So this fundamental tension between artistic expression and wider engagement
would exist with or without a system of public funding. It appears to be inherent in
the creative process and in the relationship between artist and audience, and is
presumably as old as the concept of art itself. However, it is in the context of public
funding that this tension becomes truly problematic. For some this is because
public funding can reduce the need for artists and arts organisations to seek out
new audiences. They argue that subsidy is often best served in small and time-
limited doses; an excess can lead to complacency and dependency, and dull the
sharpness of the relationship between artist and audience. For others, this tension
gives rise to difficult arguments around benefit to the public, accountability and the
decision-making process.

Members of the public would like to see
principles such as access and reach at the top of list, reflecting a strong desire for
public funding to benefit as many people as possible. Organisations with a
particular social remit – within both the arts and wider stakeholder communities –
support this view and often take it further. As well as widespread access, they
would like public funding to focus on achieving some tangible social outcomes that
benefit not just those who take part in the funded activity but the wider community
as well. They are also most likely to emphasise the importance of principles such
as diversity and equality. Finally, many artists and those working in arts
organisations without a particular social remit are likely to prioritise artistic
excellence and the breaking of new ground before anything else.

Is that really such a terrible thing (I'm not quite clear from the context whether it is - need to read the whole document)?

I wonder how that could have been ascertained and measured (in the context of the time it was produced) in the case of much art from past times that we now value highly?