Just remember that an electric lives or dies by its aesthetics. The Telecaster is a weird exception because it was the first mass-production solid-body, and people were fond of it by the time prettier guitars came along. If the Tele had never existed, and someone built one now, it would go nowhere.
I sort of agree but also personally consider a Les Paul to look like the leg on an old piano. Both guitars have got, in their standard and original forms, a unique sound. Does that not count for more than the looks? Talented players will go for the sound and ease of playing rather than the looks and they are the guys that others try to emulate - The Tele, Strat and Precision were all considered to be 'far out' when they came out but it was their playablity and sound that made them acceptable.
The sound would be the only thing to regard if looks wasn't a factor at all, for studio musicians this probably is true. If however, you want to perform and become a successful gigging outfit, lots of little details together makes up the image. The guitar's look is one of these details. So its not a make or break thing but it will stand out if it doesn't fit the rest of the look. A red 335, for instance, would look out of place at a death metal gig and so would a black, spiky guitar with skulls at a jazz gig.
Similarly, people don't always know why something looks wrong but they know it does and people have been looking at Teles, strats and Les Pauls and 335s for an awefully long time and those guitars (not the Tele) are pretty well thought out in terms of aesthetics. If you get it wrong badly enough, your audience will likely notice but may not know exactly what. Don't want to break that 4th wall for no reason.