Again, no.
The art is valuable because of many compounding reasons. The interest of rich families, like Guggenheim in New York, creating the modern system of galleries and museums certainly affected the price. But the interest in art of women like Peggy Guggenheim was genuine. She staked huge amount of money in rescuing art from europe during the 30s and 40s for example. That was not a money making scheme, they lost millions on it.
Modern schemes to stake value in art have more to do with Freeports and keeping valuable art outside of taxing jurisdiction. Specially in liquid markets that can be sold in auction and generate cash when needed.
Other schemes are gallery or collectors who have a huge amount of work by one artist and then inflate the price in auction, which is the only visible price marker, to inflate their own collection. There is a famous Warhol collector, who has a shit ton of stuff and will overpay in auction to then sell his own collection privately for the inflated auction price.
Art is much more of a taste signifier than a tax or investment opportunity. There are obviously no downsides for rich people to sell overpriced assets to each other, but the truth is that people will want a Caravaggio or a Rothko in their house and will pay millions for it. With no intention to ever sell them and paying sticker price so no tax breaks at all.