So what? The subsidy exists to support the tiny minority who might produce something worthwhile. As it is not possible to decide who this might be ahead of time the subsidy has to be given to all of them. This is essentially the same mechanism used in the provision of universal primary education; it would be a lot cheaper for the state if there were a trivial method of identifying those who would make the most of it so that it could be provided for them and just send the rest to sweep chimneys or beg on the streets.

> So what?

It's arbitrary and unfair.

> This is essentially the same mechanism used in the provision of universal primary education;

I don't know if giving free money to adults who consider themselves artists is the same as ensuring children have access to vital education services. Educating children also ensures there's more a chance they'll contribute rather than be a client/dependent of the state.

Why doesn't the state fund everyone's hobby? I play golf - they should subsidize some of my greens fees. I might end up writing an amazing book that uses my golf experience to push a narrative about the different types of people you meet on a golf course, but we're all "just people" or some nonsense. You never know, it might become a cherished cultural artifact.

> Why doesn't the state fund everyone's hobby?

Yes, why not?

Perfect! But instead of giving people money they didn’t earn we’ll instead cut taxes so people have more take home money to pursue the things they’d like to.

Cutting taxes doesn't help someone who doesn't have any money.

I agree with your premise, but golf is a bad example.

Golf is heavily subsidized. It's the poster child of a sport that wouldn't exist if it had to pay fair taxes or abide by free market pressures.

There are a handful of activities that cater to the elite like an 'artist subsidy'. Golf makes the list.