There’s a funny thing about art: Sometimes it’s hard to distinguish what is art and what is not. Some people declare things to be art that are not made with an artificial intention.
That’s why some people look at old stuff just in regard to their beautiness. This can be strange to those that define objects as art just if there’s a potentially known, really existent artist and not just a technically interested artificier.
But if you’re refering to objects as aesthetical just by the way you look at them, it’s sometimes quite irritating. And so things become objects of artificial analysis that used to have a different function.
This seems to have happend to Peter Armado as well: