But I see a fundamental difference that is based on a non-intelligential argument.

First of all there’s the awe of the rich and famous that is present not only in the art world but is found in the entertainment world, the business world, the academic world, etc. People who are labeled as famous do garner attention which is often far in excess of their accomplishments. And this would extend to deeds (including paintings) performed by the rich and famous.

Relative to how a painting is made, there is the depth of investigation one commits to regarding observations they make. An understanding of the details of the techniques used in the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge will inevitably raise one’s appreciation of the structure, but I’m certain relatively few have spent the time to thoroughly research those details of the bridge. Similarly, taking the effort to raise one’s awareness as to the specifics of how a painting is made will doubtless improve the experience of viewing that painting; but, again only a small portion of the public will have taken the time to do so. It’s not a matter of indifference but rather more of time constraints given the wide variety of interests any one person has. [OK, laziness could possibly be another factor here.]

Other than those educated in the fine arts, generally one depends on museum curators and art critics to highlight the paintings painted by “famous” painters and to point out paintings that have particular unique appearance based on how they were made.

Of course, since ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder,’ an individual can very well treasure a painting which is not widely recognized or officially deemed as being famous.