Much like government should not fund companies, even if they are not producing anything at all, nobody should be paid just for being an "artist" regardless of what they produce. Once again you take out of context of the greater conversation in an attempt to make a 'point' that is a logical fallacy according to what was expressed. This is a weak argument.
The government contracts for services and receives them, fine. The government should not just give you money because you are an 'artist' or a 'philosohper'. I even explained earlier in the thread, teach. That is acceptable funding of such a thing. But just because you are failing at your chosen job it doesn't mean you deserve money just to do it.
This argument is just a small section of the argument of the extent to which government should act, compared to the extent to which the individual should act, and in extension, the argument between negative and positive freedom.
Art undoubtably contributes to society, I doubt anyone would seriously argue against that. The more challenging the art, the greater contribution.
If what art was produced was decided only by the consumer, popular art would be predominant, my 'dogs playing poker point'. Wealthy patrons might sponsor great and challenging art, but the access to that by the public is likely to be limited, and the public would be exposed to less challenging art, reducing the contribution art makes to society as a whole.
You could then argue Ih8's point, that this leads to a dictat of art by government (the totalitarian argument of positive freedom) and this would be a valid point.
So, how to resolve that paradox. If government, to ensure access by all of society to challenging art, finances art on the behalf of that society, yet the choices of the art it finances should be removed from government, and placed into the hands of an independent body, it is, to a degree, resolved.
The argument then would be the make-up of the independent body.
