Do works of art and essays have value in themselves or do they only acquire value after they gain recognition form third parties?

Let me start with an example. Consider for a minute Thomas Hobbes' Magnum Ops The Leviathan. His most famous work is widely considered to be a master piece of Western Philosophy and one of the most important essays ever written on the topic of Political Philosophy. The recognition it enjoys comes from academic philosophers around the world ho make sure that the work is constantly discussed, debated and thought to philosophy studenDivine Comedy, of which the same things could be said, except in the field of literature instead of philosophy. Thirdly, consider Leonardo da Vinci's most famous painting, the Mona Lisa. Every day thousands of people pay good money and stand in a big line just to be able to look for some instants at da Vinci's centenary creation. It is praised by many as one of the landmarks of painting and is one of the most famous work of art of all time. You can probably find a copy of it in almost every introduction to art history book ever published.

ts. Now consider Dante's

            One of the things these three works have in common is that they all enjoy nearly universal levels of recognition in their respective fields. They are celebrated to the extent that for someone to say that they are not as good as most people say they are sounds like sacrilege. Now imagine for an instant that none of these three works ever came to public knowledge. That, in an alternative version of history, Thomas Hobbes' died before he was able to publish The Leviathan, that Dante's enemies managed to prevent the publication of his work and that the Mona Lisa was bought by a private collector and kept inside of a mansion away from the sights of the outside world until now. In this alternative version of history, none of these three masterpieces ever got any recognition whatsoever. They were produced and then forgotten, like it happens to so many other works, less fortunate than these ones. One must wonder then if, deprived from recognition, the three works could still be considered as universal master pieces. In other words, would they still have the same intrinsic value?

            I believe they would have the same intrinsic value, even though they wouldn't have the same monetary value or the same value of public recognition. Yet none of these things seem to be intrinsically necessary for a work of art or an essay to have genuine value, a type of value that exists in itself, independent of third party recognition. After all, a work of philosophy's true purpose should be to shed light into difficult questions, and it could still do this without ever attaining recognition by a considerable number of people. Similarly, Dante's Divine Comedy and Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa succeed in invoking different kinds of beauty, literary and visual, regardless of the fact of being read or seen by a number of people. They are beautiful, even if no one reads or sees them, the same way a splendid looking flower can be marvelously beautiful even if its hidden somewhere in the deeps of the Amazon jungle or a woman might be beautiful even if she is hidden under a veil. The woman in the example doesn't cease to be beautiful just because her beauty is hidden beneath a veil. Her beauty is not attained when the veil is lifted, since it was there all along. The same exact thing could be said about the Mona Lisa or the Divine Comedy. Even if people couldn't see the Mona Lisa because it was hidden in a private mansion, that doesn't mean that the Mona Lisa would stop to be beautiful. Likewise, if the Divine Comedy was hidden from public knowledge by Dante's enemies, that wouldn't mean that it was any less accomplished as a work of art. And if the public suddenly discovered these works of art the recognition wouldn't confer them value, rather, their value would simply become apparent for the first time to the general public.   

            It seems then that it is reasonable to claim that there is such a thing as an intrinsic value to works of art and essays, that is independent from the recognition conferred upon them by the public. In the case of works of art this inherent quality might be associated with beauty, whereas in the case of essays it could be associated with truth or knowledge.

As a conclusion, even if it had never been read by anyone but the writer, Thomas Hobbes' The Leviathan would still be his Magnum Ops. Even if the verses of the Divine Comedy had never become globally celebrated, it would still be just as good as a work of literature. And if the Mona Lisa hadn't found its place in the world, being viewed by millions every year, it would still be just as beautiful and thus just as inherently valuable.

            As a final note, I must add that even in spite of the conclusions put forward by this essay, it must be acknowledged that the reach and level of recognition of a work of art or essay can produce certain results that would not happen if that work remained unknown. In other words, a great work can produce a legacy that necessarily relies on its recognition and the impact it has on society. For example, Hobbes' Leviathan was instrumental in creating a whole current in political philosophy. Dante's Divine Comedy on the other hand had an important contribution to the formation of the Italian language, just like William Shakespeare's body of work did for the English language. Another good example is Marx work that ultimately had a big impact on the geo-politics of the twenty first century, which wouldn't have happened if it had remained confined to a small circle of people. Widespread reach and recognition can thus produce a legacy for the work of art or philosophy that would otherwise never come into existence.

Yet even in spite of this  fact it should not be forgotten that the intrinsic value of any work is not dependent on anyone or anything but itself.