About artists: I am a big fan of culture and art and I think a lack of spending on culture and art from a public perspective indicates that the public is not being paid enough. You're not going to buy a painting or go to concerts if you can't afford it.
That having been said, in my country artists get a certain budget from the government and generally complain that it's not enough. I do not think the government should pay for artists to just 'exist'. Sure, it isn't fair that children from wealthy homes have the opportunity to be an artist while children from poor homes don't, but this is indicative of a problem far greater than art, namely the income gap.
If you make sure the working population has enough money to spend on culture and art, artists will be able to generate sufficient income themselves without becoming dependent on government support. (And no, this is not done through tax cuts). The inequality of young people relying on parents' income is a major issue which must be addressed. But government subsidizing artists simply gives way to systematic abuse.
I do believe that the pursuit of a higher education should be fully subsidized by governments. The more people that pursue a higher education, the higher your level of employment and the higher your average income. If everyone can afford to go to school, everyone can get a job in which they are not so easy to replace. Meaning poverty rates will be far lower. Premiums for rare profiles will also decrease due to there being more choice on the market, which will cause a reduction of the income gap.