What do you think makes one object d'art more valuable than another?

The Countess states, "Everything that is worth money in the world is so because someone says very loudly, ‘This is beautiful and rare.'" Do you agree? What do you think makes one object d'art more valuable than another?

This is a question that's fascinated me for quite some time, and I'd love to hear what others think about it. I really want to take an art appreciation class someday, since I feel pretty uninformed about the subject.

I think it is in the eye of the beholder, just because it has a high value does not make it the best

There's the scene where the Countess asks Maud what kind of painter she is, and says there are only three kinds: " Those who paint what they want to see, those who paint what they feel they see, and those who paint what they think about what they see. Which are you?" and Maud answers, "I hope I paint what it feels like to see."

I think artists (of any medium) who do this, who capture what it "feels like" in that moment, are the ones whose work lasts, whose work we want to keep coming back to or looking at often (or listening to, etc.) and that is what makes it more valuable.

I think "good" art is mainly decided by money. If someone is willing to pay a lot for paintings by one artist, that artist becomes famous (especially after they die). I think styles of painting become popular or not and each artist creates his/her own market. Modern art seems to be totally dependent on having a patron support, display and talk friends into buying a certain artist.

Never understood the criteria used to determine the worth of art--I guess whatever the rich buy becomes valuable. For me, if I like what I'm looking at, if it gives me pleasure or causes me to think or view something in a new way, the piece is valuable. I've taken art appreciation courses--I don't need someone else's determination on line or color usage or brush strokes or composition to determine what I feel is valuable.

I think it depends on whether people like a artist well enough to spend large amounts on their work. Then they develop a reputation for being good. Then people put high value on everything they produce. It also makes their work more valuable when they die because there won't be anymore new work.

I think it depends on what you mean by valuable. If it is dollars then it is about how much attention the artist has garnered in the art world and how much money has been paid for his work. If it is age that makes it valuable then the older the better. If it is poplar appeal and recognition by the general public then it is a Mona Lisa that every child is shown in school and told it is a great painting and thus is recognized and familiar to everyone and thus valuable because there is only one original Mona Lisa.

I think it depends on whether the painter is known because of other paintings, the subject of the painting, what the viewer sees in the painting, and whether or not the viewer would like to have the painting hanging on their wall to view day after day. When I see a painting, I always wonder why the artist chose that particular subject to paint, or whether they chose it or someone else asked them to paint it. I think it's sad that a lot of artists don't become well known until after they have passed on.

One of the criteria, I think, is the opinions of critics who have expertise in art. What they say can be very important although sometimes I disagree with their opinions. But I think that all great art makes you feel and endures the test of time.

I think that many times critics are the ones who can make or break a painting, a sculpture, a book, or any other work of art. I also think that relevance at the time of the work adds to the value. Sadly, it seems that people seem so anxious to agree with "those in the know" without making an evaluation of their own.

What should make an object valuable are the following:
1. How it was acquired? Did it come from a loved one or as a special present for you.
2. Does the object help you connect to your past and loved ones and happy memories that you carry with you.

I think that it is probably the monetary value ultimately if you take this question at face value but to me it would be how much I liked the piece. I wouldn't buy something I didn't like and even if it was a gift, if I didn't like it..it wouldn't make it valuable to me.

It could be any number of things that could affect the value of an object to a person - subjectivity rules! For me, the provenance of the article plays a role in its value, both intrinsically and extrinsically. Another important influence is the means through which the object was obtained - was it a gift, reward, bribe, award, token of affection or was it something that was just an outright purchase just because or was it a challenge to be able to gain its ownership? A significant aspect of the means is who was/was not involved in the procurement. In my own life, I have valued a simple handkerchief given to me by someone who cared for me far above expensive gifts I received from others. For me the bottom line is that in all ways, and at all times, objects of art are laden with subjective strings that are tied to countless known and unknown qualifiers that determine their ultimate value.

I noticed some comments here about the role of the "experts," critics, presumably art dealers, in determining value, if by value we mean monetary value. But so many artists we admire in museums today -- and in Maud's time, this would have included Picasso and the Impressionists, Valadon and Cassatt -- were panned by critics, scorned by dealers. Yet because some passionate collectors fell in love with or were attracted to their work, and bought it or commissioned it, eventually that work survived to gain wider audience and over time, to become valuable. (If they were lucky, it happened it their lifetime, but often not.) Meanwhile, some artists who were the critic's darlings and who won the prizes at the academies are relatively obscure today. The same phenomenon is true of music, and literature. Rarely, it seems, is greatness instantly recognized and hailed by experts, perhaps because of its originality. So, apart from objects valuable to us personally as keepsakes of loved ones, the work that survives the test of time, by speaking to the human spirit across generations, ends up acquiring more value -- regardless of how poorly received by the experts.

I agree with kimk, I do not know. I know if I like art if I enjoy looking at it. I know of art that has been deemed great that I see nothing in it that like. Therefore, I do not know what makes art great.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Something valuable to me might be worthless to someone else. Personal value is based on one's desire or love of the object. If you're talking monetary value, then you would look at the fame and desirability of the artist's work.

I think value has two meanings: a financial or similar value and a sentimental or artistic value. Sometimes a piece can have value in both senses. We see this a lot with Jewish-owned artworks stolen by the Nazis, that the original owners families' want to have back. As for the first kind of value, this is something I've frequently wondered. It's mind-boggling what some people will pay for what seems to be (to me) an unattractive work.

I agree 100% with JLPen77. Critics can really push otherwise unknown artists, musicians and writers into the forefront; however, it doesn't always mean they will stay there. Conversely, a little known artist may appeal to people and become widely popular and remain there.

My husband and I have this discussion often because he collects paintings, many that I don't really care for. We rarely understand each other's tastes. What makes art valuable is how much it's loved