Relevance over quality... even in 'art'

Regular participants in the conversation of this blog will know I'm an advocate of the idea of relevance over quality.
I'm seeing example after example, lining up to make the point. The latest? Art.
What is defined as great art is generally reflected (in the end) by its market value. And that's how a very few super-rich individuals select the art they hang in their homes.
The rest of us... well there's a minority who like to think of themselves as in some way cultured, having a superior aesthetic eye... or who just plain follow the money (ie the mass media model, lowest common denominator... Claude Monet's Lillies if you will) have reproductions of 'great' (ie high market value) art peppering their homes.

Some prefer to buy originals. I like to if I can afford them.

But over-riding all considerations in my home is relevance.

All of the original art in my home is very relevant to me - collected on travels, as reminders of particular places or important moments in our lives - much like family photographs.

The 'art' may not have 'quality' as measured by market value, but its 'sentimental value' (ie its relevance to us) is much, much more important to us.

How does that play out in your home - and what do you think that means for our consumption of all 'content' types?