system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: I don't see why the name of the artist should affect the value of a work of art, and I think the fact that it does invalidates fine art criticism to some extent.

An original Da Vinci would sell for millions of dollars if you could even find it on the market at all. An exactly identical painting by an unknown artist might go for a few thousand, if that. 

I accept that Da Vinci is one of the greatest artists of all time, but why should his status mean that his art is worth more? I mean, even looking at other forms of media: sure, a game by Naughty Dog, or a film by the Coen Brothers, or a new single by The Beatles would naturally be looked upon favourably, but not to the same extent, and even an unknown studio/director/singer can become successful overnight. 

If so much of a piece's value is based upon the circumstances of its creation rather than what's actually on the canvas, how can art criticism be seen as legitimate?
gpt
A piece of art is not, and should not, be priced solely on its artistic merit.  The historical and cultural significance of an artifact can be far more important than artistic content when determining monetary value.  For example, that Da Vinci painting is not valuable because of the image it depicts, but rather because it is strongly associated with a historically and culturally important individual.  If you could produce Da Vinci's hat, or a book that Da Vinci kept on his desk, or any other artifact that was closely tied to Da Vinci, that artifact would also sell for a large amount of money even tho Da Vinci had nothing to do with creating the item.