What makes art valuable?

Things are worth only what someone else is willing to pay.

If you think about diamonds, then you will understand better. A diamond of the first water is rare. They are clear and completely flawless...hard to find and exorbitantly expensive.

Art becomes MUCH more valuable when the artist dies, because the artist will NEVER paint another painting. Limited supply, rare, and as the years go by, more and more expensive.

I once had a small antique and collectables business, and paintings ALWAYS become more valuable when the artist dies, if they were good to begin with.

After Van Gogh died, he was lumped into the group of Impressionists, and as you know, Monet and Degas are also very popular NOW. When they were alive, art was realism, and they were trying to experiment and leave realism behind. It takes a lot for people with money, (buyers), to change what they like.

No one really cared about the Mona Lisa until some guy pinched it 100 years ago. Just walked in and took it. Rode the bus home with it on his lap and no one realized. The cops suspected Picasso, because he used to swap art in the museum with pieces of his own. Forget the name of the guy who actually did it. He just wanted the painting returned to an Italian Museum.. And after that, it became famous.

Same with composers by the way. I simply do not understand why Mozart is held in high regard, whereas Salieri is thought to be a second-class composer.
I bet 99% of all Mozart admirers could not tell whether a piece ( a horn quintet or whatever) comes from Mozart or Salieri.

Sometimes death is how an artist is suddenly known, and, when dead, the canon is closed, even if not entirely known.

As @Crazywaterspring pointed out, it's ultimately a market: works exist; the estimation of "the importance"/worth/value of a school, an artist, a given work, by various people & institutions changes; when a work *is* available--and this is seldom for artists with fewer works and greater "significance"--the pent-up demand (over years or even decades, sometimes) pushes up the price. One acquistion can change the economics of a location, put it "on the map" of better/serious galleries, etc.

But--to address @helenS--I don't the selection process, which might certainly be more random earlier in the process, as being random overall; it tends to recognize people who are founders, exemplars, etc., of schools, styles, techniques, periods.

The sense that something somehow, has touched your soul. It transcends monetary value.

Dying appears to be a good career move in the arts business 😃

since many of these artists passed away the economic systems of the globe have changed a lot. So a lot of art is appreciated over time, like other goods, but it also has the special ability of being used for tax incentives for people that are otherwise liable for large taxation and by investing into art they can enjoy deductions write offs and an asset as it ends up being

That’s one reason I do it, it’s worth more when I’m dead than alive. But also holds sentimental value to and at least I’ll be remembered for something. Other than that I enjoy doing it.

Van Gough's art, like any dead and popular artist, would be an excellent investment.

I’ve never understood it myself. In fact, the older I get, the less I seem to understand 😂

Because he is considered quintessential tortured artist.

Yes, value of art depends on the emotional attachment people place on it.

The value of something is more when it is gone or very less.

They pick out arbitrary artists and push them. It's almost random.

Eye of beholder?

That’s not unusual at all. Lots of artists are not appreciated or even recognized until after their deaths.