I agree but that's basically the case for literally everything: the value of everything is determined by how much someone else will pay for it. Art isn't notabl

I agree but that's basically the case for literally everything: the value of everything is determined by how much someone else will pay for it. Art isn't notable for conforming to that universal law of capital valuation. Nothing, not even the most technically nutritious food or the hardest of metals, has a value beyond the demands of others. It does become a bit circular. Just saying "the value of art is what other people judge it to be" just begs the question "how do those other people judge it?" ad infinitum. When I hear "inherent value", I usually think of a non-monetary value, a value that exists outside a system of multi-party transactions, some utility that is possible even if no one ends up using it. For art, I believe the inherent value is what it makes you feel. If a piece of art doesn't make you feel anything, it's pointless and useless as art.