Should the State Subsidize the Arts?

"What is Seen And What Is Not Seen"

           We are fortunate to have beautiful collections of paintings, museums full of sculptures and inspiring theatrical performances. Shouldn't we do everything in our power to protect their development? Typically, legislature will enact subsidies on organizations as a measure to preserve them, but Bastiat argues that subsidies do not, in fact, work the way people intend. If society helps one industry, it hurts another. The theaters that are successful are the ones who have earned a high reputation and profits on their own. Bastiat wrote that we should believe in people's choice and allow the arts to develop freely and in harmony with other industries. Often, people are quick to judge that if we do not support the subsidization of a practice, we are out to abolish it. Bastiat quotes Lamartine as a supporter of subsidies because they will protect jobs. However, theaters have a need for skills (artists, designers, writers, directors, painters etc) therefore there will always be jobs available. The other side of the coin, the money where subsidies come from is "what is not seen".
"The taxpayer who will have been taxed one franc will no longer have this franc at his disposal".
I have always been a major supporter of the arts, and I believe children especially benefit from exposure to music, dance, and a variety of creative forms. There are several programs that have demonstrated the success of art with kids, especially ones who lack a stable home.
**Check this out: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6483651n **
Bastiat has convinced me that not all subsidies are worth it, the natural forces of the market and consumer needs will favor and protect the arts. However, these children have little influence on the present market, but will make a big impact in the future. I think some things are worth investing in, it's a cost I am willing to pay for.