Just because taste has a subjective component doesn't mean all art is "equal"; that there is no such thing as experience and expertise. I reject that false dichotomy completely. And of course I reject the approach that tries to define out of existence any value that can't be easily captured in monetary terms. I.e. the tautology of "the market is correct because I define correctness in terms of what 'the market' spits out"- which is exactly what any attempt to handwave away the cultural, educational, and aesthetic benefits of non-commercial art tries to do.
Besides, the problems with a "free market" approach to art (however constructed) are far deeper, and wide-ranging, than kvetching that new stuff isn't to one's taste. That's ultimately a red herring.
We wouldn't have that diversity of art, music, etc. without
substantial government funding. The real issue here is not "which art?" (short answer: as much of it as practical) but "how much?", i.e. "how accessible to people who can't plunk down $5 mil for a Picasso at auction or commission their own songs?" and "how do artists afford to put food in their mouths, so that talented people have the means and incentive to spend their time making art, rather than just go become quants or waiters or whatever?"
And, just to counter strawman with strawman, is a "cultural commission*" really any worse than available art being based on the whims and idiosyncratic tastes/agendas of whatever rich person decides to munificently bestow his largesse to create (or make available to the masses) art? 'Cause that's how it's worked in the past. At least the cultural commission can, if you put in the effort, be made accountable to audiences, scholars, and voters.
But, really, at the end of the day the key is overall funding levels, and I guess a general commitment to not be too narrowly focused in terms of genre or style. Everything else is a distraction.
*note: what meager gov't funding the arts gets here, is not really through that sort of model anyway.
Poll
