This is they key question here. Consider looking beyond the present, and especially beyond Europe/USA. Different cultures have had different definitions of what's desirable. As others have mentioned, there definitely are certain rules for what is pleasing to the eye. And yet there are so many different ways of applying these!
Also, there has always been a divide between "high" and "vulgar" art. What the elite enjoys has always been different from the taste and needs of the masses. Like Noh and Kabuki for instance - the former was the "high" art, the latter "vulgar"!
So, looking beyond our Eurocentric present at paintings of different times and places:
The Pharaohs received the greatest their culture had to offer (who was going to deny them?) - and those murals looked essentially the same over centuries! So this clearly was the preferred aesthetics of the Egyptian elite (because they paid for it). (more here)
Is it hyperrealism? Of course not! There's not a shred of 3D space in it! Is it fantastic? You bet it is.
Next, pre-columbian, a mural of a goddess in the Valley of Mexico:
This is sheer excellence. And still, it's nowhere near a photograph - that's precisely what makes it great! (Let's just ignore that this specific religion demanded human sacrifice.)
And for good measure I'm throwing in this 16th century monochrome sliding door painting by Kanou Eitoku:
I think it speaks for itself (and you know what point I'm trying to make by now).
A culture's aesthetic is influenced by so many different factors, such as materials available, what's necessary for survival, climate, social structures, what the rich people want to express or achieve, social and political circumstances, religion... So in fifty years hyperrealism might very well be sneered at as a symbol of the loss of creativity and the takeover of technology. Or it's hailed as the next level of art which was only achievable through mankind's technological evolution or whatever. Who knows.
So, TLDR: NO.