Companions-in-guilt arguments (CGA's) are arguments in which one thing is shown to share some similarity with another thing. This similarity can then be exploited in a number of ways. A common strategy is to use the similarity to undermine arguments against the existence of an entity. For instance, some philosophers argue that moral reasons would have to be categorical, and that categorical reasons don't exist. Others retort that epistemic reasons are also categorical, but that we cannot reasonably deny their existence. This would undermine categoricity as sufficient ground for rejecting moral reasons too. In metaethics, companions in guilt have so far been sought in epistemic and prudential judgements. Might aesthetic judgements be a further candidate? The aim of this paper is to explore this possibility. The focus will be on judgements of beauty and artistic merit.