation and experience merge. Within this framework, food as art moves beyond the sensory experience, becoming an artistic discourse structured through shared contributions. It showcases a domain, where the roles of all the participants including chefs, diners, ingredients, tools, the materiality of the food, or even the aesthetics in presentation styles would specify a new realm of social interaction. A chef alone, therefore, could not be the final creator. Everything involved in the process, including the ambience and the memories it triggers, acts as coagents in the experience. In this sense, food as art doesn’t stand alone, as a chef alone cannot give the piece of art a shape. Rather, a close association with many other participants contributes to the artistic value of food. Apart from chefs, here is how diners get established as co-architects or meaning facilitators. They actively receive and respond to the stimuli. This responsive participation expands beyond chewing and swallowing the food. Diners’ sensory engagement, which includes tasting, recollecting, and culturally interpreting specifies the evolving nature of food.My childhood memories are rooted to an old tharavadu where my family, including grandparents, followed the traditions and customs of a Syrian Christian household.2 Cooking turned out to be interesting to me when I found myself waiting for my mother to start preparing appam, chicken stew, and chicken or beef cutlets with some onion salad, after attending the holy mass on Sunday mornings. This combination is also the standard opening meal for Syrian Christian weddings in central Kerala. The uniqueness of her cooking style, whether it is swirling the appachatti or making little rose flowers out of tomatoes—and these culinary experiences—have shaped my tastes and preferences to a great extent.3 At home, my mother’s secret ingredients, a piece of rambha leaf for flavor, her little ceramic bowls, or an extra cup of fresh rice to make the appam softer relationally evoke warmth and belongingness. In a restaurant, the same dish is served in a different ambience, lighting, or crockeries. Though the dish is the same, the relational context changes, pushing each bite to evoke memories and alter meanings. This creates a sense of jubilation triggered by a longing for reconnection far from the comfort of home. Also, in Kerala, a homemade chicken curry summons different memories from ones offered in a church ritual. The same curry, when prepared in different contexts and atmospheres, takes up new meanings. Therefore, each serving becomes a unique piece of art codesigned by the diner’s participatory experience.The table itself could be considered a stage where a public artistic performance takes place. Dining spaces like home tables, restaurants, or ritualistic feasts become catalysts staging social conversations. It is always an act of becoming. Considering food from the philosophical perspective, I observe the need to acknowledge this aspect of food as an ever-evolving cultural and ethical discourse. Unlike traditional art performances, food does not stick to a fixed script. It re-forms in “relation” to each instance of consumption, and with each participant, resulting in new meanings. Observing culinary experiences as participatory art provokes me to think of the wider meanings of each meal. Its journey from kitchen to table, signifying culture and the culinary craft, indicates that every meal is incomplete without participatory experiences.