As most, they take what they can get. Most funding however is not profit oriented. Often it is paying the material, offering a residency (not payed rent anywhe

As most, they take what they can get. Most funding however is not profit oriented. Often it is paying the material, offering a residency (not payed rent anywhere you want) or small financial aid because it's still very hard to make a living as an artist (unless you play/serve the art-market well). Most any of these grants have a jury, the better ones actually have a small jury and more often than not the influence of a single jury is even enhanced by having some kind of weak positive veto. If a single member of the jury thinks someone is really worth it, than it is made highly likely that he gets funded. This is because democracy makes no sense here, you want to select a few good people for the jury, who then judge the best they can. This system is still crooked, because most juries have bad taste, are forced to select something likeable or scared to take risks, but in every application artists write exactly what they will do with that money. edit: I'm tempted to say a good basic income would be a solution, but in e.g. a movie production most of the jobs are not the nice creative ones, so art-house stuff would still need external funding to exist.