I know I tend to write long answers. I can't help it.

Art stands alone as a creative expression independent of purpose

That is not what makes creative expression art though. Creative expression without purpose can be art, but the same WITH purpose does not make it design. Purpose is not what differentiates design from art.

Art is about the Artist. Design is about the User.

When EA decided to consciously design their Game in a way that leads to paywalls, they were not thinking about the user. They were purely thinking about themselves. In this context, they are the artists, the designers. Design is not the holy grail of selflessness, and artists are not less egocentric then anyone else.

Calling Art subjective is a very general statement as well. Art isn't; It is the perception of the product of the creative process that is subjective. This big misconception comes of the product-based thinking. When you walk into a gallery or a museum and you see a painting, an installation, a video that might not make sense to you, then it is not because it is purely subjective, it is because you are observing a little piece of the whole process. But you learn only to see the product that came from it, not how it has become what it is now. If you want to make art work for you, appreciate the process. Then all of a sudden, that viennese self-cutting Aktionismus - video that grossed you out before, makes sense to you, because you know how it has come to this.

Art means process. Design means product. The problem comes in, when you need creativity for design and marketing for art because they naturally cancel those aspects out. Both disciplines share the same resource which is creativity.

I personally see design as the minor subset of art. It is a mental model, a discipline to apply to a process, to get a product out of it. Whatever that may be, tangible, intangible. Design is a way of thinking, a mental model so to speak.

From experience, you limit yourself from being too much in the design-bubble, where everything only works from external input and things are only valid if they serve a purpose. That kills creativity, because the part of yourself that can be creative is a little child that doesn't understand the word "no". You can only do so much to apply design-thinking to your life, but if you are truly a creative person, and I believe everyone is, then you will have moments where you have to do something illogical, stupid, childish to feel creativity again. And I am not talking about videogames or binge watching a series. There is a reason, why Stefan Sagmeister goes on a sabbatical on a regular basis. Julia Cameron calls this "filling the well". If you apply design-thinking to every step of your life, you will slowly run out of creativity over time.

Design wants to see itself as the grown up version of art, the epiphany and highest evolved aspect of creativity itself, but it isn't. It denies important condition of its existence. Design has also become a life-style, a brand itself. People love the idea of calling themselves designer, knowing their names on mailing lists, promoting their truly purposeless work of endless redesigns of high traffic websites just to get attention, listening to podcasts of people they have no interest on, applying the same color-correction on their selfies and getting overly excited about "finally making their own product", at 19. You see them throwing life-advice slogans like "work is not work if you love what you do", and "I am running a passion-based business", even though they do neither feel like it, nor fully understand the truth behind these sentences. They live an idea, not themselves. Is this, what design is? You probably don't care, as long as they make amazing products, right? Yeah. Design is not art. Design does not care about the purpose. Design does not care, how you got to where you are. All design cares about, is what comes out of it.

That doesn't sound too true either, to be honest. Maybe it is time to accept the fact, that art and design may be different, but neither of them are superior. They share the same resource which is creativity. Artists do know how to fill their well of creativity, designers know how to get their work into the world, how to solve problems. If both sides could finally get off their high, arrogant horses, maybe they would learn a lot from each other.

Anything can be art if done with that intent.

You're over 100 years too late to say otherwise.

The words 'design' and 'art' have come to be used so broadly over the years to describe an infinite amount of things....it's absurd to even argue the semantics of it. Both are abstract concepts with fluid definitions.

Lol no shit.

I totally agree. I've been thinking about this a lot lately. The fundamental purpose of art and design are not aligned, as the author said. The best art is discordant and disturbing. The best design is always beneficial and positive. Design solves a problem. Art can be a problem. It can, and should, make people nervous and uncomfortable. Art can exist for it's own sake; design is always purposeful.

Even visual design, the "artistic" part of design, in my opinion, is more math and psychology than art. Hick's Law, Fitt's Law, Gestalt, affordance, color theory; these foundational concepts of design are all math and psychology.

I agree with the idea that design is not art, although having read much art and design history and how connected they actually were historically leads me to feel that the echoing of "design is not art" in UI design caused many UI designers to completely ignore art's significance in design which led to a degrading of an overall visual style.

"ego has no place in design" whilst I agree with the main theme - design is objective and for the user instead of about the creator, I disagree with complete removal of ego, inherent in design there is the designers opinion about what the user needs (not wants, needs), a good designer has belief in their solutions - good design is not a democracy, it's a vision and it should always be informed by data but not led by it

You also say 'Design is not a talent it's a skill' - there is no need for those to be mutually exclusive. Design is not art but it is still creative, two designers given the same information and following the same process will arrive at different solutions - why? because there's still a degree of subjectivity, talent and ego at play, which you need to stop everything becoming bland and uniform (arguably this is already happening)