Which means that only aesthetic considerations affect it.
And that means that:
1. Historical significance is a moot point. However ground-breaking a work was, we are allowed to give it a gimlet eye and say, "Nope, that's not a good use of that technique or other thingee." Or even "That's a crashingly bad piece of work that was running purely on novelty power." Just because some works are both ground-breaking and masterpieces, and other works are both ground-breaking and competent does not mean that any ground-breaking work must have any inherent goodness.
Young idiots who think the earlier work is the derivative one are, of course, young idiots, but they aren't making an aesthetic claim, only a historical one.
2. Author's intentions are a moot point. If you change a book into a movie and alter something because you think it unsuitable for the target audience of children -- if it introduces an aesthetic flaw, you have made the movie worse. And the same goes for any other agenda. They are not defenses of aesthetic flaws.
grumble, grumble, grump