可能提出的第一点是食物是短暂的：雕塑，绘画或寺庙可能会持续几个世纪，也许是几千年; El Bulli餐厅几年前用来准备的美味食物很久很久。或者，考虑一下美味的咖啡浓缩咖啡：专家建议它在完成后的两分钟内食用。因此，似乎可以在人们中分享和保存美食体验的程度非常有限。另一方面，人们可以回答说，首先，大量的当代视觉艺术是以装置的形式存在，因此像大多数食物一样短暂。此外，诸如剧院和一些音乐（例如爵士乐）之类的艺术形式是基于表演的。最后，即使我们考虑像米开朗基罗的大卫这样的艺术作品，似乎每次遇到它我们都会体验到不同的东西;也就是说，看待艺术的最佳方式似乎是通过分析它所带来的经验，而不是诱导这种经历的物体的持久性;除非耐久性是有关经验的条件。 （我们可能还记得，在这里，像许多形式的音乐一样，烹饪由持久的实体主导，有助于保持一段时间的一致性：即食谱。）其次，人们可能会反对美食体验比其他形式的美学体验更主观。这不仅仅是因为食物稍纵即逝，而且因为味道具有破坏性的意义：你必须摧毁你所品尝的东西。因此，不可避免地要尝试个人事务。我们充其量只谈论我们个人的美食经历，希望我们所经历的对象以及我们对它们的构思方式都会以某种方式重叠。因此，当然我们所经历的一切都可以被视为与某一主题相关;但就食物而言，我们正在处理对相对主义更加迫切的限制。主观性的反对与另一个，也许是更基本的反对意见有关：食物不能具有载体意义。这并不是说你吃的东西对你没有任何意义，或者如果你的爱人给你带来巧克力，那可能并不意味着她爱你;关键是意义不在食物中;意思可能是在手势中，在提供或消费食物时提供的词语;食物本身可以带来各种含义，本身没有任何具体的陈述。对后一种反对意见的回应源于观察甚至一幅画或一幅雕塑可能以不同的方式被解释，这取决于它是如何经历的。目前尚不清楚为什么在这方面的美食体验应被视为不如美食体验。
The first point that may be raised is that the food is short-lived: sculpture, painting or temples may last for centuries, perhaps thousands of years; the El Bulli restaurant has been preparing delicious food for a long time a few years ago. Or, consider a delicious coffee espresso: experts recommend it to be consumed within two minutes of completion. Therefore, it seems that the extent to which people can share and preserve the culinary experience is very limited. On the other hand, one can answer that, first of all, a large amount of contemporary visual art exists in the form of devices and is therefore as short as most foods. In addition, art forms such as theaters and some music (such as jazz) are based on performance. Finally, even if we consider a work of art like Michelangelo’s David, it seems that every time we encounter it we will experience something different; that is, the best way to look at art seems to be through analysis The experience, not the persistence of the object that induces this experience; unless durability is a condition of experience. (We may remember that here, like many forms of music, cooking is dominated by a persistent entity that helps maintain consistency over time: recipes.) Second, people may object to the gastronomic experience than other forms of aesthetics. The experience is more subjective. It’s not just because the food is fleeting, but because the taste is destructive: you have to destroy what you taste. Therefore, it is inevitable to try personal affairs. At best, we only talk about our personal culinary experiences, and hope that the objects we experience and the way we think about them will overlap in some way. So, of course, everything we experience can be seen as related to a topic; but as far as food is concerned, we are dealing with more pressing restrictions on relativism. Subjective opposition is related to another, perhaps more fundamental, objection: food cannot have a carrier’s meaning. This is not to say that what you eat doesn’t mean anything to you, or if your lover brings you chocolate, that may not mean that she loves you; the key is that meaning is not in food; meaning may be in gestures, in The words provided when providing or consuming food; the food itself can bring various meanings and there is no specific statement in itself. The response to the latter objection stems from the observation that even a painting or a sculpture may be interpreted in different ways, depending on how it is experienced. It is not clear why the culinary experience in this area should be considered less than a culinary experience.