In “But is it Authentic,” the author describes food as an art, and that the contributions of the dish and of the experience-er are both important. Every person will have a different experience based on how familiar they are with the food or with the ingredients. Regarding art, such as paintings, or maybe even poetry, my understanding is that although the artist might mean one thing when creating his art, the work of art itself can mean many things, as long as that meaning can be supported with sufficient evidence. Someone with one set of experiences can interpret the exact same words of a poem just as well but differently as someone with different experiences. With that being said, do you think food is more like art or less like art? The cook might intend to install certain flavors in a dish, target specific taste buds and activate specific sensations, maybe even remind the eater of another food. But, what the taster experiences is largely based on what kinds of foods he has eaten before and how much of them. Even the wording of the food or ingredients or the atmosphere changes the experience. For example, someone from India will probably think something Americans think is spicy as a lot less so. So once again, considering this, is food more or less like art?