I don't want to argue about this. I too think the art world is a ponzi scheme. But even there, many works "speak to people's emotions" beyond the hype that may or may not have been responsible for you seeing it somewhere.
As for the old masters, basically they were old, working a long time ago. Times were very different. They painted NOT what they felt or even chose to paint.. They painted to eat! They always had a benefactor paying them for each portrait, etc.
It wasn't until centuries later that the leisure classes could paint from the heart. Ironically a large impetus came in the early 19th century with the invention of the camera, and more specifically, film on which to record with photographic realism. That was the painters goal all along, and now painters weren't necessary for realism, or even as good as a camera. Soon after widespread usage of film and prints did Impressionism begin, when an artist could interpret what he say on canvas.
One more thing about the old masters. Many scholars call them that because they had the god given talent to paint so realistically suddenly. Well, did you know they cheated? Just as artists today utilize technology to make their work easier, so did the old masters after the invention of lenses and then the camera obscura. Hockney published an exhaustive study proving the use of lenses so that artists could trace (light box) from real life, then paint on top of the accurate photographic layouts.
Shocking!!!!
There is an element of subterfuge in some sales. Look at the non-completed sales rates in Chinese contemporary art auctions circa 2010-2012 all while record prices were being set. And on the 12 million dollar shark, remember when Hirst's "For the Love of God" sold for a reported 50 million pounds only for it later to be revealed Hirst had essentially sold the work to himself...