Art is an vital element of human civilization. It enriches our hearts with beauty, provides us with the opportunity to escape the daily pressures of life and enter an aesthetic world of pleasure.  All governments are sparing no efforts in policies and funding to promote the development of arts. In my oppinion, government funding has no adverse effect on the integrity of arts, it actually protects the sound development of arts and even contributes to the artistic dissemination.
 To begin with, in the background of market-oriented economy, Commercialization is probably the biggest threat to arts and government founding can be an effective solution. When art is commercialized, the artwork will function as merchandise. The price of  a masterpiece might run up to millions of dollars. Economic benifits will drive the creation of artists: art will be no longer the personal expression of the artist's spiritual world, it will be regarded as a tool of making money . Besides, It is generally known that financial aid is necessary for an artist, for the creating process consumes much time and labor.  Some individuals and organizations that are motivated by gaining profits will provid financial support to the artists, at the same time, they will possibly put pressures and restrictions on the creation of artists. Thus, the purity and independence of art will be hardly retained. However, the government serves to ensure the public good and social progress, it rarely supports art for financial gain. And the government is capable of providing more liberal and permanent supporting than any other individuals or organizations. Consequently, the government is able to construct a healthy environment and prevent the arts from being commercialized.
The government, in addition to protecting arts from commercialization, plays an essential role in worldwide dissemination and exchange of the arts. People of all countries creat their unique arts forns. In the globalization era,  governments are committed to promoting the spread of their own arts. For instance, Chinese government has held the Year of Chinese Culture successfully in France(2003) and Italy(2010). Hundreds of arts exhibitions, concerts, and theatrical performances deeply impressed people of Rome, Milan, Paris,etc. And the Shanghai World EXPO is another good example. The World EXPO is a full exposition of international art and culture rather than the  technology and economy. More than 200 countries showed their unique arts to attract vistors around the world. Therefore, without the support of governments, the international arts exchange cannot be possibly achieved in such deepth and extent.
Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that the government supporting for the arts should be based on openness and toleration. It is the diversity that keeps the arts alive. An accountable government should value various expressions and styles of artists. Some artists mark themselves as anarchist, irreligionist or nihilist; some are libertine or eccentric in behavior;  some focus upon unpleasant things such as sex, evil or death. But we must not just belittle their value on that account. Dadaism, a school which was composed of furious anarchists, influenced the forming of super realism significantly. And no one can resist the charm of D H Laurance, though his books were once severely criticised for the direct description about sex. So the government should be more liberal to the self-expression of artists and adopt an open attitude toward the diversity of thought when supporting the arts.
In conclusion, I personally consider that the support of government is not a threat to the integrity of the arts, instead, the government will ensure the healthy development of the arts and it will be significant in spreading the arts. I suggest that the government should be more tolerant toward different artistic styles and creat an atmosphere for free expression.