value determined in art and misunderstood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist_%28film%29

http://www.cremaster.net/

Mathew Barney limits his movies to numbered custom dvd which creates a specific value inherent in rarity and would prevent him from latter mass producing his movies on dvd to allow anyone to watch them. But the value of Lars Von Trier's "The Antichrist" is that it is available for anyone on netflix to watch instantly. The message i get from the antichrist is so fucked up and wonderful that knowing how easily accessible it is for people to watch i enjoy it even more. as a work of art its ability to be so easily accessed compliments the difficulty of watching the horrific scenes. while Mathew Barney reduces that same medium to the limited supply and demand relationship of most sculptural work and the practice of art that is not meant to be digested by the masses. it losses its social value and any possible cultural relevance by the intellectual value it utilizes. at some point im hoping the word value will lose whatever value it may have had towards making my point. not that i remember what point that was. Value itself seems to be the misunderstood term here seeing as how I'm lacking any proper disambiguation i will have to stop.