It is a debatable point. As long as the suppot is not tainted by extraneous (read political) influences it should be welcomed. However, it should not become the principal funding source, because the "state" becomes the piper. At least private funding sources are manifold, and if an artistic endeavor does not satisfy one of the possible donors we can always seek support from different ones. Imagine just three scenarios that may give pause to supporters of public funding. 1) Whether you approve the art or not, political hacks tried to cancel funding for the NEA because it did not agree with their political views.2) Belgium cannot provide decent funding for their symphony orchestras because politically the support has to be spread equally among the many (16?) orchestras in the country, with the effect being that no orchestra can achieve a high leel of performance. 3) Some years ago the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra received 110K from the local Bureau of Cultural Affairs, and politicians promptly issued public condemnation of the orchestra for not having more minority players, despite the complainers being quite aware that positions were filled by players performing behind screens, to ensure objective evaluation of their merits. And these are not the only examples I could mention. On the other hand, if you are living in a country such as Austria, where art is no only funded but supported by the state, you could certainly avail yourself of some of the highest quality cultural events anywhere.