A Quick Google Search brings up the defition of "AESTHETICS" as:

Assuming this as our working definition, aesthetics have something to do with beauty and artfulness.
To me, those aren't necessarily the same thing. Artistic taste can sometimes lead a designer, musician, artist, to create something which is not necessarily pleasing. It might be ugly, uncomfortable, brash, loud, tempting. It might be a lot of things, but not beautiful. Can it then be assumed that there is a different between beauty and something being beautiful? Is there a difference then between art and beauty?

Heartbreak, in my opinion, is something of beauty. It is raw emotion that shows evidence of something powerful that came before - love.
Is it beautiful?
No.
Anyone who has ever experienced a broken heart can tell you that it is not a beautiful thing at all. Would they take it all back and avoid the heartbreak though? That is not necessarily the case for everyone. So is there then a difference between beauty and beautiful?

Maybe. Maybe when we think of design, that distinction becomes even clearer. Something might be a thing of beauty, but no one in their right mind would call it beautiful. An example would be the "Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima" by Penderecki. This piece is NOT aesthetically pleasing. It is incredibly touching as it moves your soul and makes you feel things. It is, however, not beautiful - AT ALL. Is it a thing of beauty though? I do think so.

Perhaps artfulness is knowing to create a thing of beauty, even from something which is not beautiful. Perhaps the beauty lies in the artfulness itself.