> If they already find enjoyment in their work then why do they need additional support at the expense of the rest of us?

Enjoyment doesn't pay bills. As an aspiring artist you typically can't make a living with your art, so you have to work a day job. This means there is significantly less time for creating works and practicing your craft. (Again, creating art takes time and energy!) That's why there are grants and fellowships: they (temporarily) relieve artists from financial pressures and allow them to focus on their artistic practice.

> I also enjoy playing computer games and browsing the web all day. How would you feel about a tax to pay for my lifestyle?

In case you really don't know the difference: Artists produce works that are received and valued by other people: concerts, shows, books, movies, sculptures, installations, etc. This is not the case with playing computer games and browsing the web.

> Enjoyment doesn't pay bills. As an aspiring artist you typically can't make a living with your art, so you have to work a day job.

Same goes for many other enjoyable activities. I mean that's one of the main reasons we pay other people - so we don't have to do the things they do for us in return. If the activity itself is enjoyable then that reason no longer exists and it's only natural that you'll have a harder time making a living wage from it. Society doesn't owe it to you to make your dream job a reality, especially when that comes at the expense of people doing the dirty jobs you don't want to do.

> Artists produce works that are received and valued by other people

If they don't earn enough from those people the perhaps the value they produce isn't as great as you think.

> This is not the case with playing computer games and browsing the web.

Then why are you here replying to my comment if you get nothing out of it? Sure, the value is tiny but that is also true for most art.

Not all human activity needs to be a viable career. We're much better off making sure everyone has enough leisure time to do the culturally enriching activities they want to instead of taxing everyone so a few chosen special people are exempt from the market crushing everyone else.

> If the activity itself is enjoyable then that reason no longer exists and it's only natural that you'll have a harder time making a living wage from it.

This doesn't make any sense. People have jobs because someone has to do them. (This includes art and culture.) Whether that job is enjoyable or not is not really relevant. Just because someone finds a job enjoyable doesn't mean that they should work for less money or for free...

Also, not everything about being an artist is enjoyable. For example, nobody enjoys writing grant applications, booking gigs, organizing rehearsals, accounting, typesetting scores, etc. Not to mention the financial insecurity.

> If they don't earn enough from those people the perhaps the value they produce isn't as great as you think.

Art and culture cannot work in a purely capitalistic logic. Most art is subsidized in one way or another. Just like many other parts of society.

There are many things that you personally may not need, but society as a whole still wants to support.

> Then why are you here replying to my comment if you get nothing out of it? Sure, the value is tiny but that is also true for most art.

Sorry, but this is just dumb.

> so a few chosen special people are exempt from the market crushing everyone else.

If you think that people become artists because it's a cozy life, you are mistaken. It's a lot of work for little money.