"Aesthetic Objects" and "Art Objects"

I would like to present, for your rational evaluation, a theory I have developed concerning "art objects" and "aesthetic objects."

An "aesthetic object" is any object which elicits an aesthetic, or emotional, response from the viewer.

An "art object" is an object created by a human being with the intention to elicit an aesthetic, or emotional, response from the viewer.

Under this theory, "art objects" is a sub-category of the larger category of "aesthetic objects." The implication is that, first and foremost, for an object to be considered an "art object," it must first pass the test of "aesthetic object." If the object in question does not elicit an emotional response from the viewer, it has failed as art, and therefore IS NOT art, regardless of the intentions of the creator.

Only when an art object passes the test of being an "aesthetic object," thus showing it possesses aesthetic qualities, can we then evaluate the work's merit as an "art object," which would include such aspects as the artist's intention, the technique, the originality of the piece, authenticity, etc. Key here is that high AESTHETIC merit does not necessarily translate in to high ARTISTIC merit. Thus, under this construction, a forgery can have equal aesthetic merit to the original which was copied, but the forgery would have significantly lower artistic value.

To be explicit with my ending question: What do you think of this construction? Does it have merit?