Why Support ONLY the "High" Arts?

During class on Wednesday, we covered several issues and one of them was why the government oftentimes provides funding for the "high" arts in the name of nationalism, but fails to provide the same support for other arts (like television production) even though these other arts are often more indicative of the country's culture.

While this fact is true in the United States, several governments have provided funding for some of these other arts. For example, in Korea, one of the most popular exports is Korean dramas and soap operas. These dramas air in countries all over the world and the Korean government has seen it as an opportunity to expose their culture to the world. By providing funds, the Korean government encourages directors to film at special tourist locations in Korea, which then increases the number of tourists who visit these sites to see where their favorite show was filmed.

I have tried to come up with possibilities that might explain why the United States have yet to adopt this sort of method. One possibility is that the government is really that backward, deeming only certain types of art as worthy of supporting, but seeing as the government oftentimes supports art that can be hardly considered traditional (like the Christo Gates or Olafur Eliasson's Waterfalls), I find this idea difficult to defend. The other possibility is that the government would like to widely educate its citizens. After all, people are more likely to judge someone as uncultured if they're never heard of Mozart, as opposed to not having ever heard of Britney Spears. By donating funds, the government allows for more people to gain access to these activities and as a whole educate its citizens regardless of the nationality of the artist. Another possibility is that because high art has had such support in the past but due to new circumstances, has become almost unsupportable without the government's help. By preserving these artistic customs, the government is preserving a valuable piece of history. The other reason I can think of is the simple fact that other arts besides the "high" art are profitable, and therefore have arranged themselves into corporations. Many historians believe that private corporations that are not owned by the government "check" the government's power. It may be possible that because these companies have the potential to check the government power, it is more hesitant about donating money to build up these corporations, even if their work is extremely important to American culture. The final possibility I could think of is that a system that promotes American culture is extremely difficult to promote. American television, music, and movies are extremely popular throughout the world, and greatly range. Most of these, don't accurately portray American culture and is so widely accessible to so many people, it becomes difficult for the government to find one and provide funds for its creation. And even if the government was willing to provide funds for a production, it might be considered propagandistic and rejected, especially by the viewers that pride themselves in counter-culture and individualism.

These are just some reasons why I think the same system that is carried out in other countries might be incredibly difficult to carry out in the United States.