compulsion is not caring, yes. i'm talking about the opposite: the missing album from a favourite artist; the final book in a series; an artist's early work that is referenced later on.
it *is* possible to miss something never had, just as it's possible to miss something lost and half-remembered. the pain of losing a loved one is waking up in the middle of the night to an empty bed and realising you can't remember his scent, the shape of his hands, the flecks in his eyes.
information should be held sacrosanct, because it's all we have. and it cannot exist in a vacuum. at the risk of being a meme, すべて、繋がっています。 western lit cannot be fully appreciated without a background in greek and roman mythology, and the more of an artists work a viewer consumes, the more related information is found, the closer that viewer comes both to the artist and to any others who have done the same. people form these relationships with every bit of information they encounter, the difference being only a matter of degree. what for you is a casual whim, an inspected briefly and tossed aside, is for others much more deeply integrated.
and yes, that which is "never had" can be missed just the same, for a hole is defined by the pieces that surround it, and a hole is a hole, regardless of whether it was once filled. the larger the hole, the more deeply integrated its surroundings are, the more its absence is missed. the pain felt when denied access to an artwork by somebody you've grown up with, whose work is a lasting presence in your life, is, though on a smaller scale, the same pain felt when losing a life partner, and, for many, such one-sided relationships are all they have. so yes, it does matter, and no, another fish won't always do. if even one person needs that piece to fill a hole, it's a thing worth doing.