If a system is based on a userbase pulling the ladder from under them in order to make sure only they can benefit from it, then it's not a good or fair system from the get go.

Maybe the issue is with the definition of the profession of artist, that's it's too vague and fluid allowing anyone to claim to be one without much hassle.

But then if you have a strict definition of the artist profession, everyone will rush to conform to the bare minimum of that in order to score those benefits.

So maybe then the core issue is with the welfare state that unfairly picks winners and losers instead of being "universal".

Artist have exited way before the welfare state has. They were poor and had patrons who supported them if they loved their work. So then why do we need the state to subsidize this now? Do we have proof this leads to higher quality art?