That's a post-modern/materialist/rationalist philosophical take, but I don't think that is the major historical view. Does Beauty have intrinsic value? I suspect that many people go to art museums to see Beauty, but they certainly don't go there to find out how good of a salesman the artists were [a) the original prices are rarely displayed, b) the museum did not usually buy directly from the artist]. Some people might go to see what historical people thought was art-worthy (filtered through the museum's view of what is worth buying/displaying); an art-historian approach. Others in the field might go to explore the craftsmanship. But I think Beauty is a large draw. And the exchange of Beauty for (often) artificial meaning in modern art is why it remains controversial for museum-goers today.