Ariel: Government art subsidies never benefit art, for art’s role is to challenge society’s values.
Ariel's 1st Claim
Government art subsidies never benefit art. Does Sasha argue government art subsidies sometimes do benefit art?
Yes! It sounds like Sasha is saying that those subsidies benefit art in a democratic society by ensuring that artists can be fully committed to their work while expressing themselves freely.
Ariel's 2nd Claim
Art's role is to challenge society's values. Does Sasha argue art's role is not to challenge society's values?
No. Sasha actually explicitly agrees with this claim of Ariel's.
Ariel's 3rd Claim
A society's values are expressed by its government. Does Sasha argue that society's values are not expressed by its government?
No. In fact, it seems like Sasha is agreeing that government expresses values, because he's pointing out that democratic governments are okay with people challenging the values it expresses.
Ariel's 4th Claim
Artists cannot challenge the very institution upon which they depend. Does Sasha argue that artists can challenge the very institution upon which they depend?
Kind of. Sasha seems to be saying that in a democratic society, since the government respects dissent and encourages challenges, a subsidized artist can challenge the very institution upon which they depend.
Goal
Since we found a couple explicit claims that Sasha would disagree with, we probably don't need to dive deeper into Ariel's assumptions.
Let's look for Sasha's objection that, in a democratic society, - artists can challenge the source of their monetary support and thus - government art subsidies can benefits art