Regarding your new definition:
It’s worse than before because you’re defining an object from the point of view of its creation rather than from the point of view of its use. This is a sloppy abstraction work – you need to learn how to abstract properly. In order to make my post more effective, it would be desirable to explain the concept of abstraction and why we can only ever deal with abstractions (i.e. that nothing in reality is concrete in the strict sense of the word) but that’s a lot of work for now, so I’ll skip it.
When defining an object you want to define it from the point of view of its use, meaning that, you want to ignore all information that is irrelevant to its use (i.e. information that could take any form and would have absolutely no impact on how we use it.) The same object can be created and implemented in a billion of different ways. For example, a Mona Lisa would remain Mona Lisa no matter whether it was created by pure chance, by a man who wanted to have a photo of his girlfriend, a man who wanted to earn money, a man who wanted his paintings to be used as an educational tool, or by a brute-force algorithm that outputs every possible variation of a 1920x1080 bitmap. It also does not matter whether it was implemented as a painting on a canvas, a painting on a wall, a bitmap on a computer monitor, as a pill that makes you hallucinate standing in front of Mona Lisa, or as a chip that you insert inside your brain to process various digital data. The only thing that matters is THE WAY IT IS USED AND FOR WHAT PURPOSES IT IS USED. And as I’ve explained elsewhere, a work of art is a simulated world the purpose of which is to relax. Nothing else.
So we’re back to your earlier definition which is “art is what is aesthetically appealing” which literally includes everything that is aesthetically appealing, including girls right?