It is widely discussed whether the government should provide financing for artists and various cultural activities, or whether performers should fund their work independently, taking money from private sponsors or commercial success. I am likely to think that artists have to be supported by patrons only, and it does not matter whether the government is a customer or not.
To begin with, administrations dispose a large amount of money, and individuals should not care how to gather customers ready to give money. In this way, they just write their application, and if they look perspectieve for authority, they may have funds.
On the other hand, artists, with their own money and sponsors’ funding, have more flexibility than those who are regulated by the government. As a result, they should not compete with each other as it is mostly enough for them smaller amount of money than the government gave. In aditiont to flexibility, more artists can get funds.
Moreover, the government could be a sponsor, regulated with grants and voting systems to conduct cultural activities in which people are most interested. This will do both: the events would be more fascinating for citizens and the town would spend less money.
To sum up, I strongly believe that artists have to be supported by patrons only. In other words, the government should be a simple rich customer, regulated through grants and voting systems.