I think I've seen discussions about this before, and obviously the USSR produced art because we still see statues of Lenin today. But how does this translate in modern times with the instance of obscure art or other modern art? Often the purpose of that art is to explicitly go against societal norms for aesthetics.
At the time, the banana was a pretty solid statement. It's if anything an indicator of its influence that it seems to banal. I don't know if its price being so inflated was due to just having the value of notoriety (social utilities are use values) or more money-laundering.
But my point was that I was talking about art that you'd respect, because those paintings might be cool and worthwhile, but that doesn't mean they're "really" worth $20M, which is a crude way of saying that their use value is extremely socially-grounded, whether by laundering, getting some immediate use out of having something famous (impressing clients, running a museum), or because its fame will be good for speculation (speculation itself is not reflective of use value, but the fame that is the basis for the speculation is, like how houses have a use value that is, along with certain other material and social factors, the basis for its value in speculation).