The ideal case would be if every art and artist does not need external funding and can maintain itself. Unfortunately, nowadays we are far from this ideal case. Undoubtedly, everyone will admit that supporting arts and making it available to all people is important thing to do.
- What happened to restating the prompt at the start of the introduction?
From my point of view, they should choose the golden mean. That is, accept a funding if the supporter is sincere and does not require changes on their ideals. However, if sponsor has requirements which will cause lose of their ideas and integrity, they should refuse it.- Don't use fictitious situations. The thesis statement should be about government funding for the arts. That can't start in the 2nd paragraph.
Government is the main organization, which should be concerned about thriving of arts in their country. Arts are one of the ways to introduce nation in a world, and having flourished arts is advantageous for a country. For example if someone sees paintings of famous Armenian painter Martiros Saryan, he/she will find enormous information not only about the country's picturesque nature, but also about its people, their lifestyle, traditions and history. Moreover, arts also can have huge educational function for its own nation too, especially for youth. So government should make sure that it is available for all people. For example in my country every year takes place a cultural event called "The night of museum", fund by the government. This day almost all museums in whole country are free for entrance.- This is a weak argument in support of government funding for the arts. You should speak of the fact that arts would not exist without the government that builds museums and funds the development of the arts at the grass roots level.
However many people believe that for arts accepting funding from a government can have bad consequences such as losing independence. They claim, if government suggests funding for arts, it will also require something in return. Surely no one is insured that this will not happen and certainly if it does happen, than I believe artists should refuse any support. However I believe that the funding of government is the most "safe" for arts. As I explained above, government already has motivation for funding arts in the country. On the other side "government" is a managing body, elected by nation, and mostly it presents the interests of that nation. It is not an individual, which can have sharp preferences and will require artists to do something to please their taste.- You need to strengthen this discussion by researching reasons that people would rather the government stay out of the arts. There are better reasons available than the one you presented.
You may want to rethink your conclusion after you do additional research to improve the content of your paper :-) This is a good effort, but it can be better.