It is clear that current artists are not under equal conditions: some suffer from poverty while others have high incomes from their creations. I tend to disagree with the idea that government should take measures to solve this issue.
The strongest argument is that if all artists realise that they can have a benefit from government, it would not be real art anymore. Art is freedom thanks to which artists can create whatever they want, whether on their mind. And governments have strong frameworks and censorship. If artists want to have an income from them, if they are connected to governments they must follow their strict rules. As a result, artists will try to adopt to them forgetting about what real art is.
Another benefit is that there will appear a problem with who can be considered an artist. If only qualified ones, what about those who dedicated their whole lives to art even if it is just their hobby? The same thing in reverse. For example, a person who is not really into art suddenly finds out that the government gives a material support to everyone who paints. This person can immediately create one painting, call himself or herself an artist with the aim of having an a income from the government. It is unfair either. The government will have a concern with ineffective money expenditures.
To sum up, art is something that should be as far away from government as it possible because they aro two absolutely opposite things where governments can prevent na art to be fair and free.