Oh I agree, it makes sense. Yes there is a monetary value place on things that we enjoy(value). The value is in some way a measure of how people have of describing "art" , it maybe a poor choice but it is used anyway. The example above was my poor attempt at "perception of art". the example of Schrödinger's cat expresses the ambiguous nature of Art in a way that relates to the nature of peoples understanding of Art.
It would seem that part of the definition of "Fine Art XZY" has to come from what the public expects fine art to be, but that is external to my creating art.
Graffiti Art, is to me a valid art form, but in the context of location, gangs, and material, it's not a practical Fine Art form for the business side of Art.
Alain wrote an essay about the business of art vs creating art and part of our discussion on this thread has moved on both sides of this issue.
Maybe what we can say is as individuals, we create images that please our souls and if we have the integrity to not misrepresent our work as something its not and use the best methods and materials today to communicate our vision, we have created "Fine Art ", photography, painting, wall art. etc. I am always going to have a problem with the business ethics of selling art. It's akin to going to the kitchen of a restaurant, you learn more than you really wanted to know, and the food never taste quite the same again, but that's just me. Wyndham