tl;dr if you want to scam dagw then make up a compelling story behind the art.
I mean, sure I guess. Tell me something is a lost Michelangelo and I will judge it very differently than if you told me it was a half way decent forgery from the 1970s. I find this rather uncontroversial.
For the vast majority of the things you see in this world context will be lost
And when that context is lost something of great potential value is lost with it and the physical artefact is much less interesting because of it. Even a mundane thing owned by a famous person or that has been part of famous event is always more interesting and valuable than the same thing without any context.
the art isn't the object, but the creator of the story.
Do you think the thousands of people that travel from all over the world and line up for hours to see the Mona Lisa are there to see a pretty good portrait that some merchants commissioned of his wife, or to partake in the story of that painting and its creator? If they actually only cared about the object as an artefact and an example of early 16th century painting, they'd be much better off studying high resolution digital images of it online.
So what you're saying is 'most art is a convincing narrative'.
The fact that a bajillion people went to see a picture doesn't make it art. It makes it interesting art. It was art the moment it was created and if had never been seen by another person even if they decided to destroy it on the spot.
I completely agree that anything created by an artist with the intention of being "Art" becomes "Art" the moment it is created. However I do not believe that that is the end of the story. Art is changed by both the context it was created in, its history and even the context it is viewed in and you cannot fully understand and appreciate the art without understanding that context. And as our knowledge and understanding of that context changes (for example by finding out that we have been lied to about the origins or history or piece of art or its artist) then the art changes with it (without ever stopping being art).
I mean, sure I guess. Tell me something is a lost Michelangelo and I will judge it very differently than if you told me it was a half way decent forgery from the 1970s. I find this rather uncontroversial.
For the vast majority of the things you see in this world context will be lost
And when that context is lost something of great potential value is lost with it and the physical artefact is much less interesting because of it. Even a mundane thing owned by a famous person or that has been part of famous event is always more interesting and valuable than the same thing without any context.
the art isn't the object, but the creator of the story.
Do you think the thousands of people that travel from all over the world and line up for hours to see the Mona Lisa are there to see a pretty good portrait that some merchants commissioned of his wife, or to partake in the story of that painting and its creator? If they actually only cared about the object as an artefact and an example of early 16th century painting, they'd be much better off studying high resolution digital images of it online.