Antonia Byatt's arguments to justify the proposed cuts to literary organisations are a triumph of experience over wisdom - experience of artspeak that is. When we know this language, we can turn ignorance into justice, and the art of politics into the true measure of poetry. "A portfolio of strong, thriving literature organisations with a national reach" sounds like a drunk estate agent trying to sell us a pig in a poke. We also meet "funding strategy", "prioritising", "children and young people" (??), and "audience development" in the same paragraph.
She boasts of supporting "the best in literature". Well, anyone can say that. But can she write, can she make, the best in literature? Better still, can she identify it? Can she snare quality, literary merit, excellence in the arts? Of course, with her visionary use of artspeak, she can net the moon.
"Creative marketing initiatives" come to her rescue. You're flogging a dead horse, Antonia.
"In order to achieve our ambitions, we have had to take some tough decisions." Your ambitions? I thought you were there to support artists' ambitions? As for taking "tough decisions", this is surely your boss speaking, Saint Peter Blewit, Cheer Executor of the Ars Coin Stall.
"Some organisations will be unhappy" - out of a job and an income overnight with no consultation is what she means. But because, as a consequence, "the majority will have a stronger, better future", she is leading us to believe robbing Peter to pay Paul is a Solomonian act of justice.
