An exceptionally good aesthetic work can stand alone on its own merits as an admirable piece. However, a poorly made philosophical work is unacceptable.
The first work, "I saw the Figure 5 in Gold" is a good example of composition and color. It conveys absolutely no philosophical meaning of and unto itself.
The second work "The Scream" by Edvard Munch is a philosophical disaster displaying the 'artists' ineptitude in all facets of his craft.
? NO GOOD ?
Then why do people say it is good?
What the artist has done and which anyone experienced in art (myself included) can tell is unforgiveable. He has drawn a cartoonish figure - which anyone can do - and given it a psuedo-philosophical meaning by assigning a title to it posterior to its creation. In other words, any drawing whatsoever must look like something ... so why not name it that thing afterward ... thus saving yourself the trouble of having to translate your "idea" into reality.
Now, since screaming is the human thing to do (philosophically speaking - circa dadaism - post WWI), the "cartoon" hits the mark and Mister Munch is the man of the hour (as judged by our wonderful art critics). But no amount of misguided critical praise can elevate a piece of garbage to Louvre status. It can only fake its way if critics convince the public that there exists something within which is admirable ... but not understandable to the average Joe.
An aesthetic work is good if it makes use of all the compositional tools available to the artist.