Problem is - if all "artists" were supported by the public there would be no need for them to produce anything of quality. The Greatful Dead made money, not because they gave stuff away, but because they produced a product that people were willing to part with money for. As has been seen in the USA, government grants for the arts tend to produce a lot of CRAP that no-one wants. Art for Arts sake is a wonderful concept, but why do I have to pay for it? If the "artists" have the right to be supported, why don't I have that same right? Eventually, what with everyone being supported, there is no-one left doing the supporting... But in these times we surely have never seen an example of that...
The other problem is this - We have so many sources of "art" that supply now exceeds demand. Which means that the cost of this "art" should decline, but those who distribute it are trying to hold the prices high by artificial means. There are so many choices, and only a limited amount to cash in buyers pockets, so there is a shortage of earnings for many "artists".
The old saying " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" has been ignored by many "artists". They want to produce their sort of crap and are offended because they aren't getting rich off it because no-one likes it. They want to be supported because they are "artists" and not because the produce something that consumers like. In many cases the monkeys at the local zoo could produce more appealing art by slinging poo...
Throughout history artists tended to be starving. Many of them had personality problems that made it difficult for them to relate to others, and a number were considered failures during their lifetimes. Are modern artists so much better that they should live well off their "art" while many of the great artists starved? And an analysis of many great paintings can reveal much of the mental state of the artist. Think "The Scream" or some of Van Gogh...