If a painter paints the most beautiful painting in the world...

It is my opinion that "value" is a fiction, a human construct. Meaning it exists entirely in the conceptual realm, like a name or a label or fictional characters.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Reads like a Zen koan -- if a tall tree in a forest fell and no one witnessed the event nor the aftermath, did the event occur?

The same question can be asked about a patent application, a manuscript or an avant garde short video that for some reason sat in a corner amidst a pile of junk.







______

Est modus in rebus sunt certi denique fines quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum Goldilocks

Any idiot can paint a picture. It takes genius to sell it.

Reads like a Zen koan -- if a tall tree in a forest fell and no one witnessed the event nor the aftermath, did the event occur?

Yes, I think that is a comparable example. But I think it's if a tree fell in a forest does it make any noise? Or does the noise only exist if we are in the forest to hear the tree fall.

Like beauty, "artistic value" is in the eye of the beholder. Presumably it holds value to the artist, so yes.

...but no-one ever sees it, let's say the artist is poor and he can't afford to find someone to sell it, so it just ends up in some dust-ridden attic or locked away in some basement and no-one ever sees it, no-one ever admires it for its amazing detail, its amazing beautry, does the painting have zero artistic value? Well, doesn't it have artistic value by definition (by premise)? It's the most beautiful painting in the world, after all, unless/until it isn't. (Never mind that it might be possible for there to be such a thing as a most beautiful painting in the world.) Or can it be both? It depends upon how "value" is realized.

it is great

loved Citizen Kane