What is judged to be valuable art?

There are different values, monetary values, historical values, or the art being able to get the artist’s intention across – that can be also considered a value.

Some factors I found from: Paola Kathuria

The Factors:
Artist - Who did it? (A small cheap pencil-drawing found at a second-hand shop by Van Gogh when he was 10 will be perceived very valuable only because of the artist)
Exclusivity - How many exist? Is it a one-off? 10s, 100s, 1000s or more?
Direct contact - Did the artist have direct contact with the paper (e.g., did they apply paint to it) or in the printing process (hand-made wood block from which a unique print was made)
Size - How big is it? (The bigger the better.)
Medium - Oil, pastel, watercolour, acrylic, pencil, digital
Effort - How long did it take to make? Five seconds, five years?
Skill - How skilled the artist is in the chosen medium
Venue - Where it's being sold - an art gallery or an outdoor fair
Price - How much is it? Higher the price, higher the perceived value
Rarity - Is the artist still alive and producing works or is this one of a limited set of works?
Artistic merit - Is it a good picture?

The Artist part I do agree. Famous dead artists's works are sold for an obscenely high price; too bad they're dead.

It is mentioned in this article that the writer arranged these factors in decending order of importance. Well I dissagree with some of them.

Artistic merit, depending on which value you mean. Monetarily, the painting might not be a fantastic picture but due to connections, branding or rich people buying art blindly, it can be sold for a very high price. So even if its very valuable, it does not mean its a piece of work well done. I thought skill could have been a subset of artistic merit. having insights and talent with the use of medium elevates the potential to get the idea of the artist accross to the audience

Exclusivity - Do play a part in raising the value of an art piece. Something like how a limited edition of expensive branded goods can make potential buyers go into a flurry to get it.

Direct contact - won't actually have any much effect on its valuability unless the artist is dead. Scarcity has a part in raising the value of the art as the artist is nolonger available on earth to create more art pieces(in this case having touch the canvas and then dead means that no other canvases(or other medium used) can come in contact with the dead artist)-- this make the art valuable. eg other prints can't give the same feeling as how Warhol's can. You would look at Warhol's prints and say, "His hands held this before.. whoaaa." You wouldn't have done it to some other random work of art.

Effort - when people buy valuable art for a high price, they certainly do not want to feel cheated. like paying millions for a few strokes of brush called abstract. However in some cases, what people consider valuable and worth their money is the very idea itself and not how long or how much effort is put into conveying this particular idea.

Medium wise, Oil, pastel, watercolour, acrylic, pencil, digital well digital art certainly does not cause and will not cost higher then an old master's art piece, this example is a wee bit off topic. But a good piece of painting will still have higher value compared to a good piece of digital art, probably cause digital at isn't really recongnised to be "tedious" enough for their value to be on par. pencil art, i have a feeling that the value can't be too high. Maybe partly due to the durability of pencil as medium.

Venue - The same piece of art in a branded auction house compared to when placed in a art gallery housed in a suburban area. of course it would have cost more to attain in the BRANDED auction house. its like buying mentos from Popular instead of a mama shop.

All these are factors which affect the value and it is all interlinked, interwoven that you can't actually separate and define one specific point that can be able to determine the value of art and how is one partucular piece of art valuable.