graphic design, science, and art
I believe that graphic design can exist in a vacuum.
I know of some designers that work using a data-based approach. They do things such as market research, usability studies, focus groups, etc. Generally speaking, they conduct studies, and use the methodology that the majority of subjects approve of.
Using academic disciplines as an analogy, this would be the soft science. Sociology, psychiatry, economics, etc.
I prefer a different approach. My methodology is based on my knowledge of history, intuition, and an ability to generalize. Sometimes I will ask other people if my intent is clear. Often I won’t. Sometimes I try to base my designs on logical principles. When I’m feeling more poetic, I won’t.
Using academic disciplines as an analogy, this would be the humanities. Art, Literarure, Philosophy.
What makes this analogy interesting is when you compare philosophy to psychology. Both subjects are concerned with the mind, and its relation to the external world.
Both approaches to graphic design are concerned with displaying information. One uses science, and one is primarily concerned with logic. There’s a lot of overlap, but ultimately, I prefer using logic as a tool to present information.
Furthermore, I believe that using market research, focus groups, etc. creates a lowest-common-denominator approach to design. This makes it difficult to innovate. It’s like design by a very large committee.
Design as an arts discipline allows for innovation, style, individuality.
I think there is a place for both. But I prefer art to science. Although there is a large amount of evidence supporting design choices, such as UPS’s new logo, Paul Rand’s original seems more authentic to me.