Ironically, I read Austin's article expecting to disagree with it and yours expecting to agree with it. I ended up doing the reverse.

I don't think it's fair to judge the success of art by how much it managed to convey its message when it's created. Isn't it common to say artists were "not understood in their time"? In addition, almost every new art movement were, save being accepted and understood, met with opposition, even demonization. I think your way of thinking in the measurement example is one that works for products, not art.

When it comes to subjectivity, sure, nothing is TRULY objective. But when objectivity is mentioned in this context, it's not meant in such extremes. There IS creativity. There IS subjectivity. But there is a methodology that relies on data and it can't exist without that objectivity is the point.

Process also ties in to this. Sure, artists have methods and techniques but that's not what makes or breaks an artist. Those techniques are tools to unleash the creativity within, not different from the brush a painter uses. If we were to dismiss all that, the only art would be one's abstract thoughts. Just because there are similiarities or common points, doesn't mean they are the same. A team leader must also be aware and empathic to lead the team well, that doesn't mean team leading should be considered art.

Overall - pretty much everything you say isn't necessarily wrong but instead of exploring the topic to find truth, you come out as having decided what truth is and you merely tried to find points to justify it.

Art and design are surely very close to each other (more so in certain fields), but I think we can say that they are different. I'd agree if you said "you can't just call design a science" or "you can't just say design isn't creative" but is it art? I think not.

That said - I'm not an expert in either field so I'm merely provoking a conversation and/or relaying personal assertions here.