Rembrant and the agument of the value in art

Here is a post in one of my new found art blogs that I posted about recently. After reading the post, looking at the picture and then reading the comments, I started to think, 'well this is very interesting'.

It's an argument (all though I'm not sure what side of the argument I'm on at the best of times) that I often have, sometimes just with myself if necessary. The argument is about the value of art and where it derives from. In this particular instance linked to above a painting of Rembrandt that experts have decided is not a self portrait by him, but rather a painting of him by one of his students has just sold for US$4.5 million instead of the predicted US$3,000 that would have been more appropriate of a painting of Rembrandt. So then the article and comments go on about how perhaps this buyer knew something no one else did, as a real Rembrandt can and does sell for US$25 million, in which case he got a bargain. And they say how it does look very much like a Rembrandt...

Well, this is the point of question for me. Should an art piece be worth something for who it is by or for its quality? If this painting was of a quality that it was almost impossible to tell that it wasn't a Rembrandt, then should it not be worth the same as Rembrandt? For what is it that made Rembrandt’s worth so much in the beginning, his talent, style etc?

The other side of the argument is of course that Rembrandt was the creative genus behind the style, and the copier of that style was just a copier. And of course the fame side of things comes in to play too; after all, most people would rather have a date with a famous person rather than someone that just looks like a famous person.

In reality, I would much rather have a real Rembrandt rather than a copy of a Rembrandt, but isn't it interesting, how much value we can put onto something and why!