A forgery can poses technique, originality (to a point), and aesthetic qualities, what is it that we value about art which makes originality important for evaluative purposes?

There are three qualities which you have described as being important for evaluative purpose, technique, originality, and aesthetic qualities. The question raised brings forth the component of originality. It seems that the originality cannot be to a point, as you state that forgeries are. That is to say that may be what one values it true originality, not originality to a certain extent. Understandably, all artists must first learn technique. This technique is incorporates various traditions, and one must first copy technique in order to eventually move passed it, however the artist does move passed it in order to become original. In Van Meegeren’s case , the composition may be thought of as being original since Vermeer had never come up with it, but it was purposely composed of elements such as those found in Vermeer, so can that then be truly considered original. An original forgery? It all comes back to intention as well since it is an artist intention to create original art, and a forger’s intention, though using the medium of art, has the intention of creating a great forgery. Although, they may be original in a certain regard considering that they have not started from the point of wanting to create art, then they cannot be truly considered artist. In the “Nighthawks” by Edward Hopper, the other works that resemble it, have purposely done so to include the interpretation of the original to be brought into their work. Meaning that they were not attempts to pass as someone else’s work but were meant to incorporate that work’s meaning into the meaning that they wanted for their own work and so the reference to the original is made quite clear.
In regards to art, how does one classify nature, clearly nature in functional, and as far as intention one may need to first consider a divine force in order to follow the question out a bit further, but if one were than where would it fit?

Does art in fact exist independently from humans?
Although we would all agree that we live in a material world, some would argue that in fact we all have our own subjective world, that exists only for us, and in fact we are its creators. While this could lead into a long debate, I would like to take from this the point that art, seems to be just such a notion that is man-created and exists only because and through humans. In fact it is a part of the material world, which by themselves need not to have any aesthetic or philosophic meaning, and it is only the man that gives them just such a meaning. However here, man’s impact could be seen as either one of a creator or of a spectator. Although material parts of our world that had not been created by man, can create aesthetic emotions, one cannot categorize them as art, since art by itself suggests the existence of a message behind it. Therefore man has to contribute as a creator to the work of art in order for it to be art. As for the spectator part, the question becomes as to whether something is a work of art if there is no man to appreciate it, to give it meaning. The trouble begins first when realizing that the creator is also a spectator, so the piece of art has already the meaning attributed to it by the creator/spectator.
However is that enough? Is something still a work of art, if everybody else in the world refuses to see it as such?