If a painter paints the most beautiful painting in the world...
...but no-one ever sees it, let's say the artist is poor and he can't afford to find someone to sell it, so it just ends up in some dust-ridden attic or locked away in some basement and no-one ever sees it, no-one ever admires it for its amazing detail, its amazing beautry, does the painting have zero artistic value?
Imagine Orson Welles made Citizen Kane but there was a big dispute with the studio over its release. Orson Welles refused to release it. The studio agreed to Welles' demand because they couldn't stand dealing with him. The film is never shown to the public.
Does that make Citizen Kane a great film or a film with zero artistic worth? Can Citizen Kane - if it were never shown to anyone - still exist as a great film? Just because no-one saw it doesn't mean it isn't great, right? It can exist as great without anyone knowing it's great? Or does Citizen Kane need to be seen by many people for it to be given validation?
Look at it the other way, you never see Citizen Kane. It's not great to you, you've never seen it. Imagine if everyone else felt the same way so the logical conclusion is Citizen Kane can't be great. But if it were shown to millions of people they may think "Citizen Kane is great, a landmark film, one of the best ever!" Citizen Kane was great *before* people saw it? Or was it great *after* people saw it?
Perhaps the true answer is Citizen Kane isn't great at all. It just exists and has no intrinsic value at all. It just exists. If you see it you think it's great, if you never see it it's not great. But beyond that "yes I've seen it" or "no, I've not seen it!" it has no value at all?