Jog on, Socrates. Prices in the art world are presently distorted because of astonishing levels of wealth concentration. But basically yes, reproductions are perfectly fine - although an actual high-fidelity reproduction will set you back quite a bit. My comment really wasn't directed to the Renoirs or the Van Goghs, though. I was thinking more of the many artists you'd never even hear of whose paintings sell for multiple thousand $'s in any of your local art galleries (assuming you live in a large-ish city) and aren't well-known enough to even give rise to reproductions.

I think the parent actually agrees with you and so do I. Art has value in and of itself in that it conveys an emotion, idea, or context. It can also have value through artistry; how difficult it was to create or how novel it is. That value exists whether the work is one of one or whether it is one of two hundred million. A collectible meanwhile does not have much inherent value (like the hat) and derives most of its value from being rare. If it wasn't rare, it would be substantially less valuable and potentially irrelevant. As you point out, those things are not mutually exclusive and you can certainly have art that is also a collectible.

Imagine trying to explain to people how your cheap hat from a meme scam festival that nobody will remember in five years is a piece of art. They would - at most - nod tolerantly as you bring up Duchamp, their eyes presumably then drifting over to your extensive & expensive funko pop collection.

I think you misread my post.