Confused no more...

Before I wrote my last post I was still totally confused about why food couldn't be a more complex art form. I came up with a question for my Q&A that asked, would food art be considered a more complex form of art if someone took a picture of it? My answer to my own question would be yes and no. Yes because the picture will last for generations to see and no because the content of the picture is not permanent a picture doesn't give you a scratch and smell or lick and taste
 sticker. The two would become decoupled and take two different categories in terms of being classified as art. One being more permanent than the other.

Is it art?

I was reading the article (The Muse Dialogue) that Professor Johnson posted on his blog and I came across a certain part that interested me, it said,"Often the argument against food as an art form is its temporal nature, but this is likewise the case with live performances of theater and music, both of which have long been considered some of the most aesthetically important forms of art." 
So i guess my question would be if live art has a temporal nature like food how can it still be considered as a more complex art form?
Then I began to think about the differences between the two. A performance can be recorded and thus become permanent but the experience of being at the actual performance is one of a kind. Food however can be recorded but you cannot taste or smell video. I mean you can but that wouldn't taste very good. Now I understand why food lacks the ability to become permanent.http://musedialogue.org/other-arts/vol-1-no-12-food-as-art/the-aesthetics-of-food/