During the classical period art was generally created for historical reference, religious inspiration, or simply aesthetic enjoyment. The identity of the artist was often of little importance to the buyer.

Following the Renaissance, a redistribution of the world's wealth created a fierce demand for art by a newly prosperous middle class. Near the end of the 14th century, Roman statues were unearthed in Italy, intensifying the populace's interest in antiquities, and leading to sharp increases in the value of these objects. This upsurge soon extended to contemporary and recently deceased artists. Art had become a commercial commodity, and the monetary value of the artwork came to depend on the identity of the artist.

Forgeries painted by the late Elmyr de Hory, featured in the film F for Fake directed by Orson Welles, have become so valuable that forged de Horys have appeared on the market.

Does an authentic Van Gogh have more intrinsic value than a forgery that doesn't look significantly different?

Does an authentic Van Gogh have more intrinsic value than a forgery that doesn't look significantly different?

And if not (which is what I think) why does our current culture value them way more?

I think it does.

First, the painting itself is well regarded: This is why we reprint the painting and teach about the painting in art classes.

Positing additional value to the original explains why we preserve the original painting in a museum. It's not about consumerism as these paintings are kept in museums for public observance. It's just cool to see the actual painting that Van Gogh (or whoever your favorite artist is) painted. I would also say that there is value in preserving historical reference material.

I've thought about this myself. Let's make it more distinct and say that we have an exact copy, except that we know which one is the copy and which the experiment.

Art seems to play a sort of religious role in some cases. I work at a museum. If religion is now a crude or taboo topic, one can flaunt one's soul by mentioning the originals one owns or has at least seen. Now I do love a good painting, but indeed it's the appearance that matters. If we could make 10000 exact copies of all great paintings, this would be great. And wouldn't most of the painters be pleased, if they were alive to see it?

I like to think that artists want to share beauty, even if they also need money. Of course a way to generate exact copies would mean they could sell more, even if human vanity would offer less for something that isn't one of a kind. Aesthetic greed?

Yes, exactly. To me the value of the painting comes from the experience of viewing it. I think to truly appreciate art you have to judge it by your own personal experience of it--it's reputation and the experience other people have is interesting, but in a different sphere.

Music and film are areas where we don't seem to care at all about having an "original". There truly are 10,000 exact copies of albums.

But with books, people play the first edition game, and buy them for thousands of dollars.

This instinct, whatever it is, seems like a bad thing.

Does an authentic Van Gogh have more intrinsic value than a forgery that doesn't look significantly different?

And if not (which is what I think) why does our current culture value them way more?

Hmm, but people buy them for 100's of millions of dollars. Why do we care about seeing the original rather than the replica? A superstitious fear that it isn't the "real" thing? And in other times, they did not place such a value on it. Art work wasn't signed, or it was but the apprentices did much of the actual painting.