I just meant that there is much more to aesthetics than a theory of values. In my reading of Kant's Critique of Judgement, the intellectual architecture he constructed had a slot for ethical judgements and filled it with "good," reflecting the logic or the Critique of Pure Reason where "true" filled that slot. Since there were still some spare parts lying around the intellectual construction site, he went ahead constructing the architecture of aesthetic judgment and filled the payoff slot with "beautiful."

Since, then, many philosophers and art critics have been sidetracked into a hunt for the beautiful red herring. Other than Santayana, none of found anything worth while, in my opinion.

Ingarden is one of the thinkers I would use as example of someone doing traditional aesthetics where questions of value theory don't get much attention (I'm going by memory--I haven't opened Ingarden in 40 years). Yet his contributions, such as the ability of literature to produce "metaphysical" qualities, are quite interesting. And your interest, the ontology of aesthetic qualties (or "values," same thing), is pretty central to our common pursuit these days of an understanding of how the brain constructs the model we label "reality."