A few years back, I was in a modern art museum and saw this painting by Russian Suprematist artist Kazimir Malevich:
It seems to me that the value of this painting lies completely in the identity of its creator and the context of its creation. Technically speaking, a complete amateur like myself, or even a young school child would easily be able to produce the same painting. Yet if that had been the case, no modern art museum would be showing it, and people wouldn't be paying money to see it.
To give another extreme example: A nude picture or painting of Kim Kardashian would be softcore pornography, but a nude picture or painting of a similar looking Saudi or Iranian woman would be subversive, radical, revolutionary, and definitely worthy of our attention.
In both examples, the context in which the art work was created is what determined its value, not the actual content of the work.
Is there any way of determining the inherent value of a piece of art, regardless of how it was produced or who produced it? Or is art always dependent on the context in which it is produced?