Oh look another ad hominem. And you won’t address the point.
Face it, there is not an artist in history, good bad or otherwise, going all the way back to the caves of Altamira, that wouldn’t have mass produced if the technology was available, that wouldn’t have done book covers if they were available, that wouldn’t have done album covers if they were available. And dismissing something as “not fine art” because of any of that is simply crap. And the very fact that you won’t even TRY to address it shows YOU KNOW YOU’RE WRONG.
You are most manifestly incorrect. The more common a product is, the less its value. That is basic economics. Artists, and more importantly their patrons or purchasers, value the one-of-a-kind pieces of art and use them as investments. The more singular or rare a piece from a recognized artist, the greater its value. The more a piece is reproduced, combined with the low-quallity materials used in mass production, the less its value.
It's true that museums may make notecards and calendar pages out of some of their famous works that are in the public domain, but for contemporary works must have permission of the artist or his agent due to copyright and other rights. So, as with your knowledge of art, your knowledge of the investment value of fine art is lacking, but it doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth from emotion and opinion rather than fact.
This is a conservative forum. Changing the definition of words, sneering at well-earned knowledge as "elitism" and insisting that one's emotions are truth is a leftist tactic. Check yourself.