In classical times, the Romans seized upon the Greeks' study of aesthetics, however, in typical Roman fashion, they didn't use it as a field of inquiry for themselves, but rather, accepted Greek standards of aesthetics, and made their own art fit that mold. Put another way, the Romans adopted the form of Greek aesthetics, but not its substance. (This was certainly not the only aspect of Hellenistic culture that they did this to!)
In the western part of the Empire, however, culture collapsed, following the political collapse of Rome. Aesthetics took a back seat, as a "dark age" dawned, in which technology, communication, and intellectualism all reverted nearly to pre-civilized standards. While intellectualism didn't entirely die, it was focused primarily on agriculture and theology; other fields of inquiry suffered.
Investigation of aesthetics wasn't revived, until the Age of Enlightenment, in the early 17th century. By this time, "the classics" — that is, Roman and Greek classic literature — were well-known, and the same issues that Greco-Roman philosophers and scholars had considered, were pursued once more.
Beginning in the early 20th century, aesthetics was taken less seriously as a philosophical field. Aesthetic standards became the venue of art, rather than philosophy.
Many Greek philosophers averred that beauty is somehow inherent, and they supposed that their own cultural standards of beauty, were the definition of beauty. A few, however, followed an interpretive model, and this model persisted as a minority view, until the Age of Enlightenment.
The interpretive model became accepted, due to the fact that Enlightenment scholars — having at hand the accounts of other cultures, both current and historical — realized that notions of beauty varied a good deal. This wide variety strongly suggested that beauty is interpretive, and this became the prevailing view, by Victorian times.
Art of any sort is, primarily, an attempt to communicate. This communicative aspect can be subtle, or even shallow, or it can be obvious. The current debate is whether or not the "beauty" of an artwork has anything to do with the message being communicated.
Some claim that art can have beauty, or not, independent of its message. Others claim that the message, being a part of the work of art, must contribute, at least a little, to its beauty (or lack thereof).
At the same time, there are artists who reject the communicative aspect of art, completely. They believe that art is art, period, and need not be an attempt to communicate. The earliest abstract artists held this opinion; for them, abstract art was a way to prove this point. Since then, however, the majority of artists have rejected this idea, although abstract art is still going strong.
Many critics have complained about this situation, for decades, but it has persisted, and it probably will persist, for as long as these things are commercial endeavors. The real problem, however, is not just that "art" has been commercialized, but that the general population has accepted this, and cannot discriminate between what is commercial and what is true art. People no longer have the patience to examine what they read, see, and hear, for the message it conveys (or doesn't).
It's all too common, for example, for song lyrics to be simple gibberish — words or phrases stuck together, which mean nothing, but suffice as a "framework" on which to build a song. All too often, they don't even rhyme properly!
The pervasive "loss of meaning" in western culture will continue, until it is reversed; this will require us to educate our children in aesthetics and art, so that they can discover, for themselves, beauty and meaning in things.