Old Art

So, in Dublin, I saw some icons at the Chester Beatty library, and I thought "wow, I'm impressed - those are in pretty good condition!" Then I saw that they were made in late 1700s, and I thought "meh." After all, I saw in Sinai an icon in excellent condition that's over 1000 years old, so this was kind of small potatoes. 

I started thinking, why are we impressed by old artwork? Is it because it's old and well-preserved, or because it's impressive that they were able to create something that complicated so long ago? 

If it's the first case, then our amazement shouldn't be limited to just works of art. If we found a really old, well-preserved paper bag, surely that should be just as impressive. The impressive part has little to do with the item itself; it's the effort that was put forth to make sure that item survived substantially longer than it should have. 

If it's the second, then we should be equally impressed by specimens like old computers. Surely, no one would stare in awe if I assembled a Pentium I computer today. However, that was definitely impressive in it's own day and age. The fact that it's not visually appealing shouldn't matter. 

It seems to me that the age of a piece shouldn't matter. But, even in my own mind, it does. I'm not sure how to reconcile the two.