I think that if "looks" were the deciding factor, most all might agree that high-end quilt or flamed figured guitars are most desirable, because they hold a certain place in our hearts for beauty. What do you look for in a guitar?
Most true guitarists know that looks alone do not decide whether a guitar will have good tone, feel, vibe, etc. But it might be a forgone conclusion that high-end instruments already have the tone, feel, and vibe thing covered. Beauty, or "good looks" is obviously more than skin deep.
I think looks do play a big part. Its what attracts you to a guitar in the first instance. What someone considers 'beautiful' in a guitars aesthetic though isn't necessarily what another likes. Some of that may well be influenced by your upbringing, the instruments of your favourite artists etc, your favourite colour(s), your favourite shapes etc etc. Even the 'relic' look isn't necessarily just about the 'feel' either.
It starts the minute you walk into a shop and see a vast array of guitars - different shapes, colours etc. You aren't going to make a beeline for a guitar that to you looks 'ugly' for whatever reason. It may depend on the instrument, the brand etc that you may find that a certain aesthetic looks right on one but not right on another - even if its the same finish/colour/style. Some may prefer the more vintage bursts on instruments that are more vintage or vintage inspired. What looks gaudy, out of place on a vintage style instrument can look right on a modern instrument. For example, the Jem Swirls or Neon colours may look right on that instrument but completely wrong on a LP style single cut.
There are instruments to that I really find aesthetically pleasing but not sure if they would be comfortable to play. Some may well be built to show of some craftsmanship more than actually for playing and whilst they maybe 'playable', they are not comfortable or the easiest to play. It doesn't stop them looking great and being a 'high end' guitar from its price point perspective. What this proves is that high end aesthetically pleasing guitars are not always great from a tonal or playable perspective.
What one person considers attractive another does not. As a PRS owner, I do love the flame/quilt tops but I also have a 'dislike' for certain colours - Blue especially. I am not a fan of guitars that cover up the natural beauty of wood with solid colour - inc Gold Tops. Some combinations of colours and/or patterns can look 'bad' to me. I have said before that I really dislike the brightly coloured flame back plates hideous on a plain back - something you see in Private Stock and you don't get more high-end than that. Its clear that some people love it though otherwise it wouldn't keep cropping up on builds but that illustrates my point about what people consider aesthetically pleasing.
It isn't just colour though as some find anything 'strat like' with a 3+3 headstock as looking 'wrong', looking 'ugly'. The headstock shape matters - look at Epiphone vs Gibson headstock shapes and the amount of people that consider Epiphones Headstock as ugly too - its not about functionality, tonality and playability here - its enough to put some people off from buying. Whether some reasons for buying or not buying may seem trivial to some, I bet in a lot of cases, aesthetics/image play a part.
I am a classic case of aesthetics influencing my decision to buy guitars - maybe more extreme than a LOT of people and I couldn't care less if people think I am 'unreasonable' when it comes to some of my purchasing decisions. I certainly wouldn't buy the 'best' playing, sounding guitar if it doesn't appeal aesthetically. My guitar collection is very 'narrow' aesthetically with 4 of my PRS guitars (would have been 5 if I had my first choice), all looking remarkably similar - all double cut PRS guitars in Fire Red Burst and even the Charcoal Cherry Burst has a 'red' edge and another DC shape too. I don't care if certain guitars have something I can't get with my range of PRS Guitars or a blue PRS is better than my Red one - if I don't like the look of it, then why would I want to pick it up and play it? Especially when you look at my collection of guitars - its not that these are lacking in playability or tonal quality so what can a guitar that I don't particularly like the look of offer over these - not that I would ever find out because I wouldn't pick it up in the first place let alone buy.
Point is, aesthetics do matter but, as people are very different, the amount of influence that aesthetics have as well as 'tastes' are also very different. What I consider 'ugly' another may love, what colour(s) I like, another may hate, what shapes I would consider, another won't. Also some may have a a much broader colour palette, shape, style etc etc than I do as well - but I am certain that aesthetics play a part in their decision making. With 'High end' guitars - like PRS - you maybe able to put much more of your aesthetic preferences into the decision making because build quality, playability and tonal quality are consistent enabling you to pick the colour you really want. With low/medium or even brand inconsistencies, you may have to compromise a bit more on aesthetics because the 'colour' you prefer doesn't meet the quality or playability of a different coloured version.
If I walk into a shop, and the best guitar (tonally and playability) in the shop is also the most unattractive, I would never pick it up and try it to find out if its the best. If I had to buy that day, the guitar I would walk out with is the 'best' out of the guitars that I like aesthetically - if that's the best, double humbucker, set neck and/or Red guitar, then so be it but I wouldn't even try any guitars I didn't like the look of and I would be surprised if others would try guitars that they don't like the look of just to find the 'best' sounding/playable guitar in the shop.