Two points: 1) This goes back to the assessment that "the object" is not "The Art", it is the totem that represents the cultural milestone of The Art's creation

Two points: 1) This goes back to the assessment that "the object" is not "The Art", it is the totem that represents the cultural milestone of The Art's creation date and position in cultural time and location, and "The Art" is The Artist proclaiming a vision/perspective they share to others. This is part of the reasoning that allows extremely similar works of art to be designated as unique - they are milestones for different cultural points in history and different intellectual perspectives. 2) 40 years ago, I dated the daughter of a major art collector; he owned the entire collections of a few major artists. He commissioned Warhol do to a Jean Cocteau portrait. Girlfriend's dad expresses anger one day, as Warhol is weeks late on his commission. He takes he daughter with him to Warhol's studio to complain, and upon return expresses utter disgust with Warhol and his process. He returned with the portrait, Warhol made it in 15 minutes upon Dad's arrival and complaint, seemingly with zero forethought. A Cocteau series followed, but GF's Dad was completely uninterested in Warhol after that point, calling him "an advertiser". IMO, Warhol's fame and artistic perspective is exactly like P.T. Barnum, Warhol simply proved “There's a sucker born every minute” is also true for serious fine art. And that transference of suckers existing in the world of Fine Art, transforming their "foolish art" into "Fine Art" is Warhol's Art.