[munk-a]

We can't push and both say "You folks should do this fun stuff for free" while concurrently cutting the social safety nets and, tbh, you get what you pay for. If all the artists are forced to either peddle for money or have a main gig for food and shelter then they have less time to devote to art. In our modern (i.e. not subsistence agrarian) society, we have the excess needed to fund these things and to allow people to specialize into artistic professions.

Currently there is a lot of comedy out there for free(ish) if it became more heavily capitalized, and there were constant steep costs to consume comedy, what would we lose out of society? Nothing super important, the trains would run, factories wouldn't shut down, but we'd lose a source of expression and joy that helped up think differently and approach hard questions in life... Art adds value to all of us and it's so insanely cheap to fund.

[kdudhshdjf]

I don't see the reason both can't be done. Historically, prosperous societies produce more art. We may not be producing as much art in classicly prestigious formats like paintings, pottery, etc. But one look at the entertainment industry seems to refute the idea that art needs to be sponsored. I simply don't see why we give this significance to certain forms of art as if they fill a societal hole that no other format could. Your example of comedy was perfect because the manifestation and growth of standup comedy is a good example of how new arts can come into being without needing some sort of state sponsored intervention.