I'm always bemused that art aficionados seems to care much more about provenance and prestige than about the art itself. Whether this piece was made by a revered master or a no-name should have no bearing on whether it's "clunky" or "exquisite."
If it's a copy rather than a wholly original work, I can see that affecting the perception of its uniqueness, at least. But I've seen discussion of "rediscovered" paintings from masters that are worthless if they turn out to have been original work from a different artist, even though the quality was good enough to fool professional appraisers.
If it's a copy rather than a wholly original work, I can see that affecting the perception of its uniqueness, at least. But I've seen discussion of "rediscovered" paintings from masters that are worthless if they turn out to have been original work from a different artist, even though the quality was good enough to fool professional appraisers.