*'Sadly, I must admit that Damien Hirst is an artist. That's not to say that we can't discuss the merrits of art, it just means that we have to discuss it in the right context relevant to it.

Keeping with the example of Hirst. With conceptual art, what matters is not the aesthetics, nor the practical tallents of the artists (most of them don't pickle their own sharks!). What matters is the idea behind it and how it is conveyed.'

*Why 'Sadly' admit Damien is an artist? Most art deals with concepts, as bound in the language of whatever medium is being used. Even if the artist attempts to escape the infusion of meaning in their work through the use of some random technique of production, they cannot escape the meaning inferred by the viewer. Art is a two way thing really. Take a medium like literature where concepts are absolutely key to the conveying of ideas and imagery.
Aesthietics is a similar beast in my mind. If one seeks to study or appreciate the 'beauty' of whatever you are viewing, you will find some avenue of percieving it - even if it is an affermation that something is 'not beautiful'. This is true of a Poser image as much as of a canvass in a gallery or a transient installation in the environment.
Personally I think Damien Hisrt's shark was considered aesthetically by the artist when he chose to make that particular work. I can't help thinking that aesthetics was a fundamental consideration to it's success as a work of art in fact. If you had a chance to see it when it was a new work, it was hard not to appreciate the awesome beauty of what was in front of you.
I think only the openness (or lack of it) of both artists and viewers alike of that which challenges their constructs or internal definitions of what is 'permitted' to be 'worthy' of artistic merit is the issue here.
That's what some of the 'better' (toungue in cheek here) artists seek to challenge at times IMO.

 

PoserPro2014(Sr4), Win7 x64, display units set to inches.

                                      www.danielroseartnew.weebly.com