Very interesting thread.
Instead of asking if we approve, maybe would should ask couple of other questions.
1. Why should the government fund the arts?
The sad truth for art lovers is, there would be no significant impact on our culture, our society, or (most importantly) our economy, without those "arts" that could not survive without government support.
The same cannot be said for many of the other funding efforts that have been mentioned in this thread. So, even if you argue from a Utilitarian perspective there really is little support for this position. Outside of taking the position, which states, "We need the arts, they're important, and it doesn't cost much compared to other things. (Especially if those are things we don't like to begin with.)
BTW, The amount of money spent on the arts by the government, really has no bearing on this argument. It can be a fraction of what is spent or it can be half of what is spent. It just doesn't matter. Now, if we are just answering the question, whether we agree or disagree, that's another matter. I might agree as long as the amount is small, and then change my mind if that amount grows. However, if we move to the issue of whether the government "should" fund the arts, the amount of money really isn't the issue.
2. If the government does fund the arts, why should they do so without some control?
I'm surprised by the number of people that want to have things given to them, without any "strings" attached. (Well actually, I'm not surprised people want this, I'm surprised by the fact that they think it's their "right" to have it.)
This really comes down to a Respect of Persons issue. How can you justify, taking what is mine, and giving it to someone else, while the whole time saying, "You have no say in how it's spent." I can't understand how people can come to a place where they believe their right to entitlement (regardless of how great that need might be, or is perceived to be.) out weighs my rights.
Of course it will be argued by some, I don't like the military, or I don't like our highway system, or I don't like the police force, or I don't like public schools and the government spends my tax dollars on that. Yes, but as I pointed out above, these things in large measure are believed by most to be necessary for out society to continue. The same cannot be said about art. Well what about __________ (fill in the blank), it's not necessary for our society to continue, but we spend money on that, so let's spend money on the arts. I have a better idea, let's stop spending money on "it" and stop spending money on the arts as well.
Lastly, if the public really cares about the arts, then let the public fund them. If the public don't care then so be it. Of course there is a portion of the populace that believe the public are to dumb to know what is best for them, and since they don't know enough to support the arts, we will make them support them for their own good (by taxation and redistribution).
What an arrogant attitude to have.
Best regards,
--Tachus