Hmmm? This one just touches on too many of my favourite themes to let it
pass.
It is true that Jamie Oliver has sparked a debate and that embarrassed
politicians are now seeking to make the right noises about school dinners.
However, it is not that simple. Because many schools do not have the
infrastructure or money to upgrade the quality of food they prepare for kids
they have decided to out-source supply, with the result being that since
Oliver's TV series the percentage of schools relying on brought in re-heated
food has increased significantly. As such, the initiative has back-fired.
As an Australian I was surprised when I came to the UK (20 years ago) to
find that school kids often had a hot lunch cooked for them at school. I had
never come across this in Oz. There lunch would always be a light snack type
affair (perhaps a sandwich, a salad or something like that, which you would
bring to school with you). Of course the fact the UK has this alternate
arrangement is down to socio-economic factors that do not exist in Oz. There
is still a significant proportion of the population within UK society that
cannot afford to feed their kids properly (in Australia this socio-economic
bracket is composed amost entirely of an invisible group, the indigenous
population). The concern in the UK is not that kids cannot afford a decent
lunch but that when they get home in the evening their dinner is unlikely to
be adequate. So, the hot school supplied lunch was developed as a form of
social support. Many kids in the UK still rely on it as their main meal of
the day. I still find this shocking.
I have a kid going to a school in the UK (happily a little country school,
so few of the problems associated with the big inner-city schools ever
arise). Even though he goes to a small "well-off" country school I wouldn't
consider letting him eat the lunches they buy-in. It is garbage. Baked beans
(mostly sugar, colourants and emulsifiers), processed offal sacks (sausages,
they call them in the UK), processed Turkey brains (chicken nuggets, I think
they are branded), etc. He goes to school with a cheese sandwich and a piece
of fruit, which whilst nor especially substantial appears both adequate and
safe. I do not see that Oliver's program has made any effective difference
at his school (except they closed their little "tuck shop" - a cupboard of
crisps and sweets they would open at lunch time).
The main problem in the UK is not with school dinners (although they are
disgusting and should be eradicated) but with the distribution of wealth.
That kids live in families where there have been generations of poverty and
in a society that is not premised on social mobility is the main issue. Of
course if there was an easy solution there wouldn't be the problem. But to
regard Jamie Oliver's TV series as an effective political intervention is to
mistake its real import. Yes, it had effect. Yes, I think Jamie should be
congratulated to have taken on the issue. But to consider this as a
political act is to be blind to the political realities in the UK and the
conclusion that what is needed is profound social change if the underlying
reasons for bad school food are to be resolved. Of course far more important
issues than school food are at stake here.
As for art that had political effect?
Didn't a number of French artists sort of have a central role in determining
and promulgating the Revolution? I also seem to remember protest music
during the 60's and 70's had some sort of effect on the prosecution of the
Vietnam war. Some movies also contributed to that. Didn't a number of famous
Spanish artists have quite an effect on recruitment to the "left" during the
Spanish Civil War (although that was lost)? The role of artists in the early
formation of the Soviet state was central (a case where art and propaganda
were purposefully blurred, by the artists, and often to wonderful effect -
think Lizzitsky, Tatlin, Eisenstein, etc). In the post-War years of the 50's
and 60's a certain kind of American heroic art (visual, musical, literary,
etc) was very effective in galvanising the USA's sense of itself as not only
a military super-power but a cultural one as well.
I would argue that art does have political effect and in both obvious and
very subtle ways. Art is very important in how societies form and define
themselves and at this fundamental level there are few other human
activities that can have such profound political effect (although cooking
must be up there, as the French have demonstrated before).
As for UK food?
Again, as an Australian (you don't know what foody'ism is unless you have
spent time in Oz - or S.E. Asia for that matter), although I agree UK food
has improved dramatically over the past 20 years it is still severely
compromised by a lack of good fresh ingredients and ill-educated palates,
which means most people will eat almost any trash and thus caterers get away
with blue murder. I often despair at what I am expected to eat, whether at
my University canteen (totally inedible trash) or even in a so called
"gastro-pub" (where the menu's promise much but what you get on your plate
is a complete travesty of good food). I often have to politely explain I
cannot eat what I am expected to and go off somewhere else to find something
decent (if extremely simple). This can happen almost anywhere and at any
level of society. Generally speaking the Brit's do not have a clue about
food. Perhaps it is the legacy of those school dinners?
It is possible to eat well in the UK, but only when you are happy spending
£100 plus for two at a decent restaurant. The trick the Brit's have to learn
is how to keep up the quality right through the food-chain, not just in a
few good restaurants. In Sydney you can go to a cheap Lebanese, Vietnamese
or gastro-café and eat superb fresh seafood, prepared with respect. You can
then go to an expensive restaurant and expect the same quality, the main
differences being the possible inclusion of more exotic ingredients, a
higher level of creativity and imagination in the kitchen and a more
salubrious environment. The key factor here is that the basic quality of
food, whether at a café or a top-flight restaurant, is always there. One can
nearly always find very good "fish'n'chips" in Oz. In the UK you are taking
your life into your hands entering a "chippy".
This brings us back to the central political issue in the UK - the poor
distribution of wealth and the lack of social mobility. Food can be seen as
emblematic of this problem. One's palate is like one's purse. It might be
stuffed, but that is no guarantee of taste. So, just as the UK requires a
redistribution of money so too it requires a redistribution of taste.
Best
Simon
On 19.09.05 00:00, Margaret Penfold wrote:
> Millie Niss wrote
> "I don't suppose I think art can really change politics or economics, either."
>
> Here in England we have recently had an example where art has changed
> government policy
>
> The French may not believe this but here in England we are interested in food
> and certain celebrity chefs have turned cookery into an art form which they
> practise on TV to the entertainment of millions.
>
> The government had been refusing to increase the amount spent on ingredients
> for school dinners for a long time and as a result school dinners were no
> longer contributing toward's our children's health.
>
> Thanks to the celebrty chef and his campaign, the government has now increased
> the school dinner budget and school cooks are concentrating on healthy menus.
Simon Biggs
[log in to unmask]
http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
Professor, Art and Design Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University, UK
http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/cri/adrc/research2/
**********
* Visit the Writing and the Digital Life blog http://writing.typepad.com
* To alter your subscription settings on this list, log on to Subscriber's Corner at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/writing-and-the-digital-life.html
* To unsubscribe from the list, email [log in to unmask] with a blank subject line and the following text in the body of the message: SIGNOFF WRITING-AND-THE-DIGITAL-LIFE
|