Is it Art if it's made for someone else?

The government has always wanted to use art in a way that would benefit them, but the question is, do they know and appreciate what art is? Government funding and grants toward artists are becoming not only rare because the governments do not understand the direction art is going in right now, but also because it doesn't appeal to the select few politically and/or morally. Maplethorp is a well known artist who people admire for his shocking photographs, but only shocking to a conservative society, but he is not as disliked by the government as is a political painting with politically influential people in it. This brings me to my point; how can an artist get money from either public or private grant givers if these people are influenced by a government that tries to control the direction of art, and how could an artist live in a society that doesn't allow the progressing in lifestyle and society if it is owned and controlled by an exterior motive? Long sentance, i know. Art for arts sake doesn't exhist when economy and public display becomes part of it.
Arthur