[racktash]

Some art produced today is good, some bad. Subjectivity will mean people disagree. It has ever been so.

But the idea that art / artists don't require money isn't my read of history.

When you go to an art museum in, say, London, you'll find lots of fantastic paintings depicting religious themes. Were artists of the time fixated only on the religious aspects of life? No doubt religion was more important, but the real consideration was that patronage came once from the Church.

[wtcactus]

Nothing against patronage, but this is none of it.

Patronage chooses the best artists available to produce art for the patron. This measures grant money to self-proclaimed artists and are not based on merit.

[racktash]

I get where you're coming from. I would be a bit annoyed if, for instance, taxpayer money went to artists painting white-paint-on-white-canvas non-paintings or recording silence as a form of music. The trouble is that it's hard to measure / assess "merit" beyond extreme cases like I've listed. To illustrate: there are plenty of movies that were panned by critics of their time only to later become "cult classics".

[account42]

So what you're saying is that we should all pay to produce more art that shows the government in a positive light, aka propaganda?