Abstract art fails both of those definitions but (hopefully) conveys beauty.
This is kind of a wild thing to assert. I get that abstract art isn't for everyone, and not everyone is going to feel moved by the same things, but abstract art isn't just about conveying some sense of beauty (which, not for nothing is an aesthetic thing). More often than not, abstract artists are using their artistry to convey an emotion or elicit an emotional response.
Furthermore, I believe that crafts can be learned while art cannot -- art is subjective and inherent, whereas crafts are just practical skills that use whatever someone's artistry is.
Kinda disagree with this assessment as well. "Creativity" might not be something one can learn, but no one just sort of innately knows how to create their art. Obviously, much will depend on the form in question, but arguably most artistic forms do require years and years of study and practice. Novels, cinema, poetry, painting, architecture: all forms of art that people ultimately have to learn.
Simple aesthetics (like a well-designed room layout) are a practice of craft and do not attempt to communicate/express/evoke anything.
I'd maybe take the weird position of, all aesthetics are ultimately attempting to evoke something. Not everything is super deep or anything, but I mean, why would you care at all about the aesthetics of your living room if said aesthetics didn't bring you a sense of comfort or calmness?