Art requires inauthenticity just like wealth requires poverty.
The issue is that wealth and all associated power is of necessity a narrowly-focused exclusive, dissipative system that, like a tornado, maintains coherence and continuity through offsetting its own cost and entropy to an environment composed of poverty and disempowered, disenfranchised multitudes. Wealth foundationally depends upon the existence of a poverty that it creates. You are unlikely to encounter that fact in any political science or economics textbooks at University.
In regards to art, again, the notionally beautiful or valuable is only what it is in distinction to what is not – by some relatively arbitrary definition – considered valuable. It is quite probable that the accumulation of value as aesthetic merit both relies upon and inadvertently constructs the less valuable and more common objects we experience. Notice, also, that any object can be asserted as a “work of art” and this, if nothing else, indicates precisely the contingency and ultimately fictional essence of all narratives or systems of value.
The irony here is that value asserts interest, significance and presence in direct and inverse measure to the extent to which it itself – and inversely so – depends upon the commonplace and uninteresting. This means that what is interesting about art is a function of the displaced interest that it has in the continuing devaluation of the commonplace, the uninteresting. This also means that the uninteresting is interesting to art as being that distributed fact and counterfactual upon which it depends.
To extend the symmetries (and logical consequences) here – the “value” of wealth is counter-intuitively stored in poverty, as a semiotic and as a causal property.