What's better? Artists competing for the mass public, artists trying to please individual rich patrons, or artists trying to placate some government commission?

What's better? Artists competing for the mass public, artists trying to please individual rich patrons, or artists trying to placate some government commission? I think a mix is fine. But there are disadvantages if you weigh too heavily on the latter two. In Europe, there's already quite a lot of government subsidies for art. Try finding a British or French movie that doesn't open by announcing its connection with some government subsidy program. While I quite like quite a lot of what Europe produces (especially cinema), in the long run I suspect it won't be sustainable. Whereas the free(r) market approach of e.g. the US and Japan will end up ahead.