"The present government is very insistent that business sponsorship should replace government sponsorship of the arts. Business sponsorship won't happen unless you make tax concessions, which they won't"
About this Quote
Davies turns arts policy into a neat little trap and then snaps it shut. In two brisk sentences, he sketches a government eager to look fiscally virtuous while quietly engineering an arts ecosystem that can only survive on conditions it refuses to create. The wit is dry, almost accountant-flat, which is exactly why it lands: the language mimics the bureaucratic tone he’s indicting, then reveals the contradiction hiding inside it.
The specific intent is corrective and accusatory. He isn’t nostalgically begging for state patronage; he’s pointing out that “replace” is a rhetorical sleight of hand. If the state retreats, someone must fill the gap. The government’s insistence on business sponsorship is framed as common sense, but Davies underlines the economic reality: private money rarely behaves like a public utility. It follows incentives, branding opportunities, and tax structures. Without concessions, sponsorship becomes a wish, not a plan.
The subtext is sharper: this is austerity with a press release. The arts become a convenient symbol of “non-essential” spending, and shifting responsibility to business lets politicians claim they’re empowering the market while effectively starving institutions that don’t produce immediate, monetizable returns. Davies also implies a cultural narrowing: what gets funded under corporate patronage isn’t necessarily what matters, but what flatters sponsors or aligns with safe prestige.
Contextually, the line sits squarely in late-20th-century British debates over public subsidy versus privatization, when “efficiency” talk often disguised ideological hostility to state-backed culture. Davies’ punchline - “which they won’t” - is the tell: not policy, but posture.
The specific intent is corrective and accusatory. He isn’t nostalgically begging for state patronage; he’s pointing out that “replace” is a rhetorical sleight of hand. If the state retreats, someone must fill the gap. The government’s insistence on business sponsorship is framed as common sense, but Davies underlines the economic reality: private money rarely behaves like a public utility. It follows incentives, branding opportunities, and tax structures. Without concessions, sponsorship becomes a wish, not a plan.
The subtext is sharper: this is austerity with a press release. The arts become a convenient symbol of “non-essential” spending, and shifting responsibility to business lets politicians claim they’re empowering the market while effectively starving institutions that don’t produce immediate, monetizable returns. Davies also implies a cultural narrowing: what gets funded under corporate patronage isn’t necessarily what matters, but what flatters sponsors or aligns with safe prestige.
Contextually, the line sits squarely in late-20th-century British debates over public subsidy versus privatization, when “efficiency” talk often disguised ideological hostility to state-backed culture. Davies’ punchline - “which they won’t” - is the tell: not policy, but posture.
Quote Details
| Topic | Art |
|---|
More Quotes by Peter
Add to List
