Wouldn't your reasoning just apply to basically every situation, until you arrive at the most "virtuous" people receiving money?
I don't interpret this action by the government as bestowing virtue upon artists. It's just a way to fund something considered important culturally. It's not supposed to be fair or just, it's just a way to ensure that culturally-valued things are maintained without having to rely on the market to fund them.
Well, I think it only follows if the reason the artists are getting money is because they are virtuous. Which they aren't. Just because someone is getting funding doesn't imply that the reason is because they are deemed more virtuous than someone else. Usually it just implies that they are doing a specific thing that someone wants done.
I don't interpret this action by the government as bestowing virtue upon artists. It's just a way to fund something considered important culturally. It's not supposed to be fair or just, it's just a way to ensure that culturally-valued things are maintained without having to rely on the market to fund them.