At a rather utilitarian level, one wouldn't consider a spoon exactly the same way whether it was: 1) carved out of wood by someone you can relate to (by history, reasons, knowledge); as a unique piece, or part of a series; 2) or built in a factory, by workers; and available in the same fashion in X instances; 3) or built in a factory by robots; and available as an exact copy in X instances; 4) or a pure unique artefact that got the practical shape of a spoon.
And that would be for a spoon only.
I am of the school of thought that one doesn't make art without the intent of communicating/transmiting (it/through it) with other people, however remote/intimate it can be. If only because one cannot live alone.
In this line, whatever pleasing something can be, if there's no transmission/communication/need/desire behind the creation of it, if there is no social reason behind it, it has no resonance, no affect to me that makes me actually relate to it (and to the person that thought of it, fell on it, carved it in their words, sounds, silences, colors, shapes, steps, etc.).
To me, whatever the artist intent was, when anything is done, it is done by someone - this someone cared, if only enough to make it, and that way attached something to their work.
That is something I can try to relate to (to the product itself, and to the intent perhaps).
When something is produced by a system, there still may be the intent of the person(s) that designed this system. But it may also be totally independant of the designers scope. That is interesting also, as pure rough material.
But it isn't remotely as profound, interesting, human as something that is done by someone real.