Abstract Art: Why some paintings which mean nothing to most of the people are sold for millions of dollars?

I recently read this news.  Miro's painting sold for $37 million at Sotheby auction
Here's the painting ..

I just want to know what is in this painting that makes it worth $37 millions?

Why are some of the greatest designs like Rolls Royce, Ferrari's, BMWs do not cost even 1 million dollar and a painting which does not mean anything to most people is sold for $37 million?

 Ry Beloin, 

Many answers here stress the scarcity-value relationship, which is true when an item is merely a commodity. I've got a different view to offer about that.

Maybe a $100,000 or $500,000 painting gets its value from scarcity. But I think there is a limit on how much a mere commodity or luxury item can appeal to someone, regardless of their wealth level; I think at some point the appeal would plateau and the price would just stop being worth it.

I think there is another element at play, let's call it a sort of "higher," or even "magical" aspect of these items that fall into the $37 million range. These pieces represent, to those

who may consider themselves culturally elite, an opportunity to take on a sort of 'shamanistic' role. Bear with me one moment and I'll explain.

For example, a Van Gogh is no longer just a painting. It represents not only a firsthand historical perspective, a tangible piece of a real person who lived before, but also the rich and beautiful narrative of a lonely, hurting, and misunderstood man who, in spite of his suffering, created works that express his awe and love of the world around him. In a way, his story represents to us the universal pain of feeling alone and the nobility of seeking beauty. And it heals us to know that others have been there.

That emotional content is something no shiny new BMW could ever contain.

Pieces like that are sort of tokens, touchable symbols of our connection to the past and to each other as people. Even if you don't see the value of that particular piece, someone does; and for them a very real relationship exists between themselves and that item.

So when, say, a multi-billionaire spends many millions on a piece, he probably isn't paying for the fact of having that object like one would acquire a nice watch or a diamond bra. He's purchasing the honor of protecting that historical symbol for future generations. And in return, he is imbued with an almost ritualistic power. As a 'steward and protector' of a cultural symbol his status is magnified. He now has an arguably noble responsibility to the world: keep it safe. And, because the ownership of these items is documented scrupulously by appraisers and art historians, after he is dead he himself will become part of the object's rich history.

Now, I know that sounds a little over-romanticized. But do you see how this reasoning would appeal to a billionaire, if they believe in the cultural value of that particular object?
 -By Ry Beloin